![]() | This page was nominated for merging with Wikipedia:Deletion discussions on 5 September 2011. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Deletion discussions was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Deletion process. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Jc37 has made a large number of changes to the policy page (and I've made one small one) in the past ~12 hours that are a mix of copyedits, reorganisation of content and small updates reflecting current practice. While I do not have any issue with any of the changes, as this is a key policy I encourage others to do their own review. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days.come from? I can't find that text on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. No other clear issues but need to run changes side by side instead of using diffs at this point. SportingFlyer T· C 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at
WP:NOQUORUM about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
, meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include
WP:BLPPROD?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article
which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.
This was discussed at the previous 2016-2017 RFC that formalized Soft Deletion as a process, and support for allowing at admin discretion was unanimous but had very little participation and no formal close. The original implementation of soft deletion from 2011 until it was removed in 2013 allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.
I'd like to try to come up with an actual consensus on the issue, so we can give clear advice to closers. With that in mind, I'm presenting a few options below for discussion and feedback. Please note that this is not an RFC, just an attempt to hash out options and wordings that could be presented in an RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue @ King of Hearts, Unscintillating, Laurdecl, JFG, and MelanieN plus the thread on my talk page that led me to start this discussion @ UtherSRG, Jay, and Liz: The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.If the nomination has received very few or no comments
but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the pastbesides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
- relisting the discussion.
- closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
- closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
- soft deleting the article.
Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD, but is a function of WP:AFD and not inhibited by previous PRODs. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
- relisting the discussion.
- closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
- closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
soft deleting the article.Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion in the past, soft deletion is typically the default closure. If there has been a previous proposed deletion, WP:BLPPROD, or declined speedy deletion request, soft deletion is still a valid option at the discretion of the closing administrator. If there was a previous discussion at Articles for deletion that generated substantive participation and resulted in a closure that wasn't speedy or procedural, soft deletion should not be used.
This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true:
Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that, it can likely be simplified), and I'm not sure where it fits in your options, but the intent is to avoid double jeopardy and give a reasonable chance for the people most likely to have an interest in the article to be aware it has been nominated for deletion. The final bullet is so it is alert casual viewers of the discussion that there is something that probably needs looking at. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Not structuring this in any formal way as it's a discussion that may or may not lead to an RfC. If the format needs tweaking for ease of editing, feel free.
Coming here at @ Usedtobecool's suggestion following the Nth discussion about what action should be taken by patrolling administrators as far as removing links when closing an AfD. It's a broader discussion than Liz or I (and I'm sure every admin who closes discussions has had their action queried or reverted) so bringing it somewhere more central.
As I said on Liz's page, it's because there doesn't appear to be community consensus on what is generally right. There are cases where there is:
Where the biggest confusion I've seen is if the person (generally) is mentioned in a list. If it's blue links only, they should be removed. But if it's comprehensive, they should remain? Is there clear guidance here? Is there a solution. Thoughts?
Courtesy @ FkpCascais and Clarityfiend: who are in the current. I'm dropping the link on Liz's for her convenience. Star Mississippi 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions.
Primefac (
talk)
06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The section "
Non-administrators closing discussions" says: Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the
In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?
{{
nac}}
("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure.
Currently, it doesn't seem that disclosing one's non-admin status when relisting a deletion discussion is common practice, even though such a disclosure could be included within the relisting comment. I figure that if a non-admin parameter were added to {{ XfD relist}} and used by scripts such as XFDcloser, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now. PleaseStand ( talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for posting here, but after CfD and RfD is backlogged since my last revisit, and to prevent any more controversies and former actions, am I fitted to perform the non admin closures. I've involuntarily opted out from XfD closures a week ago but regained my experience. I will abide with WP:NACD and prevent any other WP:BADNAC. I wanted to grow my experience more. Toadette Edit! 22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
Deletionlist}}, which is transcluded by all
deletion sorting categories says You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to [topic].
. However, this is rarely done, mostly because editors don't know about it. So, we should add instructions to do it to the other venues. Here's potential wording, based on
AfD's instructions:
(you can transclude all venues with
WP:SELTRANS. No need for special instructions.
Nickps (
talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC))
MfD should instead copy AfD's instructions exactly, since transcluding individual nominations is possible for that venue. I see no reason not to do this, especially since this was clearly always intended.
Some sorting pages even have separate sections for each venue.
Nickps (
talk)
21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
no need for special instructions...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and WP:SELTRANS flies over my head lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
changed how the template works Nickps ( talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Replace "rfd" as appropriate. Obviously the template will have to be moved to Template space first, which I will do as soon as someone comes up with a good name for it. I'd also really appreciate a code review. Nickps ( talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=[page name]|3=[date of nomination]}}. Then add a
{{ subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}}
template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
![]() | This page was nominated for merging with Wikipedia:Deletion discussions on 5 September 2011. The result of the discussion was merge. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Deletion discussions was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Deletion process. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Jc37 has made a large number of changes to the policy page (and I've made one small one) in the past ~12 hours that are a mix of copyedits, reorganisation of content and small updates reflecting current practice. While I do not have any issue with any of the changes, as this is a key policy I encourage others to do their own review. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days.come from? I can't find that text on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. No other clear issues but need to run changes side by side instead of using diffs at this point. SportingFlyer T· C 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at
WP:NOQUORUM about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
, meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include
WP:BLPPROD?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article
which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.
This was discussed at the previous 2016-2017 RFC that formalized Soft Deletion as a process, and support for allowing at admin discretion was unanimous but had very little participation and no formal close. The original implementation of soft deletion from 2011 until it was removed in 2013 allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.
I'd like to try to come up with an actual consensus on the issue, so we can give clear advice to closers. With that in mind, I'm presenting a few options below for discussion and feedback. Please note that this is not an RFC, just an attempt to hash out options and wordings that could be presented in an RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue @ King of Hearts, Unscintillating, Laurdecl, JFG, and MelanieN plus the thread on my talk page that led me to start this discussion @ UtherSRG, Jay, and Liz: The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.If the nomination has received very few or no comments
but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the pastbesides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
- relisting the discussion.
- closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
- closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
- soft deleting the article.
Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD, but is a function of WP:AFD and not inhibited by previous PRODs. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
- relisting the discussion.
- closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
- closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
soft deleting the article.Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion in the past, soft deletion is typically the default closure. If there has been a previous proposed deletion, WP:BLPPROD, or declined speedy deletion request, soft deletion is still a valid option at the discretion of the closing administrator. If there was a previous discussion at Articles for deletion that generated substantive participation and resulted in a closure that wasn't speedy or procedural, soft deletion should not be used.
This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true:
Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that, it can likely be simplified), and I'm not sure where it fits in your options, but the intent is to avoid double jeopardy and give a reasonable chance for the people most likely to have an interest in the article to be aware it has been nominated for deletion. The final bullet is so it is alert casual viewers of the discussion that there is something that probably needs looking at. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Not structuring this in any formal way as it's a discussion that may or may not lead to an RfC. If the format needs tweaking for ease of editing, feel free.
Coming here at @ Usedtobecool's suggestion following the Nth discussion about what action should be taken by patrolling administrators as far as removing links when closing an AfD. It's a broader discussion than Liz or I (and I'm sure every admin who closes discussions has had their action queried or reverted) so bringing it somewhere more central.
As I said on Liz's page, it's because there doesn't appear to be community consensus on what is generally right. There are cases where there is:
Where the biggest confusion I've seen is if the person (generally) is mentioned in a list. If it's blue links only, they should be removed. But if it's comprehensive, they should remain? Is there clear guidance here? Is there a solution. Thoughts?
Courtesy @ FkpCascais and Clarityfiend: who are in the current. I'm dropping the link on Liz's for her convenience. Star Mississippi 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions.
Primefac (
talk)
06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The section "
Non-administrators closing discussions" says: Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the
In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?
{{
nac}}
("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure.
Currently, it doesn't seem that disclosing one's non-admin status when relisting a deletion discussion is common practice, even though such a disclosure could be included within the relisting comment. I figure that if a non-admin parameter were added to {{ XfD relist}} and used by scripts such as XFDcloser, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now. PleaseStand ( talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for posting here, but after CfD and RfD is backlogged since my last revisit, and to prevent any more controversies and former actions, am I fitted to perform the non admin closures. I've involuntarily opted out from XfD closures a week ago but regained my experience. I will abide with WP:NACD and prevent any other WP:BADNAC. I wanted to grow my experience more. Toadette Edit! 22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
Deletionlist}}, which is transcluded by all
deletion sorting categories says You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to [topic].
. However, this is rarely done, mostly because editors don't know about it. So, we should add instructions to do it to the other venues. Here's potential wording, based on
AfD's instructions:
(you can transclude all venues with
WP:SELTRANS. No need for special instructions.
Nickps (
talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC))
MfD should instead copy AfD's instructions exactly, since transcluding individual nominations is possible for that venue. I see no reason not to do this, especially since this was clearly always intended.
Some sorting pages even have separate sections for each venue.
Nickps (
talk)
21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
no need for special instructions...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and WP:SELTRANS flies over my head lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
changed how the template works Nickps ( talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Replace "rfd" as appropriate. Obviously the template will have to be moved to Template space first, which I will do as soon as someone comes up with a good name for it. I'd also really appreciate a code review. Nickps ( talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=[page name]|3=[date of nomination]}}. Then add a
{{ subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}}
template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.