Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 2

Merging Deletion guidelines for administrators to this page

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ok, pretty obvious that consensus is against given the overwhelming lack of interest for the last four months and the lack of support from anybody but the proposer. GRBerry 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging makes sense to me. —Doug Bell 08:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they are long enough to warrant a separate page. This one is already long enough. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Matthew2c4u 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see where you're going, but I think they should remain seperate.  Cool Blue  talk to me 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The pages should still kept seperate, as they are long enough. Sr13 (T|C) 08:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The pages are to long for and easy merge and i dont see the hurt in keeping it
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keep or remove notices before afd closure?
Should one remove or not remove notices such as afdanons before closure?--Fuhghettaboutit 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since each discussion is on a unique discussion page, I don't think it matters much either way. Removing it doesn't really change the server burden since the template is in the pagehistory regardless. Leaving it in place does provide a notice to reviewers that the discussion was probably canvassed and that the quality and provenence of comments made during the discussion should be carefully checked.  I'd leave it in but wouldn't bother to replace it if someone removed it.  Rossami (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I thought there might be some well-defined convention to take note of. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Olddrvfull
Is there a reason why Template:Olddrvfull is not used after a DRV? (See ) I posted it at Talk:G. V. Loganathan as an example of how it might be used. -- Jreferee 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy change at Biographies of living persons
A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion process
I would like for the community to discuss this section of the guideline.

My stance is that non-admins should be given less restrictions to closing discussions, per the comments by By giving non-admins less restrictions, there would be a smaller chance of a backlog in the AfD discussions. Sr13 (T|C) 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Transhumanist here, and
 * YechielMan here.
 * I don't see how the restrictions could be reduced. Non-admins can already close discussions in which the consensus is "keep", "merge", and "redirect". In the latter two cases, non-admins can effectively dictate the outcome of a discussion before it is closed. For instance, in situations of no consensus, merging an article that has been nominated for deletion into another article is usually enough to ensure that the discussion will be closed as "merged", even if the option of a merge was not previously considered. Of course, one shouldn't impose a merge when consensus is against it ... that probably crosses the boundaries of boldness into the territory of recklessness. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We run into the problem with cleaning out backlogs again here. The fact that we have a backlog does not justify doing a bad job so that it can be cleared, and the restrictions on non-admins closing discussions are there for good reason (although they can be ignored some). -Amarkov moo! 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think non-admins should be able to act responsibly with their own judgement. I mean, if there are 14 convincing supports and only one reason to delete (along with the nominator), then this rule shouldn't stop non-admins from closing the AfD, right? But the controversial and the discussions that are difficult to judge should definitely be left to the admins. Sr13 (T|C) 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean that non-admins should be able to close non-unanimous discussions, then I agree. Then again ... I kind of do that already ... [[Image:SInnocent.gif|18px]] (see, for instance, these four recent AfDs). My interpretation of the current wording is that non-admin closures are allowed in all cases where there is a clear consensus to keep/merge/redirect. Since AfD is more about arguments than votes, a "clear consensus" does not require unanimity. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do the same as well. That's why I'm bringing it to the board. Sr13 (T|C) 01:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Less restrictions such as being unable to close an AFD with all keeps and 1 delete other than the nomination (I recently got reverted for doing so and I now have little desire to close AFDs in the future)? Fun  pika  18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That section appears to contradict WP:ADMIN which states "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." It also appears to go against Jimbo's statement that admins should not have an aura of authority.  I know there's concern about abuse, but that does not justify violating fundemental qualities of Wikipedia.  If non-admins may not close debates where a consensus is not adementally clear in order to prevent abuse, well then I guess we shouldn't allow IPs to edit because they are a clear source of abuse. Paul Cyr 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections I can assume it's safe to remove the section? Paul Cyr 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think the section ought to be removed. As I've stated above, I see no reason that non-admins should close only "unanimous keep" XfDs, since a deletion debate may produce clear consensus to keep without being unanimous. As far as I can see, the main reason for recommending that non-admins not close controversial discussions is that, on average, admins have more experience in XfDs and in gauging consensus than non-admins (due to the fact that, on average, they've spent more time involved in those processes).
 * Also, non-admins shouldn't close discussions as "delete" as that would only create more work for sysops, who would then have to dig through XfD pages to find such discussions and then evaluate them to see if the closing was correct. You would not ask someont to archive a document if they do not have the keys to the archive room. I do not view this as to be a matter of principle or fundamental qualities, but rather the efficient handling of routine tasks. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so we both seem to agree the section does not follow WP:ADMIN and I see your point, so perhaps the section should be changed to keep with the spirit of WP:ADMIN and still address your concerns. The issue regarding closes is still fine and in the spirit of WP:ADMIN because deleting articles is a technical restriction to those with sysop abilities and does not create and "aura of authority".  It makes no sense for someone to close a debate with delete if they can't delete the article.  As for controversial debates, in order to keep with the spirit of WP:ADMIN, non-admins should feel free to close controversal decisions with a "keep" or "no consensus" but as a rule only those with a high level of xfD experience should.  The phrasing should be changed so that any user without a high level of experience is cautioned against closing close call debates.  That way WP:ADMIN is satisfied, and the end goal is met, since most admins have a high level of experience and non-admins with high levels of experience can still close debates. Paul Cyr 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but I'm not sure how it would be expressed. Setting the standard at "a high level of XfD experience" is quite vague. Thoughtfully participating in 10 deletion debates can give one more experience than simply blowing through 100 in rapid succession. Yet, the user doing the latter may consider him- or herself experienced. What particular wording did you have in mind? Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried rewording it, emphasizing that the closer should be familiar with the XfD policies. Have a look. I also tried trimming some of the WP:CREEPing minutia from it. If you think I removed something that should have been kept, go ahead and readd it. --tjstrf talk 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. Paul Cyr 07:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So do I. It provides guidance, yet is not overly specific or excessively vague. There's a question I'd like to throw out ... given the discussion below, it seems that there is consensus that non-admins closing deletion debates ought to disclose their status (just a brief note stating "Non-admin closure" or the like). Shall we add that as one of the conditions? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the disagreement in the archived debate, I would say that at most it should be recommeneded, but not required. Paul Cyr 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about something like this then? It is recommended that non-administrators closing deletion discussions disclose their status in the closing decision. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent): Sounds good. Paul Cyr 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in! Rather than adding a fourth bullet point, I tried to integrate this with the third. If you think it would be better to separate the two, please do so. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! Discussion! Seems to me like a good compromise... Sr13 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer of non-admin closures
I have a quick question. I am not an admin, but I occasionally close AfD, CfD, MfD, and RfD discussions. Is there an established consensus as to whether non-admins should note their status in the close? In the closes I've performed recently, I've included the following disclaimer: This is a non-admin closure. I did this to ensure transparency, but wonder whether it is necessary or desirable? I can think of arguments both for and against the practice, but would like to get others' input. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always disclaimed my non-admin closes in a similar manner. I don't think it's strictly necessary though, I do it just to be on the safe side and avoid any appearance of impropriety. --tjstrf talk 04:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See this previous discussion from the archive. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me there. Given the existence of significant disagreement among editors, I'll err on the side of caution and continue to provide the notice ... after all, it only takes a few seconds. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 09:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I normally note "non-admin closure" when I close an XfD, especially in cases where the nominator has stated a withdrawal of nomination (these are usually unambiguous keeps anyway). Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly list status; anyway, there are a few more admins around than there used to be. (smile) DGG 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisting and quorum
Note that while relisting is quite common on AFD, it is rarely used or necessary on other deletion forums. In e.g. CFD or TFD or RFD, it is very common for a nomination to receive no response whatsoever, and be deleted. It is important not to give people the suggestion that some kind of quorum is necessary.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but sometimes discussion is needed. If there's a complicated case on TfD, an admin shouldn't get to decide it single-handedly just because nobody commented. -Amarkov moo! 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also true.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting WP:CFD/W
After recent vandalism, I have protected WP:CFD/W: see explanation and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working. If this protection is retained, the guidance at WP:DPR will need to revised, because non-admins will not be able to close dicussions which require entries in WP:CFD/W. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins closing discussions, revisited
I have added another point in the section: "Non-administrators may also close nominations that were withdrawn by word, but not officially closed. They should establish what the nominator has said to conclude a withdrawal in the edit summary." Is this good enough? Sr13 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is good, but the edit summary thing sounds like instruction creep. Don't make a big deal out of closing a withdrawn AfD. Peacent 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, it seems a bit unnecessary to me. I think that it is self-explanatory as a subset of "Editors in good-standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions". The part requiring that they close only non-controversial discussions was removed a while ago, and I think withdrawn AfDs usually fall in that range. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good point to touch on withdrawn AfDs in this section. If anything, it should be noted that non-administrators should be careful with withdrawn AfDs which have gathered delete !votes. If the concern raised in these AfDs is valid but not yet satisfactorily addressed, it is advisable to let the debates go the whole five days.
 * Besides, remove the "edit summary" part. I don't get the point of writing anything in the edit summary. If need be, proper explanation could be written on the AfDs. Peacent 10:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll remove the edit summary part, and touch up on the point. Sr13 07:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify and clean up this section a bit; some of the discussion was a bit unnecessary. I also removed this one:


 * "Non-administrators may also close nominations that were withdrawn by the nominator, but not officially closed. However, if the nominator's withdrawal statement was not made directly on the deletion discussion page, it should be linked to."

The actual rule as best I can tell is, that if an AFD nominator wants to withdraw their AFD, but it has already acquired discussion and opinions (especially delete views) then it is no longer OWNed by its nominator, and may not be withdrawn at will. I'm not sure this item is therefore accurate. Thoughts? Separately, should this section refer to "AFD" or does it apply to all "xFD"s? FT2 (Talk 10:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some more changes to the section. Also, I agree with the removal of the bullet point quoted above, primarily because it is a specialised case which I don't think deserves individual mention. Speedy closes of withdrawn nominations are subject to the speedy keep guideline, which does not allow speedy closes of nominations when someone besides the nominator has suggested deleting the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Closing and avoiding edit conflicts at close
A few times I have started work on a close, only to find that another clsoer had finished first. In some of these cases, I actually got an edit conflict on the close edit itself. In hopes of reducing the incidence of this, and avoiding the frustrating and wasteful duplication of effort when two editors work on closing the same afd (or other deletion discussion) at once, i have created Closing (based on inuse). The idea is that a closer will put this at the top of the sub page or section before starting to assess the discussion. It will probably not be worth using for short and obvious cases -- the chance of conflict is small and the amount of possible waster work even smaller. But for large and compelex XfDs, or even for moderate sized ones, I think it may be useful. It has recieved some support at WT:AFD, so I have added a mention of it to this project page, making it clear that its use is optional. DES (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Sr13 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Using it already. Modified wording slightly: - most deleteion debates are quick to review, but complex and acrimonious ones can take a while to balance the policy points, and we don't want others jumping the gun and assuming it's abandoned. FT2 (Talk 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Update and discussion needed on merge and similar closes
WP:DPR needs some updating, and probably discussion beforehand to ensure we have broad consensus.

After an AFD, the instructions for what to do with decisions like merge or transwiki, where content decisions may be needed, seem slightly lacking.

Take a common AFD decision: a forked sub-article is to be deleted, its contents perhaps trimmed of cruft and the encyclopedic content merged back to some other related article. A not-uncommon situation. As I see it, the AFD closing reviewer isn't the one doing the content shifting; the editors on both sides are the ones who have to decide exactly what information is valid, what isn't, and are the ones who really need to discuss and extract the valuable content and merge it, after which the AFD article needs to be deleted.

The AFD closing reviewer has consensus for merge or redirect, but doesn't have editors' consensus on what is valuable and what isn't, nor perhaps time or authority to make the decision what to keep and then delete the rest. What should happen is the AFD result is returned to the editors, and the article should be tagged something like this:


 * or, for "merge and redirect":

This template should also add the page to: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, so it's "on the radar" for speedy delete patrollers. It should take one parameter, to indicate what should be done once valuable content is transferred into other articles - delete or redirect - and select the appropriate wording.

Would anyone object to a modification of deletion process whereby the article is tagged and passed back to editors for content removal, where there is content to be removed and merged? I think it'd make closes of articles where content needs shifting, a whole lot cleaner. FT2 (Talk 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's worth doing for deletion or redirection as these two processes take only seconds to perform and the former indeed requires administrative action. However, I do believe that we need a process for handling "merge" closes. In general, I assume the closing admin performs the merge, but I've seen times when an admin simply redirected a page without merging any content. I would prefer a tag of the type below:


 * This tag is different in two main respects. First, it applies only to merges and not deletions or redirections. Second, it removes any time limit for action – an article should not be redirected until the closing decision (which reflects the consensus reached) has been implemented. Comments? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you state (and we agree) when its a simple delete (with or without redirect) then that takes a few seconds to do and is done on the spot; this template isn't applicable.


 * I think we're both considering the same cases, where there is content to transfer first and editors involvement is needed to do so promptly prior to the article being deleted or overwritten with a redirect. In most cases that'd be a "merge" verdict, but its simpler to describe it as it is... the content needs saving (or some of it) because the article will be deleted or overwritten by redirection. That explains to others what exactly will happen, in very quick-to-get terms, and covers all such situations, because any situation where an AFD results in an article vanishing and content needing rescuing first will be one of those two. "Merge" can have various shades; this is putting it very simply: "extract what's valuable, because it'll be deleted or overwritten shortly. Say when it's safe to complete the delete (if needed)."


 * Because an article may be fought over or sought to "hung onto" in some AFD's I think a firm (even if slightly flexible) deadline of 3 or 5 days is better. Extracting usable content shouldn't take that long. FT2 (Talk 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, technically (per the GFDL), merged articles may not be deleted unless the merge target is deleted (see Help:Merging and moving pages). So, if content from a page is merged elsewhere, that page (and its history) will generally be retained and redirected (exceptions may include: an admin performs a history merge; the page being merged was previously contained in the target and has had no new contributions). If the AfD result is "redirect", then no saving of content is required per consensus (though someone can be WP:BOLD and do it on their own).


 * One of the main reasons I think the idea has merit is that it would reduce cases where an admin simply redirects a page without merging when the AfD consensus was "merge" and not "redirect". In effect, the closing decision is not really implemented and it's hard for others to know that. Though it is generally true that "extracting usable content shouldn't take that long", problems may arise if the process becomes backlogged (not unlikely considering that AfD is almost always backlogged). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If content needs moving from the article to elsewhere (for merge or otherwise), then unless it's a blindingly obvious job (the entire article becomes a subsection in some other article), or if any kind of significant editor judgement would be involved on which content to move or where/how to move it, the AFD closer best passes it back to the original editors to do. Certifying the consensus is a policy based decision, but deciding which content is "notable" or to be kept, is a decision that should rightly be bounced back to the article's editors to do, not the AFD closer.


 * So AFD backlog isn't ever an issue. If anything this reduces AFD load, since it removes a task from AFD. If there's any process of judgement or selection which information to transfer or move, then it gets passed back to the original editors for actioning, the next step being when the original article can safely be overwritten, redirected or deleted (the quick bit!)


 * Example: User:FT2/Silent Hill influences and trivia - note the wording of the AFD result talk page template at the top, and especially the final section "AFD result" for explanation. I think that AFD close exemplifies the idea and how editors handle it, quite well. FT2 (Talk 09:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your points and admit that I had failed to consider that this new approach would reduce the administrative backlog at AfD, but still do not know that a deadline is appropriate. It is worthwhile to pass complex merges back to editors, but I do not think it is appropriate to do so with a deadline. A consensus to "merge" is distinct from one to "delete" or "redirect without merging", so applying a deadline and redirecting the article if a merge hasn't happened in 3-5 days would in effect go against the consensus reached at AfD. I think that we essentially agree, except on the issue of the deadline. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And the issue of a deadline is one I have mixed views on and had thought both ways about, too, so we're probably not far apart there either. The thing I'm seeking to avoid is that while it's having stuff removed, if this takes forever or isn't done promptly, an article agreed for removal/redirect might tag around ages, and second, others might even add to it (although with that template there, they shouldn't (!)  So I figured, moving stuff is easy; imply a sense of urgency in the template. 3 days, or 5... it should be enough. If it's really complicated (which it almost never is) then stick template "hangon" on it, or userify it, even. But it shouldn't be that people use a grace period alloowed to cut/paste good content out, as an excuse to keep it there for ages.


 * Its a flexible issue. That was what was on my mind. How do you figure it? FT2 (Talk 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. If an article is tagged for merge and no one bothers to actually perform the merge, the entire purpose of the AfD is undermined. I suppose I base my reluctance to accept a deadline in the hope that editors will be willing to regularly perform these merges so that a backlog does not develop. One option would be to treat closures that require complex merges as the equivalent of "retain and tag with mergeto", only instead of adding "date=July 2007", one could add "date=September 2006" (currently the oldest dated merge category) so that it will be addressed sooner. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we seek wider consensus on it, then? Or what's next? FT2 (Talk 03:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so. Since this template will apply to AfDs, I think Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is a good place to start. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closure: delete?
This page currently says that "non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions, as they lack the technical ability to delete pages." However, when a page is nominated for AfD and the result was (unanimously) delete, can't a non-administrator close the debate and add db-afd to the article?  Sala Skan  22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * db-afd redirects to db-xfd, which mentions only stubs types and templates. As far as I can tell from the edit history of db-afd, the idea of having such a template for articles did not gain consensus. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the db-xfd template uses an if-construction which makes the text depend on the namespace. Just try sticking it on an article, it'll say "A consensus has been reached at Articles for deletion or Redirects for deletion to delete, but this page has not yet been deleted. See Articles for deletion or this article's entry on Articles for deletion. (CSD G6)." On the template page, it refers to TfD, because the template notices it is sticked on the template page. :-)  Sala Skan  13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh ... that's an neat feature. I'll have to think more about the idea before I can comment on its merits. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. Although it does seem redundant because an admin has to delete the article anyways.  I think this would be ideal for xfD's with a delete consensus to which an admin hasn't taken notice for a while. Paul Cyr 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may help with clearing backlogs, just like non-admin closures of (nearly unanimous) keep debates do already. Deleting an article tagged with xfd is faster than closing an AfD debate and going through the procedure.  Sala Skan  15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not policy at the moment, but it seems to me to be worth considering if (1) it is for unanimous (or near unanimous) deletes only, and (2) there is a minimum open period for case.  Buck  ets  ofg  13:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is reasonable for near-unanimous deletes that have been open for the normal five days. It is ineffective for a non-admin to "speedily close" a debate because they still have to find an admin to do the actual deletion, and in the meantime there's no real reason why the debate couldn't remain open. It is effective for a non-admin to close a five-day debate because that's mainly bookkeeping.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a valid point. There is no reason for non-admins to close a deletion early, because they can't delete the page themselves anyway. I moved on boldly and added this to the page, feel free to revert :-).  Sala Skan  12:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of non-admins closing AfDs as delete. I've closed a few already correctly, but User:Jaranda told me to stop. Should I? I don't think I should, as non-admins can be helpful in these kinds of tasks. -- Boricuaeddie hábleme 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this proposal. This confuses newer users on who is an administrator or who is not, and also it confuses some of the admins who closes AFDs constantly as well as the AFD could be overlooked, and many of the admins who does CSD doesn't do AFD, and would normally remove a housecleaning tag without a link. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline requires that non-admins must state their status. I think that solves any problems. -- Boricuaeddie hábleme 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It's somewhat difficult to know to what extent that is actually followed. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I also object to allowing non-admins to close any AfDs except unambiguous non-deletions. Apart from other issues, it's more useless work for all involved: the closer must place a db tag, an admin must still do the deleting, and there's potential galore for reversions, edit-wars etc. in the interim. Sandstein 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After some consideration, I also oppose the idea. I do not think it is generally advisable for admins to implement the closing decisions of others without reviewing the closure. By deleting an article, the admin in effect endorses the closure. This should not be done if the admin has not reviewed the discussion. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the idea also. The only thing it would save me is one button click, as I'd still read the AfD anyways.  Daniel  06:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the editor is in good standing and the decision follows consensus I don't think there should be any restrictions on them closing discussions with non-delete consensus. That would follow with WP:ADMIN and God's views. Closing delete discussions doesn't matter to me since I see it as clearing backlogs but also creating more work because of the techinical restrictions that requires an admin anyways. Although the db template for overlooked xfD's makes sense. Paul Cyr 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the poster child for speedy-non-admin-deletion with Articles for deletion/Amarillo Bible Church; assuming I'm reading the history correctly, two minutes elapsed between opening and closure (with no comments other than the nomination). While I think the article in question wasn't very notable (and a few minutes of searching failed to turn up any useful references) and therefore the discussion would more than likely have ended in deletion anyway, I did feel this was too hasty, and decided to drop User:TenPoundHammer a friendly note to come and participate in the discussion here. For the record, I'm in agreement with the view that non-admin deleters should restrict themselves to five-day-old near-unanimous discussions, but I also think we should get a wider consensus on the subject. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ⊖  13:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I closed the deletion because when I saw the AfD discussion, the article was already gone, so I figured there was no purpose in keeping it open. That's pretty much the only time I close a discussion as "delete" -- if the article's been nuked but the discussion's still open. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems very reasonable, there's no point keeping a discussion open on whether or not to delete something that's already deleted! It might be worth noting that fact in the closing summary, though. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Non admin closures: speedy keep
I suggest we add some more restrictions as to when a non-admin can close an afd, and when such decisions can be reverted; especially in the case of speedy keeps. I think in most cases this should be avoided or at least delayed one day.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, it says that any admin may revert non-admin closures, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Do you have any examples of non-admins doing inappropriate speedy keeps?  Sala Skan  11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Non-administrators may close "delete" discussions only when the deletion is near-unanimous, and the usual 5 days have expired."_that already means speedy keeps are limited. There shouldn't be more restrictions, it's not a good idea to state when non-admin closure can be reverted since not every speedy keep should be frown upon. SNOW and IAR can apply to particular cases with careful consideration by non-administrators. Peacent 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any administrator can revert any non-administrator closure, per "In general, administrators are responsible for closing discussions about deletions, but in practice, the various deletion discussions tend to be badly backlogged, and editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions under conditions described under non-administrators closing discussions. Closing decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, may be reopened by any administrator".  Daniel  06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That probably should be "any editor in good standing" may revert any non-admin closure; if it's not obvious consensus keep, the non-admin shouldn't have closed it anyway. I've had an example like this: there were two weak keeps, several deletes, and a lot of (fairly obvious) anon sockpuppetry. This was carelessness, as the non-admin admitted; but it happens. (The AfD is Articles_for_deletion/Wolfhart_Grote; the non-admin close is in the history.)


 * The other problem with expanding non-admin closes is that it will encourage what happens anyway: the article author closing the AfD keep whatever the evidence. This is trivial to fix, and gets the author banned; but some newbies don't think it through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got some questions
Peacent 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it required to state clearly what the result is on the AfDs or is it fine to simply delete/keep the articles and then archive the AfDs?
 * Is using humour appropriate (like to alter the verdict and make it amusing)?
 * If I'm reading that right, then 1)definitely yes, 2)definitely no. Marasmusine 12:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|yes\rangle + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|no\rangle$$. See AFD:Schrödinger's cat in popular culture for an example of how to do a funny closing statement. As long as the outcome is stated reasonably plainly, people will probably appreciate the effort to uplift AFD's collective spirit!  Another example would be AFD:Var'aq, which could've had a closing statement in the Klingon language, with the English translation in parentheses. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no need for sarcasm. To be more specific, is this closure acceptable? Peacent 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Carcharoth 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! This sort of thing adds a touch of smileness to the potential mind numbingness of AFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We weren't being sarcastic, we were being humorous! (well, I thought I was funny anyway) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ⊖  09:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD daily log template
Where is the template page that the Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day pages are based on? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From looking at the history of the last one to be archived, it seems that a bot creates the daily pages. I think. Carcharoth 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at Special:Contributions/LDBot. Isn't that a nice sight? :-) Carcharoth 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up RFDs
I think that we need to add something to the procedure for closing RFDs about cleaning up incoming links to the deleted redirect. Recently, a user approached me because they were trying to clean up a few hundred links by hand, when this should probably be a bot task, similar to how CFDs are closed. Any thoughts? Are there any bots approved for this task? --After Midnight 0001 12:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the big cross-space redirect deletion last year, Rory096 used a bot for most of those. Now, nobody seems to do it and we'll get those pages appearing as "wanted" again soon, see e.g. Special:Whatlinkshere/BJAODN (that one should clearly not have been deleted without orphaning it first). However, different redirects can require different treatment; I'm not sure whether anything more than a reminder will catch all cases. Kusma (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the one he was talking about :) I tried to clean them all up using AWB, but it was so tedious...  Mel sa  ran  10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea. Many times a redirect is deleted specifically because a red link is desired (ex. a valid subject that redirects to an unrelated page). Simply because a redirect is deleted does not mean that term should be delinked. I recognize that there are cases where it should be done, but it shouldn't be made a step in the deletion process. In cases where it should be and there's a large list, I'd recommend posting a request at Bot requests. If someone has an approved bot for this, they'll take care of it. If not, I'll add it to be my bot & get it approved. -- JLaTondre 11:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you are reading more into my idea than I intended. I am not saying that all of the occurrences should be delinked.  I am saying that the closing admin should make a determination of the proper action to take, be it bypassing, delinking or whatever.  Kusma and Melsaran correctly identified the discussion that spurred my comment, and in that case, I think that it would have been advisable to change all of the links from "BJAODN" to "WP:BJAODN" rather than leaving the redlinks in place.  This is certainly not always true, but I think that it would be a good idea to create a RFD/W page, similar to WP:CFD/W where instructions may easily be left for bots to do clean up when the admin requests it. --After Midnight 0001 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review of List of Indian women
Hello recently my article List of Indian women was removed while a similar page List of Iranian women on which it was modelled survived. I would like to put up my case for a deletion review of List of Indian women. Kindly help.

moon 05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Try WP:DRV :-)  Mel sa  ran  09:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing a nomination
When is this allowed? Can any nominator withdraw their nomination at any time? Or only when it is a clear speedy keep? i said 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A nominator can change their mind anytime. However, the debate can only be closed as withdrawn if no other user recommended delete. -- JLaTondre 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Prior deletion attempts
This guideline should require more of an attempt to include prior deletion attempts for AfD, TfD, etc., when re-nominating something for deletion. We don't have double jeopardy on Wikipedia, but neither should previous arguments given during previous attempts be totally ignored. At the very least, a direct link, followed by a brief refutation of the result, should be required of the nominator. Otherwise, some people might try to observe or guess the editing patterns of others and delete articles, templates, etc., when they think they can "get away with it" (e.g., Christmas vacations, August holidays, etc.). A "consensus" will be manufactured through a combination of timing, ignoring new arguments that contain "opinion," and ignoring older arguments which would be more difficult to refute than the new ones. People will still try to use such wiki-holiday information to their advantage, but by requiring linking (or, better yet, summarization) of prior debates, at least those still present will have the opportunity to re-present the arguments of such debates, rather than overlooking them out of bias or ignorance. Calbaer 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a previous AfD auto-detector to the AfD template for this reason, so that it shows the links automatically if there was a previous AfD, but it isn't perfect. --ais523 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about a change to the guidelines, not something making it easier to find previous AfDs (and, it would be nice to add, TfDs, MfDs, CfDs, etc.), but something that would require, in the process, to not only include links to prior deletion nominations, but to include why previous arguments against deletion should not be considered part of a consensus if presented again in the current nomination. Calbaer 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Guidelines" that "require" something?  That's a bit of a contradiction.  Wikipedia does not work by law and mechanical process.  It works by the best efforts of involved editors acting toward the common goal of creating an encyclopedia.  It is courteous to refer to the prior deletion discussions and appropriate to at least try to address their points.  And you can usually be sure that even if the nominator doesn't mention the prior debates, someone in the discussion will bring them up.  Remember that all the participants are supposed to do their research, check the page history, review the talk page and fully investigate before jumping into a discussion.  If I try to gloss over a prior discussion, someone will find it out and say so during the deletion discussion.  The truth, however, is that there is no way to compel that behavior - people will still make poor (or even malicious) nominations and others will pontificate without taking the time to properly research the situation.  Writing stronger language on this page won't change the people who choose to game the system.  Rossami (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All this makes me think that it should be explicitly stated. And while it is true that prior debates will generally be mentioned, contrary to your assertion, they can be glossed over.  The previous debates will often not be linked to and the points in the prior debates often won't be discussed again.  Both are certainly the case in the TfD that brought my concerns to the fore, Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 26.  Twice the template was nominated, and twice the consensus was "keep"   .  By not providing proper context for the third nomination (links to the prior debates) and by dismissing the majority view as "not compelling," two past keep consensuses and the current keep majority view subjectively became "The result of the debate was delete."  It would have been harder to dismiss this majority as irrelevant to the consensus if the debate had included the wide array of points, pro and con, brought up before.


 * I'm not pushing for stronger language, just to add a few logical things that should be done. Having such a list means that editors acting in good faith will be more enabled to, as you say, be courteous.  True, even with changes, people can ignore them and game the system, but at least then people can point to such "oversights" in a Deletion review or in recreating the article, template, category, etc.  Not providing direct access to previous arguments biases the debate.  If that's done in bad faith, that's a problem that can be dealt with elsewhere.  But if it's due to oversight, mentioning what should be done here would be quite helpful. Calbaer 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia:Consensus policy already has a section entitled "Asking the other parent" which covers the need to address prior discussions. GRBerry 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that there's actually a problem here. If something is nominated within weeks of a previous debate, people will notice that and tend towards a snowball close. If it is several months ago, consensus can have changed. Note that Calbaer has a conflict of interest here, as he is trying to change policy to make it support his position in a current deletion review.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I brought this up prior to the DRV, and, upon initiating the DRV, knew full well (as does Radiant!) that the guideline would, if changed, not be changed in time to impact the DRV. The DRV in question is here if anyone would like to see the context of this (our respective actions). Calbaer 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Backlinks"
"Also remember to check "what links here" and either delete any redirects or redirect them elsewhere. If a given title should never have an article, then remove all links to it."
 * I don't see any justification for this. Why delete red links to future articles? Jooler 23:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the page was deleted (rather than merely repaired, redirected or merged), that's a very strong indicator that the community feels that we ought not to have a future article at this title. Leaving the redlinks around creates confusion and just tempts other readers into re-creating pages that have already been discussed and decided.  For example, assume I write an article about my favorite (but utterly non-notable) garage band and then drop links to it in all sorts of articles.  The article gets nominated, discussed and deleted but the links and redirects are left in place.  A month later, you come along, follow the redlink and see the very polite message that "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title" and immediately offers to help you create it.  Thinking that you are doing helping to expand the encyclopedia (because you know something about the band and clearly Wikipedia wants the article or there wouldn't be the redlink), you start typing.  Within a matter of days (or sometimes minutes), your contribution is deleted with a rather curt note that it is "re-created content".  You never saw the first version, didn't know about the AFD and are terribly hurt and confused. We lose a lot of good editors to this scenario.  It's much better to finish the clean-up and remove the potential for confusion.  Rossami (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I have to admit being stupd here. I actually didn't read the second sentence correctly. Jooler 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we need deletion notification?
Currently, Guide to deletion states:

If this should be changed or deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion. &mdash; Sebastian 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:RAW (rolling paper)/Archive1
Please delete the attack/profanity filled page Talk:RAW (rolling paper)/Archive1 --Mrtobacco 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that it is a talk pages archive, and shouldn't be deleted, this is a page which relates to an ongoing mediation between me and Mrtobacco. I believe he is trying to have the page removed, to hide his COI, since all the personal attacks on the page, were done by him, towards me, for calling attention to it. Onyx86 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Onyx86 is admittedly paid, has only posted attacks and not even one actual page or addition other then deletions - check history. Mediation has nothing to do with a page that has profanity and attacks in it. The archive talk page is not part of Mediation as you know. Should be deleted for betterment of Wiki and by Wiki standards. Please read the page and decide for yourself thanks admin! --Mrtobacco 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show the diff in which you claim I say im being paid. Please stop this childishness. BTW you broke the page by posting here. It should have been posted at the bottom. Actually this is the wrong place altogether! Onyx86 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closures, again
Recently, as a result of these three AfDs, Daniel added a sentence about non-admins closing anything but unambiguous "keeps" that has not been in the guideline for months, saying it was "restored". The sentence was not put in when the section was rewritten at the beginning of June. I am under the impression that, after reading the discussions on this page, non-admins were permitted to close as anything but delete, as they cannot actually delete the pages. Is this new addition in accordance with the current attitude on non-admin closures? At any rate, the addition was not a restoration, as consensus approved of the new wording in June, and it did not have this sentence in it. As such, I have reverted the addition until it is dicussed here. i (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a restoration to the wording before June. In my opinion, it should never have been changed - I missed that part of the change when the section was rewritten.  Non-admins originally weren't permitted to close deletion discussions at all and have always been strongly discouraged from closing the ambiguous decisions.  Rossami (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This point was never discussed in June, and I contacted the person who initially removed it, who said he had no objections to me readding it.  Daniel  04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The specific sentence was not, but there was consensus approving the rewording in June. Neither that wording, nor any version of the wording since, has included the restriction of closing ambiguous closes. The sentence was removed when it was reworded. And tjstrf doesn't speak for consensus. i (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets analyse the discussion back in July which you linked to.
 * Users who contributed:
 * — "But the controversial and the discussions that are difficult to judge should definitely be left to the admins."
 * — "As far as I can see, the main reason for recommending that non-admins not'' close controversial discussions is that, on average, admins have more experience in XfDs and in gauging consensus than non-admins (due to the fact that, on average, they've spent more time involved in those processes)."
 * — [made no comment about controversial AfD's, but promoted restrictions]
 * — [made no comment about controversial AfD's, although discussed a "14-1" example]
 * — "The phrasing should be changed so that any user without a high level of experience is cautioned against closing close call debates"
 * — [made no comment about controversial AfD's]

So, all in all, we have three users commenting specifically about this sentence: two users strongly for discouraging closing controversial AfD's, and one expressing caution. For me, that equals a consensus to keep the sentence.

To clarify: I do not mean prohibiting closing an AfD where there's a substantial amount of users !voting keep and one not doing so, and the keep doesn't have a very good reason. The line isn't at unanimous consent. I'm talking about your 15kb worth of messy discussion with a number of contrasting views and no clear results; the debates where there's subsantial conjecture over the application of BLP; or high-publicity AfD's like the old QZ ones and, more recently, Mizoli's etc.  Daniel  04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there was consensus that the new wording, which did not prohibit the closings, was approved of. Obviously ones like Mzoli's should be left to admins, as there were some serious drama and godking issues. I'm talking about ones that don't have that gravitas, but aren't very one sided. Personally, I don't like non-admins closing ambiguous discussions, but it has come up recently, and now with Qst, and I think it should be clarified what non-admins can and cannot close. i (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wiki - non-admins can close when 1) they can implement the close (so delete is out) and 2) the community is willing to let them get away with it. User:MyFirstEdit can't get away with closing anything that isn't obvious and unanimous. User:TopicalEditorWhoRarelyComesToAFD can get away with closing a few more things, but really nothing with any debate. User:AFDSpecialistWithMonthsOfExperience can close many things, but will encounter controversy if their close doesn't reflect the numbers (as opposed to the consensus, which can be different) of the discussion. If an editor is experienced enough to get away with closing controversial decisions, they probably should be an Admin. Best to, as general guidance, encourage non-admins to self-restrict. Those that are close to ready to become an Admin may choose to test the waters further, but if they are really admin material they will do so with humility and an awareness of what all the policies really are. GRBerry 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The above discussion may be generally applicable, but all examples are from AfD. Please keep in mind that this Guideline does not apply solely to AfD's.  That may be where the most traffic is, but I for one have spent a lot of time at MfD and watch that page but only show up on AfD when I run across an AfD tag on an article of interest.  Only CfD's are exempt from this portion of the Guideline.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird stuff removed
Some weird new stuff has shown up on this guideline. It certainly has nothing to do with our way of doing things and unless there is a very strong justification it should not be in the guideline.

Here is the section I edited. The italics indicate weird stuff that I deleted:


 * Non-administrators closing discussions


 * In general, administrators are responsible for closing discussions about deletions. However, at times the various deletion discussions become backlogged. Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions, with the following provisions:
 * Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results.
 * Non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions, as they lack the technical ability to delete pages.
 * Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator.
 * In cases when an administrator has deleted a page and overlooks closing the discussion, their name and deletion summary should be included in the closing rationale.
 * Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well.
 * Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought.

Remember, the italics above indicate new stuff that I have removed from the guideline as, at the very least, somewhat contentious.

Non-administrators are often highly experienced Wikipedians, sometimes retired administrators. At times of severe backlog they can be called upon to close disucssions. For the most part, older discussions are those that have not been closed, precisely because working administrators have shied away from closing them. If a non-admin gets it wrong, the discussion can be taken to deletion review. We should not presume that non-admins are incapable of closing with a delete decision, nor that they lack the judgement to close a controversial discussion. In particular, if none of our administrators has stepped forward to close a discussion in three or four days since the discussion period expired, then a de facto backlog exists and any good faith attempt at closing the discussion by an experienced editor should be accepted, subject to review. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has anything to do with not WP:AGF of non-admins. It's more to (hopefully) reduce disruption. Also, those "additions" aren't that new, AFAIR. I'm going to revert for now, pending further discussion. - jc37 12:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the history, and these points were certainly present in July. There is plenty of discussion of them higher up this page, and related discussion in the archives stretching way back.
 * In general I support the principle of restricting closures to admins, because admins have already had to demonstrate that they have the trust of the community. A deletion at AfD is not a process which is easily reversed, so I support keeping this function as one of the exceptions to the general principle of administrators as janitors than as sergeant-majors.
 * However, Tony Sidaway has an interesting point wrt backog. I draw the opposite conclusion, because discussions which admins have shied away from tend to be those which are most complex or most controversial, and in such cases it seems to me that it is particularly important to have someone who had demonstrated the trust of the community.
 * Tony's point about former admins is interesting, but it would have been helpful for Tony declare a interest as one of those former admins, and in particular that the fact that his name is listed with a link to endnote 1 on that page. A bit of burrowing led to Requests for arbitration/Giano, and while I don't intend to try to research the exact reasons for that arbcom decision, his resignation is listed as having been under controversial circumstances. It seems to me that in such a case a former admin should not be presumed to carry the confidence of the community in a matter such as deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave all those principles in. BrownHairedGirl expressed my opinions quite well.  The only thing I'll add is that a "backlog" is not serious until we are measuring it in weeks.  A decision sitting open for 3-4 days is negligible when you look at the historical trends on closures.  Rossami (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This section was first added by Rossami in June 2005 with similar content, . I'd say that although the language appears to have been tweaked, there's a very longstanding consensus there. Hiding Talk 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have never restricted afd closes to admins only, and never shall. This guideline is grossly at variance with long-time and current practice on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline does not restrict AfD closes to admins only; it places this restriction only on "delete" closes (which non-admins don't have the technical ability to perform in any case) and controversial and ambiguous closes. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Something it appears to have done for the majority of the pages existence. Hiding Talk 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm sorry but you're dead wrong. Until 2004, only admins were allowed to close VfD discussions at all.  It did not matter whether the decision was "keep" or "delete" or how close a call it was.  Closing VfDs was an admin-only function.  Non-admins who attempted to "close" a discussion prematurely were often summarily blocked as vandals. We only began to loosen the standards in 2004 because there was a real backlog of closures (at some points, measured in months).  The standards were gradually changed because it was felt that if some experienced but not-yet-admins could clear out the obvious "keeps", the admin volunteers would be better able to focus their on contributions on the discussions that truly required experience and judgment (or that required the delete button).  And, yes, I was part of the team drafting that revised wording that allowed non-admins to fulfill some of those functions. There has never been consensus that non-admins could close all decisions and I defy you to produce evidence that there has ever been any such consensus.  It has been proposed many times - and rejected each time.  Rossami (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

 * See my comments above about this not only applying to AfD's. Additionally, restricting closure, even in ambiguous cases seems to fly in the face of WP:Sysop and the principle that Adminship is technical and No big deal!  WP:Sysop says: "In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. . . . Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators."  Closing, except for actual deletion, does not involve the use of any special tools.  There is no harm to allowing anyone to close and Admins do not have any special ability to judge consensus that non-admins don't.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators have demonstrated that they have the trust of the community, at WP:RFA. When they lose the trust of the community, they lose their administrator powers (you'll notice just those words at many arbitration cases arguing for removal of administrator powers). That's why administrators can delete pages. It seems silly that we would not let a specific person delete a page, but we would let them decide that a page should be deleted. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that non-admins should decide deletes, the decision is somewhat meaningless. But this is about closing discussion, not necessarily closing as "delete".  There are other possible results besides "delete" and "(unambiguous) keep", such as "merge" and "(ambiguous) keep".  The point is that deciding ambiguity is not a special purview of admins because deciding ambiguity does not involve the use of special tools, the only official difference between admins and other editors.  And again, this isn't just about AfD's.  At MfD there are often results such as Userfy, and mark as historical or archive, which any registered editor is capable of performing if they know how and any experienced editor would know how.  Deletion is special, it involves special tools because it is a special edit that technically can only be undone temporarily.  There is no backlog right now, but there have been substantial backlogs at MfD (the only XfD page that I'm really very familiar with) in the past.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good evening, Doug. I suspect from your comments that you are considering "keep" as only meaning "keep as is".  Merge, userfy, mark as historical and all the others are all variations of "keep".  They do not result in any removal of pagehistory.  They are all easily reversible actions As such, the process here clearly allows any experienced, trusted editor to close them.  Arguments over which flavor of "keep" to use are normal editorial decisions.  Strictly speaking, they are beyond the strict scope of the deletion process.  They could have been made without recourse to the deletion discussion and can always be worked out on the appropriate Talk page after the deletion discussion is done.  (Note that the subsequent discussion should be strongly informed by the community's opinion as expressed in the deletion discussion but it is not considered binding to the same degree as the core decision to "keep" or "delete" the pagehistory.)  The only two things reserved to administrators are 1) closing "deletes" (because of the technical issues) and 2) closing discussions where keep vs delete is not obvious (because of the trust issues mentioned above).  Rossami (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree, though yes I was using "keep" a bit more narrowly. Still, it's obvious that a non-admin can't delete and the current policy seems quite clear that they shouldn't try to "close as delete", but "closing discussions where keep vs delete is not obvious" is not within the exclusive domain of admins because admins have no special skills just special technical capabilities .  There is no reason an experienced non-admin can't determine a close call just as well as an admin.  Obviously if in making that determination, the non-admin determines it's a delete, he or she should pass on closing the discussion because the close would be without any practical effect, but if he or she determines the close should be (some version of) keep, there is no reason he or she shouldn't make the hard decision and close the discussion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors who pass a request for adminship explicitly or implicitly are judged to possess the requisite experience to evaluate and close contentious or convoluted discussions. This doesn't mean that non-admins do not possess this experience, but I believe the current phrasing promotes clarity. Unlike the binary variable of adminship, level of experience is largely subjective, and an individual editor's self-evaluation of his/her level of experience may not match the evaluation of others. Thus, in a sense, the admin/non-admin distinction is being used as a more objective proxy measure for level of experience. The guideline should, of course, be approached with common sense. For instance, there is little reason a priori to object to a difficult closure made by a former admin who voluntarily resigned adminship while in good standing. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments in the prior section, which i think are worth reiterating here. What a non-admin can get away with closing depends on who they are and their experience. The best general guidance is to discourage non-admins from closing discussions that don't meet WP:CSK, possibly saying something akin to "Generally, only administrators should close deletion discussions not clearly meeting a criteria for speedy keeping. Non-administrator's can't delete or undelete a page, so should never close a discussion in a way that requires deletion/undeletion.  If you become highly experienced with why discussions in a particular forum are closed as keep or delete, you may be able to close some discussions in that forum when no use of administrative tools is needed.  At this point you may also be ready to become an administrator, and should consider doing that." GRBerry 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really have so many inexperienced editors trying to close discussions at AfD (since that's where most everyone seems to be coming from) that you have to get this specific? It's a pain but it's not really that hard to undo the closure so that discussion can continue or a more appropriate closure can be made (and the way I understand the above discussion the only possible issue arises when somebody closes a discussion as some version of keep that really should've been a delete).  In fact, since anything but a delete (ignoring merge histories, I know) can be undone by anyone, it doesn't even take an admin to fix a non-admin's closure.  Nor, by the way, does it take an admin to fix an admin's incorrect closure, unless the closure was a delete.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't read as many AFD closes as I used to; I used to review 75% plus of them, now it is down to maybe 5%. But we've seen several just plain bad AFD closures by non-admins brought to DRV the last month or so; we didn't have many before that so far as I can recall.  We've seen people who don't understand a policy (since when is WP:NOT a summary of WP:NOTABILITY?) closing against that policy, participants in close debates closing the debate for the position they argued for, etc...  Some have had a result of "endorse the outcome, not the close", some have been speedily reclosed a different way by an admin, and some have gone a full review and been overturned.  DRV cases aren't a daily event, but it has been averaging one or more a week of late.  GRBerry 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The trend has been long-standing and, yes, there were enough that this clause was considered necessary. The problem is that while anyone can reclose a poorly-closed discussion, in practice that's almost impossible.  First, there's no easy way to discover those and second, there is a strong precedent of not arbitrarily re-closing debates without a fair amount of bureaucratic review.  Operationally, it's more efficient to have this rule.  Rossami (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So has any kind of decision been made? One that can be cited as consensus-backed? I (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I could tell. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So do we just wait for more people to comment, and leave the guideline in limbo as to its consensus-backed interpretation, or what?
 * I'm not even sure we have consensus as to the question of what had consensus in the past and therefore represents the default if we can't come up with a new consensus, since this whole discussion started several sections above due to a change.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Consensus is the same as it has been for several years now.  Experienced non-admins in good-standing may close obvious "keep" decisions as a way to help clear out the backlog.  All other decisions need to be left to an admin.  I can't find a single credible argument raised in the discussions about why we would need or want to change the policy from that state.  Rossami (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity about Ambiguity
Current language is ambiguous by the way, ironically on the very matter of ambiguity.


 * Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results.
 * Non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions, as they lack the technical ability to delete pages.
 * Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator.
 * In cases when an administrator has deleted a page and overlooks closing the discussion, the administrator's name and deletion summary should be included in the closing rationale.

Italics and underscoring for the ambiguous language. In the first instance it says that "it is best" to only close the unambiguous discussions if you are not familiar with policy, in the second instance it's much closer to "leave it to an administrator", even if it gives any wiggle room at all (through the use of the word "should"), it's certainly not the same thing.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Early closure by non-admins
I'm seeing a few early closes by non-admins that are causing concern. My reading of the page here is that non-admins shouldn't be closing afd debates early. What are other people's thoughts? Hiding T 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think such closures should be limited to cases that unambiguously meet Speedy keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially. I think the consensus has been (the many times there has been a discussion regarding this) that if it requires admin tools (deletion, for example) then a non-admin shouldn't close. This is, of course, an incredible simplification : ) - jc37 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In re-reading, I just noticed you were talking about "speedy"... That would probably be an extension of the above, so just as BF said, probably only discussion results of "Speedy Keep", if anything. - jc37 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-admins should only close totally non-controversial debates. It's just not worth the potential hassle of closing a disputed one if you're a non-admin, let it sit until an admin gets onto it. In the case of an early close, it would have to be really really non-controversial - e.g. the sort of AfD where 10 people instantly pile on to say "keep!", with good reasons, and nobody agrees with the nominator at all. --Stormie 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure I agree. I'd rather non-admins not close any debate early, speedy keep or not. An early close is by its nature controversial, and I think it should be left to an admin.  In two cases that I've seen, the non-admin has opined that an admin would have done it anyway.  My thoughts to that are twofold; that they should then wait for an admin, and that an admin has been trusted by the community to close debates.  Maybe it is just me, but when I see a non-admin closing a debate early I tend to wonder where the motive is.  An admin doing it is supposed to be doing it.  It just feels to me, that it makes a controversial decision even more controversial when done by someone who isn't supposed to be doing it.  If a user feels they are ready to close afds early, then they should be pointed to RFA, not AFD.  If they don't want to go to RFA, it indicates an issue which means they shouldn't be closing AFDs early. Hiding T 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you tell which particular AfDs you are referring to? There are certainly cases where the consensus as a speedy keep is clear and a non-admin may invoke WP:IAR and close the debates. Admins already have much work on their hands; it's not a problem that a non-admin may want to help out closing clear-cut debates and reduce the backlog, please AGF here. Also, an early close is by not its nature controversial. If an AfD is non-controversial, then it wouldn't matter who closes the discussion, whether she is an admin or not. - PeaceNT (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know which AFDs Hiding was talking about but from my experience early closures are almost always controversial. At the very least, you are imposing an assumption of bad faith on the nomination.  That assumption may be entirely correct but it is not a decision to be made lightly or by those with little experience.  Rossami (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely, there are many non-controversial early closings: e.g. nom withdrawn, wrong forum - such as it's in MfD but clearly should be in AfD, as well as noms that could have been speedied - but unfortunately weren't. The last of those requires an admin because the result is delete; the first two do not and I have closed both types in the past week myself (I am not an admin).  We have hashed this over many times.  The policy says "should" - it's advisory.  Admins do not have any special gift for determining consensus only special tools and the right to use them.  If it doesn't require admin tools it doesn't require an admin.  The only problem with the policy guideline is that it says: If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results.  - If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions - you should read the policy and watch some discussions before you do anything else.  If you disagree with a closing, by an admin or otherwise, WP:DELREV.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New process for pages with over 5000 revisions
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deletion_restrictions_for_pages_with_long_histories

The software has just now been changed so that it won't let non-developers delete anything that has over 5000 revisions. If there's a page with a BLP violation or some other emergency (like the virus put in the sandbox that caused this latest incident) that needs deleting, then until developers can be contacted and they handle it, someone with oversight needs to be contacted and the page oversighted. Deletion of such a page stalls the system, while oversighting doesn't. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision to relisting text
This is a suggestion to revise the recommendations around relisting (see WP:DELPROC and WP:DELPROC). The recommendation currently is to remove the entry from the particular AFD-daypage where it appears and re-insert on the current AFD-daypage. I've seen recently commenting out of relisted AFD entries, and I think this is preferable to removing the entry all together. Leaving a comment in place seems more informative in the long term. Thanks for considering this. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Add admin's reasoning when closing AFD
Can I suggest that the guidelines are modified so that rather than admins just writing "Result was delete/keep", they put a justification/explanation of their reasoning? It can be very frustrating for a long controversial AfD to end with 'Result was x', and no more. (not in response to any particular Afd). Some admins do this, but many don't, and the guidelines here don't even suggest it as a good idea... thoughts? Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to write rationales when closing long, controversial, confusing, or otherwise unclear discussions, but a rationale shouldn't be required for each AfD closure. Most AfDs are not especially controversial and the reasoning behind a close is often self-evident. (A similar thread can be found at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy.) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer; I wasn't suggesting for EVERY Afd a rationale should be required, just, as you say, the controversial/divided opinion ones. Paulbrock (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion
Of deep significance to this guideline is a current template deletion discussion, of a template that represents a deletion discussion as a vote between two parties:


 * Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 17

--Tony Sidaway 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we list WP:IFD closing procedures here?
Why are IfDs closing procedures listed at Images_and_media_for_deletion/Instructions_for_administrators, while all the rest are here?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No good reason. Images used to be handled much differently with the Commons issues and all but your proposal to merge seems reasonable.  Be bold.  Rossami (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - well partially, it doesn't look like any of the others yet. Probably should be converted to the step-by-step format the others use and nix the colored box. This brings up another point though, I notice that most closers are not following the instructions, they're closing with the ifd top above the header, which results in discussions that run into each other.  Only AfD and MfD use this method because their discussions are transcluded.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've got it in the same format as the rest and clarified a couple of things - the original instructions weren't clear on using the oldifd oldifdfull tag and said to subst it, for example.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I based it mainly off tfd with a little from mfd so it's possible some erroneous references leaked in, I hope not, but take a look.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I ran into other problems along the way. In converting the instructions to a numbered list, I have run into two issues, 1) ifd top is not being subst even though the documentation for it says to and I think all of the other deletion discussions do; 2) ifd top is not being placed below the section header which causes discussions to run together and edit windows to open without the ifd top, but with the next one down tagged onto the bottom of the discussion - it's also contrary to the closing instructions (I didn't change the substance, only the way it's shown on the page).  I noticed this when I added the result parameter to the template and looked at old closed out discussions.  It's an easy fix (undo), but curious why this (transclusion) would be and whether it's a good idea (I tend to think not).  I've posted at WT:IFD as well.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

subst or transclude?
A question came up on reviewing the templates oldifdfull and oldafdfull, ifd said subst, afd said absolutely not in it's documentation. On Template_talk:oldafdfull however, it was suggested that they should be subst because of the possibility of later page moves, whereas a reply to my inquiry at ifd said that since images couldn't be moved the template could be transcluded. I understand from the arguments why ifd and afd would be different, but the discussions and the documentation seem to disagree with each other. I made note of this in the old afd documentation, and I did not carry over the subst language for ifd when I moved the instructions here. Any thoughts?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at how MfD does things, that one can probably be safely always transcluded (though some closers subst it even though the documentation for that one also says not to). Often when closing an MfD you have to include the votepage parameter anyway (because MfD handles deletions of pages in talkspace when nominated by themselves and the template as constructed won't auto generate the correct target in those cases) and the instructions at MfD also say to include the votepage parameter; thus a later move will not change the target in any case.  I'm removing the other options from the instructions here to make them consistent with the instructions at MfD and practice and ensure that later moves aren't an issue for MfDs.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"oldafdfull" template has a bug
When the decision is "keep" and the oldafdfull is added to the article's discussion page, it's supposed to say "An archived record of the discussion can be found here.", and when you click on "here", you find the discussion. But it only works as long as the article has the same title. When the article gets moved and you click on "here", then of course you find (typically) a blank editing page. I reported this as a bug, and someone responded with what seemed to me like a snide comment that fixing the links is the responsibility of the person moving the page. But this does not involved links TO the moved article. I've moved hundreds of articles and I've always fixed the links TO the article, but I've never encountered this situation before. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closures Out of Hand
As I noted here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, the incidence of non-admin's closing AfDs is getting totally out of hand. I've had three AfD's closed by a non-admin, one closed after only three days of discussion and one just closed as a "speedy keep" after less than 24 hours! Non-admins should not be speedy keeping anything. I really think non-admin closures need to just be brought to a halt except for withdrawals, as the people who have decided to devote themselves to closing AfDs, despite being admins, are not paying attention to what qualifies. If AfDs were intended to be closed by non-admins, we wouldn't bother with admin closures at all. Leave AfDs in the hands of those qualified to judge appropriate, the admins, and lets just stop this insanity. Should this be brought up as an RfC or on one of the noticeboards? AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversing the AFD default for BLPs
A proposal has been made at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to reverse the AFD default for biographies of living persons, so that a "no consensus" at AfD outcome would result in deletion of the article. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD, TfD
I realize this has probably been talked about before, but frankly I don't really want to read through pages of discussion, so why do CfDs, TfDs, and MfDs not work the same way as AfDs, with each having its own subpage? Why do they only have sections within a certain day? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MfDs do have their own subpages, but they are not placed on daily logs like AfD ... I'm not sure why, but I think there was a proposal some time ago to change MfD to the format of CfD and TfD. As for those two, I think that the reason they work on the basis of daily logs rather than individual subpages is because those deletion venues get relatively little traffic, both in terms of the number of nominations initiated each day and the number of participants in each discussion. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not realize the MfDs did. Why does the amount of traffic determine whether the discussion is a subpage or not. I do not see any disadvantages to subpages, and they allow the discussion to be transluded to other pages, which in turn would most likely create more traffic. Where else should I bring up a proposal to make them subpages? MrKIA11 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussions should generally be linked from other pages, not transcluded, IMO. As for disadvantages of subpages, I can think of two, both of which are related to inconvenience. First, non-registered users cannot create nominations on subpages. Second, it's generally faster to write up a nomination on a daily log page than to create a subpage, write up the nomination, and then properly transclude it. If you want to bring up this issue elsewhere, I suppose that the most fitting places would be Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion. Black Falcon (Talk) 14:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be working fine for AfDs, so why would it be a problem for other XfDs? The "disadvantages" that you pointed out don't seem to be a problem for AfDs. The main reason that it would be more beneficial to have subpages, is that they can be transluded on specific topic-related XfD pages. (See WP:DS). MrKIA11 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Informing WikiProjects of deletion discussions
I have been working with a WikiProject for a little bit now and had a thought that if would be great if the WikiProjects would be notified when an article marked as theirs would be informed when an item is marked for deletion. As some articles have a lot of WikiProjects attached, it would make the process longer, unless there is something short and sweet to make the WikiProject notification easy. So, the idea is that WikiProject banners get a field called "delete," and when an item is marked for deletion, the person proposing it would have to go to the item's talk page and put delete=yes in each of the project banners which would in turn add that talk page into a category within each WikiProject. That way WikiProjects would stay informed, and the deletion process wouldn't be too over burdened with WikiProject notifications. - LA @ 09:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This question comes up often enough that it probably ought to be answered as a "perennial" question. To summarize the responses from when this has been proposed before:
 * Wikiproject members can bring specialized knowledge to the discussion. This would be good for the discussion.
 * Wikiproject members may have a conflict of interest in the topic being discussed. This could be bad for the discussion and could unbalance the discussion.
 * Mandatory notification creates a false sense of ownership of the page. Pages must stand or fall based on the wider community consensus.  Wikiprojects have interest but no more rights to the page than any other editor.
 * Formal involvement of Wikiprojects in the past has tended to encourage a balkanization of our standards as each Wikiproject attempts to set its own standards for inclusion/deletion. This increased the problems we already have with inconsistencies across topics.
 * Identification of the "correct" Wikiproject is infeasible. Even experienced readers don't know where all the Wikiprojects are or which ones are active.  (Your proposal above about using the banners would solve this but only for those pages which have been formally tagged.  The vast majority of pages being discussed aren't.)
 * Notification adds additional steps to a process that is already far longer and more bureaucratic than any of us would prefer. (Even a step as simple as adding the suggested "delete=yes" to tags is instruction creep to some extent.)
 * Failure to notify will create false-grounds for users to claim "abuse of process" and result in bureaucratic reversals and re-discussions just because a nominator overlooked a step.
 * If a page is important enough to the Wikiproject members to have tagged it, the presumption is that those Wikiproject members will also have the page watchlisted so they can monitor it for vandalism, etc. Adding the deletion tags should immediately show up on your watchlists.  Formal notification is unnecessary.
 * Personally, I'm not convinced that there are enough cases where good pages are being inappropriately deleted or where the relevant Wikiproject members don't already know about the discussion to justify the overhead of a notification requirement. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It may also be worth noting that many WikiProjects monitor their relevant subpage of WikiProject Deletion sorting (e.g. WikiProject France has WikiProject Deletion sorting/France). Black Falcon (Talk) 14:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that active projects tend to be good about monitoring AfDs, Prods, et all to update their deletion sorting page and add del sort to the AfDs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing the organisation of admin instructions
I have proposed a standardization of the admin instructions pages. Feel free to join the discussion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Every process page should now have link in the top right corner to a admin instructions page. What should we do with this page? I guess we could mark it as historical or replace it with navigational links the the appropriate pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pax, are you really proposing to deprecate DELPRO in favor of more than a half dozen shorter guidelines!? I don't really see the need for this change but, as I mentioned on your talk page, I'm concerned that we are now going to see conflicts between these separate instruction pages and here and this is the guideline.  Why not simply link the instructions here (as they were before) OR transclude the sections as separate subpages of this one so you can still have a separate page for each one?  I'd like to see more comments from others, particularly Rossami, before we do anything further.  (I also take issue with naming them "Administrator Instructions", I used them a lot before I ever thought seriously of becoming an administrator.)  The pump discussion was archived to Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_27, in case anyone is looking.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my proposal was to split up this page to create separate pages (eventually making this a navigation page). Transcluding them here seems like an excellent idea though. That way we would maintain separate histories for each process, keep the possibility of navigating them one at a time but still have them the option of viewing them all in one place. If there is a better name than Administrator Instructions I'm all for changing it. Technical Instructions or Processual Instructions perhaps? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I'd rather see those pages as subpages of this one, I guess that's just aesthetics, as a technical matter it isn't important where they are, just as long as it's obvious where to go to discuss and edit them. Where to discuss is an important point, the procedures are maintained all in one place here and discussed all together.  This leads to more consistent procedures and, I think, more generally educated admins and other closers.  It also avoids deletion procedure discussions going on in multiple locations, I suggest all of the transcluded pages should redirect here for discussion (it's not exactly the most active discussion page on enwiki and it would suffer greatly if split up I fear.  I think a name like "/Closing Procedure" would make sense.  I think the concept has definite merit, but I'd sure like to see more input for restructuring this page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there should be a place for centralized discussion and this seems like the best place (so I suggest we place redirects on all the subpage talkpages). When it comes to naming I'd prefer something that could also be used at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV. It could be something like "Procedure", "Procedure instructions" or "Procedural instructions". Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug, I'm honored that you value my opinion, but I don't own this page any more than anyone else.
 * The page used to be far simpler but that was because we only had one deletion forum to worry about. Everything went through the Votes for Deletion process.  VfD was moved to AfD (because too many people continued to get the false impression that voting had anything to do with the process) then AfD rapidly fragmented into XfD.  But it was still one process even though it was used in multiple forums.  Over time, however, the discussion processes drifted apart.  Now, I believe that we are starting to see balkanization of the process.  Each time someone makes a change, the added complexity seems to be useful when viewed in isolation but in aggregate it becomes very difficult to keep track of, especially for new editors who have to absorb it all at once.
 * What does that have to do with this page? I'm not sure.
 * If the subset guidelines are on separate pages specific to each forum, it may become harder for new editors to see what the other forums are doing and to leverage their good ideas.
 * Even if the subset pages are all transcluded here, you have to know to come to this page to see all of them. There's no incentive to do that if you only work on one forum and are deeply vested in a current discussion about how to do that better.
 * If the subset guidelines are actually redirects to a section-header on this page, editors wanting to change the process will have to do it here. In theory, they might notice the other processes and can make better changes based on what they saw/learned from another forum's process.
 * I feel like I'm pretty far out on a limb on my reasoning, though. Simple and usable makes the most sense.  And most readers who need this page will be working in just one forum at a time.  Maybe it then falls to a few informed volunteers to monitor all the processes and to cross-fertilize the good ideas.  I can see both sides on this proposal.  Rossami (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this suggestion more overnight. The core risk comes from the fragmentation of processes.  Maybe this is the right time to re-consolidate the processes.  Is there one process that could work for all the XfD forums?  Should we propose simplifying the closures to that one process?  If we simplify it, we can 1) leverage what we've learned but not thought about lately and 2) reduce the inherent instruction creep of this page a lot. My favorite lately is the deletion review model because it exposes the rationale while collapsing the discussion on all transclusion pages.  It could work even on those discussion forums that use one-page-per-discussion like AfD.  Other thoughts?  Rossami (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rossami, you may not own the page but you are the resident expert and it is important to make sure our decisions are informed by historical knowledge of how things have evolved here. Moving forward on major changes to a guideline with a long long history without input from the resident expert seems reckless at best.
 * I don't see any good reason not to transclude the separate instructions to solve the problem some see of having to scroll through all the other instructions to get to the ones they want. As long as the sections are fully transcluded here there will be no change in appearance of this page.  I think the discussions need to stay consolidated on this page though because there are so few of us who discuss these procedures.  I suspect that very very few editors ever get here by looking up the procedure for a specific venue and then reading the others.  Most ignore the others and never even look on this page - though this is just my perception.  Personally, I got here by reading about deletion policy and working through all the policies, guidelines, etc.  It was much later that I decided to actually assist in closing out a discussion and needed the specific rules for a venue.  There are so few editors who participate in these discussions though that if we think we would actually lose out on future participants in evolving these procedures we should be very careful.
 * As for re-consolidating, I'm not sure. I personally have worked with AfD, MfD, TfD, IfD, at least, maybe others.  Never had a problem.  Having all the separate instructions here has led me to look to the others to see what we could borrow for MfD, where I am most active.  But there are differences in the various procedures for a reason.  For one, MfD is organized completely differently from the others, with fully transcluded individual discussions and no logs.  TfD and IFD have handy ln templates which would be pretty unworkable in MfD due to the regular nomination of talkspace pages.  AfD is far more active than the others will ever be and is organized accordingly.  There are different nomination and tagging procedures for IfD, AfD, and TfD also for good reasons.  On the other hand, moving to a single "old deletion discussion" template would be useful, particularly one that can handle multiple discussions.  I can also see the merit in closing discussions the same as far as whether the "top" goes above or below the header, there is a reason for the current practice but it might not be a good enough one.  I'm not familiar enough with DRV's process to comment.  So, to summarize my position:
 * Go ahead and transclude unless there is a real concern that we will reduce participation here
 * Make all the discussion pages redirect to here
 * Rename the instruction pages on the model: "WP:Articles for deletion/Deletion process" or even better: before you transclude them move them to "WP:Deletion process/Articles for Deletion", fix your links to avoid the automatically created redirect and delete the then orphaned redirects as housekeeping.
 * We can follow this up with a standardization/re-consolidation effort if we wish.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. 1 and 2 have now been carried out since no one seems to disagree. I didn't want to rename until we have explored the possibility of finding a name that could also be used for non-closing instructions like the ones at RFPP and AIV. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion about non-admin closures
At proposal has been made to raise Non-admin closure from "essay" status to "guideline". That page is an elaboration on a section of this page. Please join the discussion there. Rossami (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrators closing discussions - proposed addition
The guideline is currently against non-admins closing unanimous "delete" discussions but makes no explicit mention on "no-consensus" discussions; this leads to non-admins being confused and closing XfDs where they think there is no consensus (thus default as "keep"). Therefore I propose the following be added for clarification:

"Non-administrators should not close discussions with no-consensus decisions."

Comment, please? --PeaceNT (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The current guideline states that "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Perhaps if this is not a sufficient deterrent, we could explicitly mention that "no consensus" closures be avoided? I would say that I (a non-admin) have closed AfD's as "no consensus, default to keep" where virtually all of the !votes were equally distributed for merge/redirect or keep, and started a merge proposal on the article page. I think such action is appropriate for a non-admin, in spite of the implications of your comment. What do you think? Skomorokh  09:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect requires content to be kept, so that wasn't a no-consensus debate. You could have safely closed it as "keep", with merging at editors' discretion. :) AfD is never the best venue to discuss merge, redirect, split etc anyway. :) About the proposal, Iwas referring to cases where there is no consensus between "keep" and "delete", that's what no-consensus at AfDs normally means. The guideline appears unclear, as I recently came across a non-administrator who closed many AfDs as no consensus because they believe "no consensus is obvious" (thus not "controversial" or "ambiguous"). this is why i think some clarification is needed to prevent misunderstanding. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:safely closing keep/merge/redirect as keep, I did, but then I got complaints so I started calling such closures "no consensus". I agree strongly with the notion that AfD is not a forum for merging, moving redirecting etc., but a lot of participants seem to think otherwise. I would support adding a stipulation along the following lines, with minimum ambiguity:


 * "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which there is no consensus to keep or delete."


 * As this is a guideline, I think we should wait to hear what others have to say. Skomorokh  10:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the wording, though I think bolding text isn't necessary. Also agree that we should wait, I'm in no rush. :) I'll invite the non-admin I mentioned to this discussion since it's likely that they'll contribute different views. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose any more restrictive language. The guideline clearly gives admins (and others) plenty of discretion to undo anything a non-admin does incorrectly or inappropriately.  We need more education (that there's not this horrible backlog and dearth of admins many believe, among other things) and not more restrictions on the rights of non-admins.  Contrary to popular belief, "non-admin" does not equal "newbie"; although it may generally be the relative newbies that cause the headaches, some very experienced non-admins close from time to time.  An unambiguous "no-consensus" is actually not that uncommon and besides, personally I'd rather undo dozens of bad keep closes than a single cut and paste merger.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it plausible to test empirically the claim that non-admins generally do a good job of closing no-consensus discussions? Could a bot detect whether the closer of an AfD is an admin, and if the discussion was closed as no consensus? If so, the matter should be relatively easy to settle. Non-admin comment by Skomorokh  21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the empirical evidence would be relevant. Among other things:  1) Adminship is No Big Deal, and 2) the empirical evidence would strongly suggest against allowing IP editors, but we do.  If a close seems out of line you should look into it and if you find it's by a non-admin you can overturn (or request an admin to overturn it), which is a fairly summary procedure and involves little more than a few "undo" actions.  If a close seems reasonable and there's no evidence the closer had a WP:COR, who cares who did it?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of the empirical test would be to see whether non-admin closures of this type were more trouble than they are worth, but that seems to a moot point for you given your principled stance. I wonder would you support IP editors closing deletion debates and why (not)? Skomorokh  21:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first we'd have to allow IPs to participate in deletion discussions :-) I don't have strong feelings about the rights of IPs, it's not an issue I've ever taken any particular interest in, my only IP edits as far as I can recall were because I'd forgotten to log in - as I almost just did here - but there are good reasons for the policy.  My point above was simply that I didn't believe empirical evidence was particularly important to decision making here.  The difference between IPs and registered users is more significant in my mind than that between non-admin editors and admins, who are just editors with extra tools, but some would disagree with my distinction, I know.  The reason non-admins can't (or at least shouldn't) close delete results is that they don't have the tools to complete the process.  Close calls are more difficult, first off one person's close call is another persons "clear consensus".  Second, one editor may have the skill to read consensus or the lack thereof where others might not.  And finally, a controversial discussion can be closed so well by a good editor (admin or otherwise) that there is no controversy as to the close itself.  I don't want to see decisions being overturned on the sole grounds that they were "no consensus" decisions by a non-admin.  Show me why a non-admin close decision was "controversial or ambiguous" and I'll gladly overturn it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, five things Doug. :)


 * 1) We do allow IPs to participate in deletion discussions (and indeed they join in quite often.)


 * You're right, I was thinking of RfAs, the point I made above is the same however, and the comments of IPs aren't considered very highly for the very same reasons as in RfAs. Again, I spend most of my XfD time at MfD, TfD, etc. where IPs are not common participants.


 * 2) The difference between admins and non-admins is not only the tools; rather, the latter are users whose judgement has been trusted by the community at large, and who have been aprroved to take responsibility for some duties that the community don't feel comfortable putting into the hands of regular editors.


 * The trust runs to the wielding of the tools, if you aren't wielding the tools it doesn't make any difference.


 * 3) It is true that non-admin closures can always be overturned with the click of a button. It is however not easy to discover and re-examine all non-admin closures, given the bewildering number of XfDs. We should make the guideline as clear as possible to exclude the possibility of it being confusing to non-administrators who seek to play by the rules, not rest on the fact that admins can easily revert non-admins when well-meaning but unwanted closures happen.


 * We rely on editors who object to specific closes to point these issues out. Otherwise WP:SILENCE is the way things work.


 * 4) I don't think the proposal seeks to make the guideline more restrictive, only more transparent, in the sense that it clarifies what is already written. No-consensus is by its very nature ambiguous, and such closures by non-admins should therefore be discouraged. I don't think anyone can conclude "no-consensus is obvious" at a glance; if that's the case I'd seriously question their discretion, whether they are a non-admin or not.


 * I haven't seen a lot of NC's at AfD because that's not really my hangout but at MfD we have clear NCs frequently.


 * 5)There has long been solid consensus that non-admins can close clear consensus "keep" debates and other variations (merge/redirect/etc). Now you say, or effectively imply, that non-admins can close no-consensus debates, too. Then, as I understand, the only distinction left is that admins can close "delete" discussions (because they have the needed button)? (This is surprising fact to me)


 * I'm saying that some non-admins can close some debates and there is no reason to try to create a bright line in a guideline.


 * --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * --PeaceNT (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've closed many AfD's as no consensus and only one was reopened (by another non-amin). To me it's no big deal for non-admins to close AfD's as no consensus providing they are experienced with guidelines and policies. After all if another editor really disagrees with the close they can reopen it. We don't need any more restrictions, let common sense prevail. RMHED (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a non-admin who has done some AfD closure, I'm all in favor of more restrictive language. For my own part, I've seen a number of non-admins jump the gun on such closures, and I have the sneaking suspicion that, as in other areas of Wikipedia, there's this notion that someone is going to award a medal for the most closures in the bag ... quite aside from my other sneaking suspicion that a lot of folks are thinking "Look at me!  I can act like an admin too, and I didn't even have to pass RfA to do it!  Woohoo!"  Now it is certainly true that a poor closing can be overturned, but why go through the extra process just because ... what, some AfDs will be closed a half-day sooner (and in some cases, prematurely) than otherwise?    RGTraynor  05:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think non-admins should be much more careful when closing, and the more restrictions the better. For example, Articles for deletion/Cheat Code Central was closed as a keep, which I would see a no consensus at best. It appears to be nothing more than a head-count. If non-admins should be allowed to close even keep articles (an idea I'm not all that fond of), they should only be clear-cut consensus, with the backing of policy. Any ambiguity should be left for a sysop.  JohnnyMrNinja  05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep is the same, functionally, as No Consensus. No Consensus is probably a bit clearer for future reference, but people will look back anyway. Since we have no clear standard for "consensus" it's pretty much a distinction without a difference.--Abd (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins do not have any special ability to judge consensus, they only have special tools granted them by the community after they asked for them. Many editors have as much or more skill than admins but have either never asked for and/or don't want admin tools or in some cases have "retired" from adminship (e.g. User:Kim Bruning).  The community granting those tools may include certain vague prerequisites of community trust and experience, but that doesn't mean that non-admins don't have the same trust and experience.  Closing a discussion as keep/NC does no damage to the encyclopedia and requires no special tools and therefore the right to do it shouldn't belong to admins alone.  Closing as delete by a non-admin is meaningless even when done correctly, since an admin not only has to execute the actual deletion but is required before deleting to make sure the deletion is warranted (i.e. that the close was correct), so it should not be done.  Experienced admins will normally have more experience in closing discussions, since admins have to do all the deletes.  But then an admin who spends a lot of time at CSD/PROD or some non-deletion function will often be no better than any other editor.  If Admins weren't wrong a lot, there'd be no need for DRV.
 * BTW, as for the discussion you reference, I don't see that as a no consensus at all and I suspect I would have closed it the same way although my review was very cursory so I can't say for sure. But if you think the close was inappropriate you can ask an admin to summarily overturn it or you can take it to DRV.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug is correct here. He's been hammering this point for a long time, and there are some puzzling responses,here. Anyone can, in theory, revert a close, whether it is by an admin or non-admin. Both admins and non-admins can make bad decisions. That some non-admins, therefore, make some bad decisions is not an argument against allowing non-admins to close AfDs.


 * But we don't like anyone to revert a closing without going to DRV. A non-delete closing of a debate does little harm, DRV could quickly reverse it, reopening the XfD. Letting a larger goup of editors perform tasks that are easily reversible is part of how Wikipedia works. The worst risk is that an article which probably survived speedy is kept for maybe a week longer.


 * I'm puzzled how a non-admin closer can be reverted, simply because of the closer's identity (combined with a judgment about the circumstances) but the same isn't true of admin closers. Both could be reverted, and both reversions are, as I see it, discouraged. The venue for challenging a close isn't edit warring, for sure, it is WP:DRV.--Abd (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions
Village pump (proposals) - I have made a proposal that TfDs and CfDs be handled in the same way as AfDs and MfDs, as transcluded subpages. A small consensus seems to have formed, but there have been very few responses. As these are very important Wikipedia pages, please take a look and help form a broader consensus (or tear it apart). Thanks!  JohnnyMrNinja  08:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How to view a deleted page?
If a page is edited, its Page History includes (of course) a link to its previous version. However, if a page is deleted, its Page History is also deleted. This is inconsistent, because deleting part of a page (even when mandated by Wikipedia policies) always allows the deleted material to be viewed, yet deleting a page apparently prevents the deleted material from being viewed without extreme measures such as a system backup performed by the sysadmin. Thanks, David (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to view a deleted page?
 * If not, can such a way please be added to the Wikipedia infrastructure?
 * If so, can a link be added to the Edit New Page for deleted pages so that the deleted page can be viewed, and can such a link be added to this article?
 * This question gets asked and answered on a regular basis over at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. The short answer is no there is no way for general readers to view a deleted page and no there is no intention to do so.  The vast majority of deleted pages are removed for a very good reason.  Many are copyright violations, personal attacks or other inappropriate content.  If the page was viewable, it would defeat the whole point of deleting the page in the first place.  Deleted history is viewable by administrators and if a request is made in good faith to review a particular page, most admins will temporarily restore a page for you.  For more controversial or for disputed requests, there is the Deletion review process.  Sorry.  Rossami (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reform
I proposed a new form of speedy close here, although I should have done so here. Sorry, input appreciated, Skomorokh  18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)