Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Do admins no longer need to give a reason for their re-opening of NAC?

• There is a quiet change by Spartaz that has nothing to do with the previous discussion.  He has removed the requirement that administrators must give at least one reason for re-opening an NAC.  I noticed while reviewing the history for the above discussion that he has argued before that admins shouldn't need to explain why.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would oppose that change, but I also note that WP:ADMINACCT requires them to explain why they took that action if asked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It could put back but what admin is just silently going to reopen a NAC? You'll at least get a couple words in the edit summary like "rv sock". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It used to read "giving their reasons in full"; that was changed to "giving at least one good reason". I think at least "giving their reasoning" is due. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like "giving their reasoning". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Restoring participant-reverted NACs

• Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason, or by consensus at deletion review.
• If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure.

These statements seem inconsistent. Can I get clarification of when a non-admin can reopen a NAC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that the inconsistent verbiage (the second example you show above) was added by an editor, without discussion or consensus, with this edit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We're making up rules as we go, someone late compared to actual practice. "If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure" is an instruction to edit war over a close. How about: "Reverted NACs should be reported to WP:ANI if an administrator is not already involved". I think that even if an INVOLVED administrator objects to an NAC, it should be unclosed for an admin to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're proposing any editor who is a participant can reopen a NAC without having to go to del review? That will require rejigging the first point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe this isn't contradictory, NeilN, although perhaps also not clear. It says that NACs can be overturned by an uninvolved admins or deletion review. If an involved discussion participant reverts an NAC closure (which they should not), anyone can restore it, even those who are involved, due to how blatantly incorrect such a revert would be. Where do our readings differ? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, User:NeilN, I did'nt mean to say that. A NAC should not be reverted by a non-admin, just as a non-admin should have no reason to revert a NAC. If a NAC is reverted by a non-admin, it probably should go straight to ANI, because someone is doing something wrong. The proper way to challenge an NAC is to talk to the closer first and open a DRV discussion second. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Okay, so why have the second point at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut it. It is not that it is true or untrue, it is the sort of thing that is generally good advice, but it is serving no useful purpose. Advice at WP:NAC telling NAC-ers to not edit war over their closes, but to take challenges to WP:AN, or DRV or MR, would be more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Onel5969: This edit seems to be where it originates from. Perhaps Unscintillating can offer some insight. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Godsy - Exactly. Prior to that edit, and the further edit which I indicated above, the parameters were clearly limited to admins. Hence the ambiguity was added by a single editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: Under the current wording: Closures should only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or by consensus at deletion review or WP:AN (deletion review in the case of deletion discussions). If a closure is reopened otherwise, which is inappropriate, anyone except the closer may restore it. That aside, I would support doing away with or reforming the second bullet point, and would not support allowing involved administrators to overturn non-administrator closures. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: My reading: "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason." Full stop. "Or by consensus at deletion review." Full stop. These two points preclude any other method for reopening a NAC including involved and uninvolved regular editors. So, why the "any editor other than the closer may restore the closure" restriction against undoing a supposedly improper action? Just to prevent edit warring between the closer and the involved editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put back the existing cinsensus as there was no consensus for the change and, as noted here, it was contradictory and encouraged edit warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is what WP:Consensus states, in oldid=767216503

===Through editing=== Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it was disputed it obviously had no consensus. Don't be such a tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here is an AfD in which Spartaz has posted in which he doesn't comment about the use of the text from WP:NACD to reclose the participant-opened NAC.  This is the discussion, diff that led NeilN to start a discussion about the use of RFPP, after which participants were left on their own to attract an admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice job personalising the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) - By the way the revert was a response to [DRV] that was inevitable because someone disputed the NAC - the closer reverted back and the close came right back to DRV. I think the weakness in the close was shown by the fact that after some further discussion the final close by an admin was a merge not a keep. Its 2 years ago. I don't remember what I did yesterday so what is your point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Guideline on relist template comments

I've begun to notice a practice at Afd relistings of relist notices bearing the comment Redirect or delete?. It's currently displayed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue (musician), by @J947:. It had also been added to a different Afd by a different editor -- an adminstrator, @Kurykh:. In that case I raised a concern on his user talk page at User_talk:Kurykh#AFD_relisting:_Tourism_in_Ahmedabad and he chose to remove the comment, which was then reinstated by J947 at the next relist. I think this is a worrisome trend. While WP:RELIST encourages editors to give a reason for the relist, I think we should be advising editors about using the comment section of the template to appear to "winnow down" or predetermine the list of viable options going forward, including that of keep. Certainly experienced editors are unlikely to be swayed by this -- but less experienced participants at Afd might be. It might even be seen as a form of canvassing. I believe we might need a statement that if comments are to be included in the relist template, they should be neutral as to desired outcome. Anyone agree? I should also add that I've never seen a real need to add comments to a relist template at all -- and this seems to be a fairly new thing which I believe may cause more problems than it solves. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I see that J947 has graciously amended his relist statement in the above case to make it clearer that redirect or delete are not the only remaining available options. I still wonder if the current statement at WP:RELIST should not offer some guidance on using this template in a neutral way. If there are no objections, I may try to formulate a line.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, there's an additional problem with the guidline. Relist comments are encouraged, either inserted in the template or in addition, but right now those two elements are not stated together. I think my copyedit makes things clearer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, going back to my original concern, I've now added a line: However, if adding comments within {{relist}}, please keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia administration template, and should not be used to give priority to one's own desired outcome. How does this sound to people? If this meets with approval, I may consider adding it to WP:AFDFORMAT, too, as it would clearly pertain. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Listing of past AfDs

When an article is listed at AfD, a bot turns up and puts a message on the talk page listing previous AfDs and their outcome as at here. The boilerplate text suggests reviewing the past AfD's before re-submitting. However.... if like me you are not an admin, you have no sight of the old AfDs until after the nomination is complete. Is there perhaps a prescience bot that could alert non-admin editors when they simply have it in mind to start an AfD, or could the Bot be tuned to display its message ASAP after the recreation of the article and not wait until yet another AfD is logged?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FFD#Relisting FFD's

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD#Relisting FFD's. Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOQUORUM variation depending on forum

A longterm problem in wording NOQUORUM is that AfDs have a different standard for NOQUORUM than other fora.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So, just add a sentence clarifying that? Seems like an easy fix. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We've clarified this already, and made tweaks. AfDs do not have a different NOQUORUM standard per a large RfC a year ago. The default is for admins to evaluate them like PRODs per policy. They can relist if they think it would be controversial, but the intent of the RfC last year was to decrease NOQUORUM relistings. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not RFC on XFDs?

Why should it be against the rules to start a request for comments on a deletion discussion such as Wikipedia:Diffs are for Stiffs? In this case I think the wider community might have found it funny enough to squeeze into Wikipedia:Devil's dictionary, while the specific consensus against it seems to have been a teeny bit po-faced :( Siuenti (씨유엔티) 11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

XfDs are already seeking broader community input on deletion. They run for a set amount of time, are listed prominently, etc etc. There's no need for an RfC. Further, an RfC would be a tad disruptive to the XfD process because they usually run a month whereas an XfD runs a week. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous for deletion are listed prominently? How would someone come across them? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What Siuenti (talk · contribs) has not mentioned is that this was already discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFC an AFD. See WP:FORUMSHOP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of RfCs was to seek wider input when discussion has ground to a halt (because someone dragged the thread off-topic, as you appear to be doing). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for threads that are not widely advertised. But XfDs are widely advertised. Also, what do you mean by "because someone dragged the thread off-topic, as you appear to be doing"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself "Miscellaneous for deletion are listed prominently? How would someone come across them? " and please try to stay on-topic. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeating a request to stay on-topic when Redrose64 (talk · contribs) has not said anything yet off-topic seems, well, off-topic. You raised this in multiple places, making FORUMSHOP a valid link. I will answer your repeated question, however, with another: How would some-one come across an RfC if they did not have the tools or experience to come across a MfD? At least MfD discussions are linked directly and prominently from whatever is being discussed. RfC's have no such requirement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

For example, someone might share a certain sense of humor and be watching the RfC listings but not MFD, and not realize that a deletion discussion is taking place where being unfunny is a criterion. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

And, to continue your example, an editor such as that would then try to use an RfC as an end-around to appealing the MfD they missed? Is that the situation you are hypothesizing? Such an editor would best be advised to simply use the deletion appeals process already in place. This would especially be the advisable if the editor in question was, hypothetically speaking, recently returned from a block over deletion discussion and guideline modification issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In this particular hypothetical case, an RfC during the MfD might have attracted eyes of neutral editors with an opinion on the humor which wasn't swayed by ad hominem considerations. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Might have" is a slim hook to hang this example on. If neutral editors are looked-for, the Deletion Review forum is designed specifically to provide a second look from such editors. Creating new policy or procedure options to address singular examples is generally a bad idea. American legal circles use the phrase, "Bad facts make bad laws," specifically to warn against this type of policy alteration. As there is already an appeals process in place, having RfC on MfD's is essentially asking to institute an Interlocutory appeal process to appeal to a wider section of the community. There are enough byzantine processes here without further complicating deletion processes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So if "neutral editors are looked-for", one must wait until the !vote has been resolved? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not? There is no deadline, after all. If the goal is truly to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, then timing is not an issue. While making one's case as well and as dispassionately as one can during an XfD is all well and good, sometimes they don't work out. Make a new set of arguments to a new set of editors at DRV. Otherwise, we are just being too sensitive about "our" contributions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So don't get neutral opinions, get the wrong answer, go to DRV and make a new set of arguments to a new set of editors? When the only thing wrong with the old set of arguments was they couldn't overcome ad hominem considerations? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You can take the above advice or you can reject it. I'm not going to change it if you keep asking the same question in different ways. It's clear you don't like it. That's fine. I'm just another editor like yourself; you don't have to listen to me if you don't want. It's also clear you feel personally aggrieved. Speaking as a fellow editor that has not had any previous interaction and thus had no preconceived ideas about your editing prior to today, I urge you to put those feelings aside and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Feeling like a victim of such attacks will neither gain you anything nor help build an encyclopedia. Neither is pretending that there is a substantive, structural issue here going to salve such feelings. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like someone's being swayed by ad hominem considerations, just for a change. Thanks for playing :) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's try Mireille Issa, I'd really like more input on that AFD because it will answer the question "was all the effort at WP:PNT worth it". However if I put an RfC tag on it folks will be like "no forum shopping, take it to DRV" I imagine. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If you start a DRV whilst the AFD is still open you will certainly get that DRV speedy closed for forum shopping. DRV is only for use when an XfD has been closed.

There are legitimate ways of bringing an AfD to a broader audience, and these include the Article Alerts system. This can be triggered by the use of suitable infoboxes, but it's best to ensure that the article's talk page bears appropriate WikiProject banners. So, is either {{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}} or {{WikiProject Lebanon}} present on Talk:Mireille Issa? If not, why not? If it does have these banners, the AfD will be listed by a bot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Article alerts respectively. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This thread is not about DRVs it's about RFCs. Presumably those tags aren't there because the editor who knew they belonged there didn't bother to add them, too busy perhaps. It strikes me that an Rfc might attract the attention of editors who not only know what tags to add, they even have spare time to add them, who knows.

However, this particular Afd was already listed at list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions and that didn't seem to make much difference. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it didn't. The page does not exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you like 7 years old? Look at the AFD for what it was listed under and how difference that made. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So the editor that has complained vociferously that "their" article was deleted because of ad hominem attacks and personal animosity has now posted a personal attack. As Yoda might say: "The irony, strong it is with this one." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic please, if you want to start a new thread about how awesome my irony is use my talk page ktx. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Davish Krail would be proud. You can say "stay on topic" all you want when another editor points out your nonconstructive behavior. Not one single editor is obligated to follow your request. If you call another editor a 7 year old, that seems highly off-topic, to say the least. No editor is required to agree to your terms of the discussion as a prerequisite for participating in such discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not obliged to stay on topic, but that would be to the benefit of the project so we can move the discussion forward. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to "benefit the project and move the discussion forward," you'd stop complaining about an essay that was deleted over a month ago now. Allow me, if you will, to refer you to a widely-supported and well-accepted essay. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Try to keep up, we are talking about Mireille Issa now. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems a bit off topic, I thought we're supposed to be discussing Why not RFC on XFDs? -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Mireille Issa is at AFD and I would like to put an RFC tag on it to get more input (see above). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. RFC tags are for talk pages. Have you tried article alerts or deletion sorting? Those are relevant ways to "advertise" an AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

But they didn't appear to work. See above. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course they work. You need some patience. You can't expect a flood of people flocking to your run-of-the-mill AfD at once. A few editors is standard for this sort of thing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would particularly like this AfD to get the "right answer" because it is relevant to WP:PNT, the question is "are people spending hours rescuing things that should be deleted anyway?". If the AFD result is a clear "keep" then it seems it was worth it, if clear "delete" then maybe not worth it, and think about reforming WP:PNT. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make an RFC regarding WP:PNT, the correct place to do so would be at WT:PNT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah, but this article being kept or not would help tell me what to ask in the RfC. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Then be patient and wait for the AfD to resolve. I can assure you that a single AfD is not going to make or break an entire process. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If you let me get a quality result from this single Afd it will help me fix the entire PNT process, which at the moment appears to consist of massive amounts of effort for almost no positive result. Just waiting will probably end up with a "no consensus" result which is completely useless, and a result with low participation is hardly any better, especially when existing policies, guidelines and/or precedents are not being applied very strictly by !voters. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: You called me "7 years old" when I pointed out that the page that you linked - list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions - does not exist. This demonstrates to me that not only do you not check the facts, you consider fact-checking to be childish - which is itself a childish attitude. At 02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC) you claimed "they didn't appear to work", "they" here presumably being Article alerts and Deletion sorting. At 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I showed you how to get the AfD listed at Article alerts: but I see that the two banners that I mentioned have not been added to Talk:Mireille Issa. It bears two templates: {{blp}} (which should not have been used directly, per its documentation) and {{WPWW|importance=low}}. Of these, the first will not trigger Article alerts, but the second will; and so the AfD has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Article alerts - which doesn't exactly have wide exposure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Article alerts doesn't exactly have wide exposure. RfC's however do have wide exposure I believe. You are saying that a different wikiproject(s) tag might generate wide exposure, what project(s) exactly? And how do I know a priory how much exposure they generate? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So what every other editor is telling you, @Siuenti:, is that you are becoming Wikipedia's very own Don Quixote de la Supresión. Your quest to ensure that everyone else that participates here achieves your "right" result is not going to happen. Your frequent misstatements and rephrasings of other editor's statements are not going to force reality to conform to your expectations. Leave this "debate" be and, oh, I don't know, maybe try to actually improve articles so that deletion is not a concern? Just a thought. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem / off topic, just for a change. Bonus points for literary allusion. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So, just for the record, calling another editor quixotic is an off topic ad hominem but calling another editor a child is not? I'm beginning to think that you may not have the same understanding of either term the rest of us do. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say "different" at all, I intended it to be read as "in addition". Also, to your question "what project(s) exactly?" - I have already answered that, at 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC). Please note that the spelling is a priori, since it's Latin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, one of those debates got 7 participants, that would be cool. Let's see if we can break the tie at the AfD. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Following these edits, the AfD is now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Article alerts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs

Resolved

 – Snow opposed.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should it be permissible to start a request for comment within an ongoing deletion/merge discussion? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, because as I noted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFC an AFD, an WP:XFD is by its very nature a "request for comment", albeit one with rather narrow boundaries - we are inviting people to comment on whether or not the page should be kept/merged/redirected/incubated/transwikied/renamed/userfied/deleted/etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, especially in test cases where a precedent is hoped for. A regular XfD may only be attended by a small number of people, without specialist knowledge of the topic or relevant policies, and unwilling to go into detail in terms of previous consensus or the implications of the decision. This is a recipe for semi-random outcomes, based on small samples, having far-reaching consequences. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Of course not for all the reasons already given in great detail above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• No, per consensus above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• No we are already using the XfD to soliciate comments. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• No "within" it? Like inside of (random page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shelby Billingham/sandbox (2nd nomination))? No way, RfC's can be open for a long time (e.g. 30 days) and an XfD shouldn't be held open for it; if there is a serious RfC that will impact it, the XfD should be revisited after the RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• There should be no formal rules about that. Starting an RfC within an XfD discussion is generally a bad idea, but this naturally comes out of the application of common sense. Adopting a formal rule would prevent disputes (like the one that brought this all about), but as such disputes are extremely rare the benefit from the rule is minimal. Also, it's not inconceivable that situations might arise in future where an RfC might be appropriate on an XfD page, so we wouldn't want to have a priori precluded this from happening. – Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes (permissible). Permissible, not encouraged, in some cases, subject to caveats. These caveats might be:
  • The AfD is already well-participated, and there is a division on lines of wider project consequence. i.e. the consequences of a decision go well beyond the articles in question;
  • A neutral person, preferably two people, agree to the neutral, focused RfC question. RfCs do not work best with poorly worded, rambling biased questions.
  • The RfC is specifically focused on the decision to delete articles. Otherwise, it would be better to close the AfD, and go down the RfC path outside of the AfD.

  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  User:Enterprisey's AfD stats point is probably a good reason to simply say no. Why make it complicated. Close the AfD, link to the RfC, complete the RfC, and return to AfD is required with the RfC results. In contrast, I think there is less trouble with RfCs within WP:RMs, as happens sometimes, as RM discussions are often wider ranging over many articles, and with many more possible outcomes than an AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it is a good idea. It will cause rather a confusing mess. If the point is that you want to advertise a particular XfD, I mean there are various places you can go to advertise, as long as you're not canvassing. A neutral statement at a neutral venue such as the pump would be OK I guess. Some other places too I suppose. For an AfD you can increase the number of topics its under.

As far as I am concerned, you can start an RfC outside the XfD though. Why not? It's a wiki and most things are allowed. You can start an RfC on the article's talk page, or a project page, or at the pump, or any reasonable place on the question "Should article X be deleted?" and point to the RfC in the XfD for the attention and edification of the participants and closer of that XfD. That is, in the XfD write "Look, there's an RfC on the subject and 12 out of 14 editors think it should be kept, and they have some wonderful arguments, go look! And I request that the closer of this XfD consider this" or something. It'd be a new thing, but new things are OK. I dunno if it'd be useful or effective, but who knows? No harm in trying it. You don't have to ask anyone's permission to do this.

I mean, It'd probably be better to just have the RfC point over to the XfD though. Just be sure you're not canvassing, that your pointers are neutrally worded -- "There is an Xfd in progress on article X, editors are invited to chime in" at a neutral place like the pump. If a lot of people started doing it could become annoying. Or maybe it'd be fine. Let us kjnow how it worked out for you! Herostratus (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph is great - we shouldn't cram too much stuff into just this one discussion about an article. Your second paragraph describes an RfC on the question that the XfD is supposed to answer - I don't know, but it sounds a bit like forum shopping. We already have one discussion in the XfD, and seeing all the previous comments (not just half of them) would probably benefit new participants. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, not a good idea. As one of the current maintainers of AfD Stats (and the author of XfD Stats), this would be hell in a bucket to parse. Also, why not just wait for the XfD to end? WP:NORUSH. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  The XfD might end with "no consensus", with very low participation, or without considering all options. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  That's what DRV is for. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  No, that is not what DRV is for. Ensuring sufficient participation, and ensuring all options are considered, is the responsibility of the participants, with a check by the closer. DRV is for gross closer failure, or gross process failure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  Good point, you're right. (This is what happens when I don't read WP:DRVPURPOSE before giving my opinion on DRV's purpose.) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• No of course not. I wondered why on earth there might be a need to ask whether there should be a drawn-out RfC inside an XfD, but I see it is due to Siuenti—more very poor use of community time and energy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• No I'm not sure how this is even a question. By its very nature, an XfD is short and to the point, whereas an RfC can run up to and even exceed 30 days. An RfC which affects pages outside of those being nominated should not be held within an XfD. — Gestrid (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. Just post the RfC in one of the the normal places and post a comment linking to it in the XfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. It amounts to an attention grab - people who could have watched XfDs if they had wanted to are being bothered anyway because someone wants more attention to his deletion. Siuenti alludes to deletions which are more interesting than the average deletion because of a precedent that is to be set. Wikipedia doesn't operate on stare decisis, so if it really is an interesting policy question that is bigger than one deletion discussion, a better approach for that would be an RfC on a policy talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment maybe from within isn't such a good idea after all, not sure where RedRose came up with that idea anyway, simply pointing to the XfD from outside would seem to be a better idea. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  I got the idea because the action that kicked all this off was this post of yours, in which you linked to this edit, which clearly shows you starting an RfC within (what was then) an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation). Please note, my name is Redrose64, not RedRose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  At the time I didn't realize making a separate RfC and linking was an option... if someone had just said... Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• No. The XfD itself solicits comments. If you want to encourage more people to comment, anyone is certainly able to set up an XfD feedback request service. I imagine you could find support for a bot that randomly pulls people from a list of interested persons to message about looking at an XfD with 0-1 !votes, or perhaps just recently relisted discussions. This could be separate from RfC and not interfere with the XfD process other than to neutrally encourage people to look at XfDs that are wavering on participation. RfCs within an XfD don't make too much sense, though, and they cause problems due to existing tools, bots, and the differences in time scale between XfDs and RfCs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  Pinging Enterprisey, since he may be interested in that idea, given the number of XfD tools he works on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  This bot could put random re-listed afd nominations in front of people who opt in, maybe let them choose their favourite categories. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 11:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  So, the Feedback Request Service for (randomly-selected low-participation) AfDs. Somehow I feel like someone's proposed this already, but it seems like a pretty good idea. After this discussion is over I'll start a VPPR discussion if I don't get objections here. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• No Per all the other nos. This is a ridiculous idea that would allow one user to elevate a particular xfd above others. That's not a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. Well explained above, plus mixing process would actually dilute them both, ultimatelly risking less attention to all discussions. - Nabla (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• No Per all the other nos.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Redrose64, may you please close this discussion as "withdrawn and clear consensus against this proposal"? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• No, but a need does sometimes arise that can be handled alternatively. The need arises because many XfDs are an insufficiently broad set of editorial eyes and brains, and sometimes issues come up which are outside the XfD's scope (e.g. may affect the article title but is a CfD discussion, etc.). The solution is to open an RfC at a more appropriate venue, and either defer the XfD's closure pending the RfC outcome, or close the XfD as mooted by the opening of the RfC, noting that a new XfD can be opened after the RfC closes, if necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue in "Deletion venues" table

I was jazzing up that table with some additional info, and noticed that userboxes are said to be excluded from both MfD and TfD, leaving nowhere to propose their deletion. It surely has to be one or the other. I would think that userboxes in the Template: namespace would be TfD, and those in other namespaces (usually User: but occasionally Wikipedia: when they're provided by wikiprojects) would be MfD, but maybe there's a prior dicussion centralizing them all in one place. I know for a fact that the Template:Tfd does not presently support additional namespaces without substituting and editing it; I've proposed that this be fixed, at Template talk:Template for discussion#Parameter to change "Template:" prefix (which has to happen regardless, because of the RfC putting deletion of Module: pages into TfD's scope). So that may mean that MfD is the intended/traditional venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TFD Userboxes: Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside. MFD has nothing to the contrary. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This is what it was:

Pages in the Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces, excluding redirects; userboxes (regardless of namespace); files in the File: namespace that have a local description page but no local file.

This is what you altered it to:

Pages in the Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, Talk:, and the various X talk: namespaces.

Excludes: redirects; userboxes (regardless of namespace); and files in the File: namespace that have a local description page but no local file.

The two words "excluding redirects" belong to the preceding text ("Pages in the Book:, ... and the various Talk: namespaces,"). You have negated a phrase by (among other things) inserting a colon where none was desirable, and splitting the sentence into two paragraphs to change its meaning. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC) amended Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

RR64 has an incorrect "before" to demonstrate the problem; the original text was the following: Pages in the Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces, excluding redirects; userboxes (regardless of namespace);..., which does clearly indicate the location of user boxes at MFD. --Izno (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I merely looked back to the last version not edited by SMcCandlish; so I have amended my post. But it reinforces my point that the two words have been moved from one context to another, so changing the meaning. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems time for this table cell to be edited to convey what it's meant to say, and I think the para breaks are a good idea in this sea of punctuation marks. Please see the current version of the project page for my attempt: Noyster (talk), 11:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hakim Ghulam Rasool

Draft was closed as delete but it hasn't been deleted yet. Any admin want to help or should I just slap a G11 on it? Whispering 02:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think PMC, who closed the discussion, might have missed doing this. She'll obviously get this done. In such cases, in general, you can directly contact the closing administrator before posting anywhere else. Thanks, Lourdes 02:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks, didn't even think about contacting the closing admin. I guess that's what I get for editing at work a befuddled brain. Whispering 03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, that was an XfD closer fail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted AfD that ends up Keep

How should the AfD page be updated in case an article is originally AfD'd to Delete, and then relisted and the new decision is Keep? Currently it seems the AfD page, at least in the case I'm looking at, indicates the decision was Delete, no further edits should be made to the AfD page etc. It does not indicate anywhere that this decision was updated. It does contain a link to the original page, which is blue, but this would not indicate to most readers that the page was created in the end since the blue vs red coloring is not an intuitive, clear nor explicit indication that the page now exists and the AfD was overturned (whereas the text at the top of the page clearly stating the AfD was decided as Delete and that is final is clear)

here is the example that brought me here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitConnect the reason I bring this up is that google searches for: bitconnect wikipedia sometimes land on this AfD page, not on the actual BitConnect page and so people would end up thinking that BitConnect has no wikipedia page/the page was deleted.

In any case I think there there should be a clear indication, in the case that an originally AfD-Deleted page is relisted and changed to Keep that the page is now Keep'd. Cheesy poof (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks nothing to do with relisting, but that one admin User:Fuzheado disagreed with the close, then undeleted it. Then the article was deleted again with G4, and then recreated again. This would not be the normal process. WP:DRV should probably be the normal process for this sort of case. So we may not need to invent new policy. However recreation is quite common, hopefully addressing the issues raised at AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page: the original close stands, and there is nothing special about this article. It was deleted originally, so that AfD will continue to say delete, as it shows how it was closed by the original closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks all for the explanation, Graeme Bartlett do you mind pointing me to where you saw this? All I see is the AfD page that says the result is closed as Delete, but then I see the page actually exists, hence the confusion. Also do you or other wikipedians not see the possible confusion of not updating an AfD page with the current status just saying the page now exists or, after a relisting decision the final decision was Keep or after a DRV or whatever. the point here is the use case or whatever you call it is that a person googles: wikipedia BitConnect, the link comes up pointing to the BitConnect AfD which says there is no such page, reviewed, final decision is Deleted. Would it be so wrong to add a line above or below the final decision of Deleted to say there was another review and there was a decision to keep the page so people don't just walk away thinking there is no BitConnect page? Cheesy poof (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

On the AFD page there is a link labelled "logs". If you click this you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=BitConnect where you can see the delete and restore events with log summaries. I don't think there was an official review in this case. But you can see the discussion on the AFD page after it was closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cheesy poof: Talk:BitConnect has the template {{old AfD multi|date=17 October 2017|result='''delete'''|page=BitConnect}} which is all that is required for an article that is deleted via WP:AFD and subsequently recreated. If a deletion review had occurred, that would also be recorded similarly. Should the article go to AFD a second time, it would be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitConnect (2nd nomination) and if that closes as "keep", that fact would also be recorded in the {{old AfD multi}} template.

Please do not confuse relisting with either undeletion or deletion review. Relistings - like this one, which has been relisted twice as of today - cannot occur for an AfD once that is closed; they are not recorded in {{old AfD multi}}, only on the AfD discussion page itself, whatever the subsequent outcome of the AfD.

Anyway, why is this being discussed in two places (the other being Talk:BitConnect), contrary to WP:MULTI? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Ahh, thank you for the clarification about relistings. I am still confused why an AfD page would not indicate that subsequent to the Delete the page now exists. As indicated, this is quite confusing in cases such as this one in which google sometimes indexes the AfD page only, and does not index the article itself. Once someone clicks on the link in google, the page that comes up simply indicates the article was nomintated for deletion and the decision was to Delete. No indication this was subsequently changed. So a reader would simply assume the article does not exist. I don't understand why it would be so bad to have clear and correct information on the AfD page to simply state *that* AfD was decided finally as Delete, but also that the page now does exist per such and such a reason.

regarding this being discussed in more than one place, I originally posed the question on the AfD page itself (it has since been deleted) and also on the talk page, I was trying to get an answer about this specific page's deletion, but I thought if I asked here perhaps I could get a more general answer about wikipedia's processes thanks again! Cheesy poof (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I should add I was not familiar with WP:MULTI I am pretty knew to the nuts and bolts of wikipedia - I genuinely see this as a UX bug / flaw and I am trying to help. I posted in a couple of places hoping to find someone who would explain the rationale Cheesy poof (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitConnect the name of the page is blue, this indicates that the page exists - if it were red, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pericent Technologies, that would be a clear indication that the page doesn't exist, presumably as a consequence of deletion. We don't amend closed AfDs to reflect subsequent events. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheesy poof, you wrote "google searches for: bitconnect wikipedia sometimes land on this AfD page". I didn't know that Afd pages were allowed to be indexed on Google. I've searched for all combinations of Wikipedia and Bitconnect and the Afd page never came up on any of my searches. In fact, I even searched for the exact term "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitConnect" and the search still didn't show the Afd. I'm not saying you're mistaken (because, for example, on 17 January, the BitConnect Afd page had more than 1200 page views). But could you please give the google search link that led you to this conclusion? Thanks, Lourdes 13:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes, thank you ! someone finally addressing the issue I'm pointing out (and btw I realized one very simple solution is to add a note under the Delete decision which states that if the text of the article name is Blue then the article has been recreated or undeleted and now exists, but if it is Red it is still Deleted and non-existent - the blue-red color is totally unintuitve and no one would no what this means unless they use wikipedia a lot or have read the instructions. I uploaded a screenshot here - I'm sure you know Google's pagerank or whatever algorithm it uses to show pages is very complex and depends on things like search history, profile of the user, location, many other factors - it may be hard to replicate. try opening a browser in private or invisible mode or whatever the case and if you have a vpn try different combinations of with and without the vpn. here's a screenshot of what the first two search results look like: https://imgur.com/a/uj0vN I'd like to add that I don't think AfD should be removed from googles search, they are sometimes important and useful info imo.

I'm guessing what happened here is that the page was deleted, and then it was re-added so for a time, the only thing indexed was the AfD, so right now the actual page is there and google is correcting the database but hasn't gone through completely so in some strange cases the AfD still comes up instead of the article itself Cheesy poof (talk)

I should add: I noticed that spike with thousand+ page views was exactly the day all the news about BitConnect started appearing (like all the coverage in major media, also at that time there was no BitConnect page, only the BitConnect AfD so it is likely that google pointed everybody to that page and it makes sense because many people were googleing it at that time. but I was actually googleing it on the 22 which is *after* the page was created, but I still got the link to the AfD instead of the actual page which is a bit odd. I'd also refer you to Fuzheado's talk page where all this stuff about re-creating the article was discussed. It's a good thing that Fuzheado went ahead and created the page since so many people were searching based on the recent spike in notability and media coverage. Cheesy poof (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh and one last thing - this probably is obvious but in case it isn't this is not a one of thing, this is likely a common occurence for articles that have been AfD'd but then experience a spike in media coverage. So this strange stuff about google indexing the AfD page, and about people getting to an AfD page that says it is deleted but not clearly saying the page now exists is likely something that happens fairly regularly for newly noteworthy items that were previously deleted. Cheesy poof (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

There should be no need to add a special note about the link colour. It's a longstanding Wikipedia feature, and is not peculiar to AfDs. See Help:Link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes

I have added a shortcut link to the page for the existing shortcut WP:NPASR.^[1] I have also added the Transwiki outcome to the common outcomes table.^[2] I hope these are useful clarifications. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Transwiki, indicating that transwiki is largely obsolete. It is unfortunate that two closely related pages have developed – this one and WP:Deletion policy: Noyster (talk), 10:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you think I should remove it again? I only added it because I came here looking for the definition of Transwiki since it was being used recently, and thought I should add it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Cross-post to the other talk page: Noyster (talk), 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

But if we're not going to do the transwiki process, shouldn't we either make Wiktionary entries manually in appropriate cases, or try to turn the deletions into a stub article, rather than delete them? I think this need a very much wider discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Listed twice or relisted twice ?

At "Closing discussions that run their full time", one can read: in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time... Such a sentence not so clear and should be replaced by something like should not be relisted again and again. The usual process is one single relisting. In the exceptional case where a debate should be relisted again, in order to provide a third (or further) round, then... Pldx1 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Comingling the number of times relisted with the "round", e.g. Round 3 = relisting No. 2, adds more confusion. Can you explain what you feel is unclear in the current wording?—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Case missing from WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE section

WP:NOTBADNAC lists articles that have been noncontroversially speedy deleted while in AfD as a reason for a procedural close and links to WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. That case is however not listed there. Shouldn't it be added? --Count Count (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

IPs closing discussions for articles have already been deleted

Talking about the Non-administrators closing discussions section here. At the top of the section, it says that IPs can't close discussions. However, at the bottom it says "anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale." So, are IPs able to close discussions if an administrator has already deleted the page(s) in question? This should probably be specified within the page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because they are not technically "closing" the discussion (i.e. interpreting consensus) as a NAC - bots close discussions for already-deleted pages all the time, and it's not much different if an IP does it. However, they must stick with the point about "being sure to name the admin who performed the action" etc. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, should we specify within the page, "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) anyone (including IPs) may close the discussion"?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the sentence If an administrator has deleted a page...anyone may close the discussion... implies that anyone can do it. However, this is just my interpretation of what I feel is meant by the text, so while it might be worth adding in an "(including IPs)" to that sentence, I might be completely wrong and IPs shouldn't be doing so (i.e. let's wait for other input). Primefac (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It does use the word "anyone" but the top of the section specifically says "non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs) may close discussions," so I do think clarification would be nice - and it would just add 2 words, so it certainly wouldn't hurt anything. But yeah, we probably should wait for other input.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Cfd relist

I see Template:Cfd relisted today. The instructions says it should be replaced {{subst:Cfd relisted}} with discussion in old log when reposting, but Deletion process says we should not remove, I am confused, what do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If no one comment or oppose in 48 hours, I will edit WP:Deletion process Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, forgive me being lazy and not digging through the guidelines, but what are we not supposed to be removing? Primefac (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you, Primefac. Deletion process says we should not remove original discussion from old log. So I suppose to remove this does not apply at Categories for discussion in WP:Deletion process page. What do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:RELIST says "When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log, which is the opposite of what you're saying. For CfD, the original listing gets replaced by {{subst:cfd relisted}}. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I agree your saying. But CfD relist is similar to RfD relist (See Template:Rfd relisted), so what should we do next? Removing (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) or changing into (this does not apply at Categories for discussion and Redirects for discussion). I am happy to hear your advice Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

List of old relists

I think there's a list of old AfD relists, but I can't find it (WP:RELIST) redirects here, not helplful. Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates lists relists by topic, not by date. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Page removal

I have recently come across my profile with Wikipedia and the information shown is false and incorrect. I am not notable enough to be on Wikipedia in the first place. I would like my profile removed with immediate effect I have been in contact with authority’s regarding this issue as it’s breaching personal information about myself. Harlywise123 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Harlywise123: You don't state which page you refer to. But we don't delete pages except within the processes described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. There, you will find directions concerning the methods that are available to you. There is a section entitled "Deletion requested by subject", which is sometimes used for a page that has been nominated for deletion with discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:XFD#VENUE

Please fix this broken target: WP:XFD#VENUE. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• It’s not a proper shortcut. WP:XFD is, but #VENUE is just an instruction to the browser to search for “venue”. Where did you find it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Answering with a shortcut :) WP:TW/DOC Apparently, #VENUE was once valid, but I can't do the necessary edit to make it valid once more. Thank you for your assistance in advance. CapnZapp (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

These “#” shortcuts may work, but they are not real. A url cannot have a #, it is a special character. You can’t redirect this not-shortcut. The only thing you can do is re-introduce “venue” to Wikipedia:Deletion process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This sounds as if a {{anchor|VENUE}} that once existed within Wikipedia:Deletion process has since been removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding {{anchor|VENUE}} at the desired target should do it, however I think you want “Venue” to appear explicitly so that the redirection makes sense to the user. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Black Falcon first added “venue” here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So... can you insert it at the proper place then? Deletion venues would be my naive guess. Or, maybe it would be better to change the link at Twinkledoc to the existing deletion venue shortcuts? (Not sure if the WP:XFD#VENUE is used elsewhere, though it doesn't seem that way using Google). Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, it was added to Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc in this edit; so logically, if we look at Wikipedia:Deletion process from around 11:04, 19 April 2011 (i.e. this version), it should be there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it. But Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussions seems to be the most logical place to add the anchor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok so I replaced the shortcut used over at Twinkle. Hope that works for everybody? CapnZapp (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

question re non-admin closure

what happens if a user disagrees with the ruling when closure is made by a non-admin? is there any way to contest or to appeal any such closeure?

I appreciate any help. if and when someone replies, please be sure to tag me in any reply, by using the template {{ping|sm8900}} . thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The procedure for disputing a close is the same whether the closer is in admin or not: first talk to them then, if you can't agree, take it to WP:DRV. – Joe (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sm8900: – Joe (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Article and Draft Both Nominated

Sometimes a page on a subject exists in both article space and draft space, typically because it was first created in draft space and submitted to AFC, and then copied or created in article space. (If the draft was accepted after the usual review process, the draft will be replaced by a redirect to the article.) If deletion is proposed, because the topic is not notable, or is covered by another article, what are the procedures and guidelines to ensure that a single discussion covers the subject (and is not likely to be (gamed)? Sometimes there is a nomination of the draft at Miscellany for Deletion, sometimes of the article at Articles for Deletion, and sometimes of both. As I see it, there are three main possible results as to notability:

• Keep in article space, if the subject is notable and is adequately verified.
• Incubate in draft space, which may be called Keep in Draft Space, or Draftify, or whatever, if the subject is likely to be notable but the page is for any reason not ready for article space.
• Delete from article space and draft space, with any of various degrees of create-protection.

How do we ensure that there is a consistent result that adequately reflects the consensus of the community? I would say, first, that an AFD discussion is better publicized than an MFD discussion and should take precedence, and, second, that closers should be requested to address whether a deleted article should be deleted in draft space or kept in draft space, and how much salt to use. If there are discussions in progress in both AFD and MFD, is it appropriate to close the MFD discussion by bundling it into the AFD discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, these concerns are prompted by a particularly contentious discussion that is now being discussed at all of AFD, MFD, and WP:AN, but I am not asking about that controversy, because I know that AN can deal properly with any conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Help Desk question

Smartyllama didn't get a response to this question about where two sets of guidelines seem to contradict each other.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the contradictory page as that is neither official policy/guideline/procedure or community referenced. Lourdes 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin closures and administrator review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this discussion it appears that administrators do not have the ability to overturn a non-admin closure of a deletion discussion. The !voting seemed to run 5 to 1 against administrator involvement. To that end, I changed this line:

Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer.

To this:

Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; or by consensus at deletion review. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer.

However, @Joe Roe: elected to revert my removal of "by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning;". Apparently the closure by a non-admin is sacrosanct and cannot be undone by an administrator, so this page should reflect that the only option editors have is either the non-admin reversing themselves or going through the arduous process at WP:DRV. @Primefac: —Locke Cole • t • c 17:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: The outcome of that discussion was to tell you that that close should be contested at DRV, not to change this policy. I think the current wording fairly reflects the current consensus, e.g. I have reverted obviously bad non-admin closes several times in the past without controversy. – Joe (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OK... what was special about that close that did not merit an administrator at least investigating it? The first administrator to respond seemed to believe they didn't have the authority (and so I cited the passage under discussion here). To which two non-admins responded, and the whole discussion was then closed by a second administrator who again pointed to DRV as the correct venue with no indication any attempt was made to look at the issue presented. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Locke Cole, you were given the wrong advice. DRV is one option, but so is getting an administrator to review. Sorry for any confusion you experienced. In this case, I don’t think many admins would overturn for the reasons I stated at AN, but did want to clarify that asking for admin review was acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And for the record, I reversed the close linked in the opening statement. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

🙏🏻🙏🏻 —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"XfD" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect XfD. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#XfD until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ^[cont] 02:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Procedural closes due to inappropriate venue: mandated new discussion at appropriate venue

Often, it seems that the current venue is obviously inappropriate but another discussion may be undue or perhaps less than black and white. Take Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Akelare and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#La Scapigliata for example. The former was seemingly handled with an uncontroversial redirect, while the latter needs discretion in venue, at the least, because it may be controversial or not. "Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one" would perhaps be better worded as "In most cases, a discussion should be opened by the closer in the appropriate venue." Thoughts? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)