Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Attempt to make instructions for closing CfD discussions better readable

This is about: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions

Background: see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Backlog_reduction

Proposal: see User:Marcocapelle/sandbox2

Feel free to leave any comments in the proposal itself, preferably in a different color than black or red. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Query about "Soft Deletion"

Hello, all,

There seems to be some confusion that exists about whether or not an AFD discussion can be closed as "Soft Deletion" if there was a previous AFD on the article and also whether it matters if that previous AFD discussion was closed as "Keep", "Delete" or "No consensus". The guidance in WP:NOQUORUM only mentions previous PRODs on an article and doesn't state the previous AFDs have anything to do with the article's eligibility for a Soft Deletion but I was told by a regular AFD closer that a previous AFD nomination disallows Soft Deletion. The uncertainty leads me here today to get more specific advice about this outcome of an AFD discussion.

Clarity regarding the eligibility of a previously AFD nominated article for Soft Deletion would be welcome, especially if this might necessitate adding a new line or two to this section of the policy guidelines. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liz Not sure if you are aware, but an earlier discussion touched on this in 2017. I can imagine a case though where it would appear it might not apply: a nomination might follow of a change in notability policy, so the basis of the result of a previous AfD may no longer stand (cough, presumed notability in sports). On the other hand, if there was no change in policy affecting the AfD, and the previous AfD showed participation and the result was keep or no consensus, then one possibility would be to give the admin the option to consider the new nomination as a !vote in the previous debate. If that nomination was to change the keep or no consensus outcome to delete, then the admin could proceed with soft deletion, but given one !vote is highly unlikely to change the previous AfD, then status quo ante, ie no soft deletion. I guess my point is, admin discretion would appear to need to be retained, rather than a blanket exclusion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible solution for difficult discussions

We sometimes have discussions where an article might have potential but there has not been enough work done to establish notability. In these cases, would it be helpful to have another discussion result available, such as "provisional keep," which would provide a finite window (e.g. 90 days) for the article to reach a defined quality status (e.g. "Start class," or "C class"), as evaluated by an uninvolved editor? If the article improves it is kept. If not, the article can be speedy deleted by an administrator who decides whether the article has advanced significantly. I know there is no deadline, but we are also not here to maintain an indiscriminate collection of cruft. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am sympathetic to the desire to provide more time for editors to update articles which can be updated--AFD deadlines can make new editors feel like they are under the gun--but in cases where the issue is notability, the actual utility of significantly more time is unclear. I'm not sure that 90 days of research will be sufficient where seven days fails to be. I also want to push back against the conflation of notability and article quality. Although I think in practice Wikipedians tend to treat articles which conform to our quality standards as more notable than those which do not, this strikes me as a bug not a feature. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• This seems like trying to fit somewhere between mainspace and draftspace, but I don't think there is room for another layer in between them. If you need just a few more days than is available in the AfD about a specific article (e.g. perhaps you're waiting for a book to arrive in the post) then note in the discussion how long you need. If the reason is plausible and the time request not too long (personally I'd say up to a week is reasonable), then a reasonable reviewer will just relist the discussion to allow you that time. If you need longer than that then ask for it to be put in draftspace or your userspace, this should not be declined without good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE the NEWCSD aspect. If the page was cruft, it should have been deleted at AfD. If it was not deleted, then all participants were necessarily not supporting deletion, and this makes the later speedy not Ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "draftify" is a good resolution. If the argument breaks down to "not enough sources to write more than a stub" versus "it could be better than a stub," then the outcome could be to move the article to draft space, and then bring it back if and when the latter assertion is proven. After six months, it becomes G13: abandoned draft. Is this sort of thing already happening? Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman draftify is perfect for such cases and it gives 180 days window for the user to improve. Venkat TL (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Too many pages to tag

I'm wondering what should be done, if you'd nominate hunders of pages. That's "a bit" too many to add deletion tag to all pages one by one. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest using AWB. Primefac (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Nominating that many articles at once? That's probably an RfC not an AfD... Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Preposterously old AfDs

Per this, this and this discussion, it seems condign for the guideline to make some mention of best practices for extremely old nominations (i.e. ones that are never properly listed and therefore remain open for decades) -- nothing in great detail, but a couple sentences indicating what can be done in such situations (under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Relisting discussions). Since it does not impinge or conflict with the rest of the guideline in any way, I will add them, and welcome comments here. jp×g 03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this really needed? It seems to be that once you finish your task of churning through these there won't be any more so no formal guideline is necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; the task can be done without formally adding it to this page. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I just came across that section while researching an unrelated matter and thought that was weirdly specific guidance. Per the above and WP:CREEP, I went ahead and removed it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of a long standing bio post

I am not sure how to ask for remedy at this site, but a long standing biography of a very popular American Zen Buddhism teacher, Roshi Joan Sutherland, has been removed, for no apparent reason. 2600:1014:B134:444E:A957:8CA8:42F6:BFB0 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The article was deleted following a discussion. Not sure how that is "unjustified". That person is not notable, there were no reliable sources. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The only real "remedy" would be WP:DRV, but I suspect the deletion would be upheld is it's really more a question of whether you (the IP) want to waste everyone's time. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Delete slowly", "Slowly delete", etc.

Could someone define what in the world "Delete slowly" or "Slowly delete" mean? These "votes" are used in XFD forums from time-to-time, particularly at WP:RFD, and I've seen it used for years, but as far as I can tell, the definitions of these phrases are identified nowhere on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't heard that one before, but perhaps it means "delete, but not speedily"? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's how to slowly delete a redirect:

1. Wait a week, then relist. Repeat three times.
2. Wait another week.
3. Add {{subst:rfd top}}/{{subst:rfd bottom}}
4. Go make some coffee
5. Remove the {{rfd}} code
6. Walk the dog
7. Add {{old rfd}} to the redir's talk page
8. Pick up the kids from school
9. Check if there was something that you missed.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

...Got a good chuckle out of that one! Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Here's a few examples I could find on WP:RFD where this terminology has been used over the years where "speedy delete" was suggested nowhere in the discussion:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 25#File:2yr.png
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Unnamed Tour
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10#Cinderella (upcoming film)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 7#File:IMG 1218.JPG

...From what I'm seeing, it seems as though it may mean to close the discussion and delay the deletion by a certain period of time, but ... it's not something I see a term for anywhere. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just a Thryduulf-ism requesting that the discussion not be closed before the full seven days. It could be a "pre-opposition" to deletion via CSD, but he also could have been sensing a forecast of SNOW. As far as I can recall, no one else uses that terminology. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw a few examples where Nyttend stated that term as well, but they haven't been active in a while. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I certainly use it where I feel speedy deletion would be inappropriate for some reason (usually something has just been fixed or its usefulness is very nearly but not quite over) but either someone has suggested speedying or snowing, or I'm predicting that might happen. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Just logging in for the first time in forever. I've used it when I want deletion but don't think it qualifies for speedy, either because someone's already asked for a speedy, or because I suspect that someone will ask for it. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on substituting Template:nac

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure § Should Template:nac (and variations) be substituted?. HouseBlaster^talk 03:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Third relists

For a long time we had a solid consensus that AfDs should be listed relisted at most twice, i.e. if no consensus was apparent after three weeks then the discussion should be closed as no consensus. Third relists were reserved for exceptional circumstances and per WP:RELIST should always be explained. Recently, however, I've noticed that Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times always has at least a dozen entries and that most of them are run-of-the-mill AfDs relisted a third (or even fourth) time without comment. Has the consensus changed? If so, should we update the guideline? – Joe (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging @Liz, Explicit, Less Unless, Seraphimblade, Guerillero, and Extraordinary Writ: who seem to be the most active admins at AfD lately. – Joe (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• If no consensus seems apparent after one relisting then, in my opinion, the page should be automatically kept. If enough good points from a variety of editors exist, and 'Keep' has a reputable source and user support point-of-view, it very likely merits Wikipedia inclusion. My personal essay, WP:SHADOW, summarizes some thoughts on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, WP:Articles for deletion/Scottish Waterways Trust is a case where two relists was excessive. Thincat (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I like the spirit of your essay, but it's counter to the advice already in the guideline at WP:SOFTDELETE. It would create a situation where the outcome is different between a WP:PROD and an AFD with no participation, and I don't think we want that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

True Ivanvector, if only one or two editors are commenting. But the essay is meant for, and I should clarify it, thanks, spirited discussions with quite a few editors bringing points of view. If nobody comments after one or two relistings, and no or almost no participation has taken place, then yes, that sounds like a soft delete (something I've never heard of). Is that what this discussion is about, soft deletes? Or is it for any and all deletion discussions, some of those would be covered by the essay. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

p.s., thanks, have added "well attended" in the first summary sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I tend to allow for 3 relists. So many discussions are log jammed these days and I would like things to come to a decision rather than doing no consensus closes -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've also noticed this tendency at WP:RFD, where there don't seem to be as many regular patrollers and once in a while someone will come along and just relist everything to "cle::ar the daily log", and they often obviously don't read the discussions first. Maybe that also happens at other XFD venues but I don't go there often. I think the guideline should instruct that all relists have to be explained. A relist isn't a close but it is an evaluation of the discussion, and so the relister should explain their rationale unless it's very obvious, just like how we generally expect closes to be explained. And you definitely shouldn't relist a discussion if you haven't read it, or for no reason, or just to clear a log page. Personally when I come across discussions that have been relisted when consensus is already clear, I just close them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Counting relists completely misses the point that consensus is not about counting. Further, XfD and other things are rife with pointless relisting. A relist should only be done by someone qualified and competent to close, on reading the discussion and concluding that it is not ready for closing, and with a comment that refocuses the discussion, or calls back early participants to consider new evidence or arguments. Comment-free relisting should be banned. Relisting to clear a page, and to make hide backlogs from the backlogs is actually counterproductive, a net negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Comment-free relisting should be banned." - Excellent suggestion. - jc37 08:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A relist after 7 days with no commentary other than the nominator and some deletion sorting is so self-explanatory that commentary is unnecessary. I could see this being a rule for 2nd relists, but the first one at AFD is usually pretty trivial to explain. Courcelles (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Courcelles that a comment free first relist makes sense when an article is not WP:SOFTDELETE eligible, while we should be discouraging (or perhaps even creating a rule about it) for 2nd+. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What makes sense about the first relist being comment-free?

If there relist reason is so obvious that no editor benefits from the reason being given, then why are you doing the relist? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Perhaps with more time someone will have value to add to this discussion" feels reasonable after 7 days, but harder to say after 14. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Does relisting give it more time than doing nothing? Old discussions get more attention from being in a backlog than from being shuffled back with new discussions.

No matter which relist, comment-free relisting is pointless relisting and shouldn’t be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both/all : )

I think every relist should have a comment, but I also agree that, in some cases, that the default explanation can be enough for the first relist. After that, I think a bit of guidance from the relister would be a good idea. I've seen several relists where the commenters just restated what they said further up in the discussion. And while that could potentially at least add clarity, that's not always the case.

I think the act of relisting is an assessment, similar to a close, and should have similar rules/requirements. - jc37 16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think part of the issue is that automated tools are making it easy-er to relist discussions. That said, I think 3 or even 4 relisting should be ok, if the re-lister thinks that there might be a possibility for a consensual result based upon a read of the current discussion. But if it's merely that nobody commented after 3 times, I think that should be enough to call it a day. - jc37 16:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have never liked hard numbers on things like that. The question I ask, when I see that a discussion hasn't reached consensus, is always "Is there a reasonable chance that this discussion could come to a consensus, if more input is sought?". If I think that's "yes", I'll relist it; if not, I'll close as "no consensus". But if, for example, someone during the second relist period provided some novel information or angle, and that hasn't been seriously considered that yet, I would hate for a hard rule saying we have to not let that happen. So far as explanation, I think it's repetitive in most cases—the relisting template already notes that the discussion is being put back for additional input in hopes of reaching consensus, and most of the time any further explanation would be essentially a copy-paste of that. If something in particular would be helpful, such as detailed analysis of proposed new sources, I do think it's good to specify that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree, exactly. - jc37 21:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Generally I think that if there has been no substantive discussion since the most recent relist then the discussion should, in almost all cases, not be relisted unless the person doing the relisting actively does something to increase the visibility of the discussion, e.g. posting on a wikiproject and/or article talk page, adding to a relevant but previously un-notified deletion sorting list, etc. The greater number of relists since the last substantive comment the stronger this guidance should be. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• How often are third+ relists actually finding consensus? I think we already have too much of a relist bias (especially among non-admin closers). Back when I was active at AfD closing it seemed like most third+ relists were mistakes and didn't lead to consensus. Has that really changed? If it's a matter of not enough participation should the original listing be longer than 7 days and relists after that 7 days? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm honestly not sure. If we could find an answer to that, it would be very informative here, but I can't right off the top of my head think of an easy query to figure that out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Many first relists should have been closed as “keep”-or-“no consensus”, especially where the nomination was weak. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue from my POV is AFDs are still relatively poorly attended. I tend to lean toward an incremental relist if I think it will find consensus vs. kick the can down the road with a N/C close. That said, some are deadlocked and there just isn't going to be a consensus. I also tend to give it one more shot with subjects who are active in areas where English is less used. Not just Global South, but eastern Europe where sources may well exist, we (majority English speaking editors) just can't access or read. Someone did flag this for me a while back, and I've been more alert to not doing a 3rd, and will be more stringent should consensus be clear here. Star Mississippi 15:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• From experience, 3 is the limit at RfD, whilst 2 is the limit at CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  My my experience at RfD is that relists are extremely annoying, copy-pasting the discussion to an another page that I am not watchlisting means I lose track of the discussion.

  My experience is CfD is that relisting is rare, only done for good reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, for the first you could probably watchlist the category instead (assuming the link to discussion is updated correctly).
  For the second, that wasn't my experience when I closed discussions there for several months. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Joe Roe,

Sorry to be late to this discussion. Yes, unlike other admins who patrol AFD log pages, I do relist discussions, frequently. If I can't see an obvious consensus to close a deletion discussion, I see two choices: leave the discussion for another administrator or editor to close or relist the discussion, hoping that some new participants will join the discussion in the intervening week and break the logjam. There are several regular closers who choose to never relist discussions so that just leaves a handful of us who see relisting as a solution to what are often low participation, evenly divided deletion discussions. So, you'll see my name, or 2 or 3 other admins, by relists often. I always thought the bar was 3 relists, not 2 relists so you'll often see my message of "Final relist" on a 3rd relist. I know I'm not the only closer who sees 3 as the maximum number of relists but if I've been wrong, I'll stop. I just want to say though that I've seen massive changes happen after a third relist, in several AFDs, there was a whole wave of new voices that came into a discussion after it has been relisted several times so there are situations where it has made a difference coming to a clearer consensus rather than just one person's opinion.

I see two larger issues at play with this frequency of relistings. These are just my opinions from regular participation in the AFD world since January 2022.

• a) There is a reluctance on the part of closers to close discussions as "No consensus". I see two reasons why this might be. First, "No consensus" makes neither those advocating Keep nor those for Delete happy. You would think that since "No consensus" keeps the status quo, this would satisfy those arguing Keep but often those wanting to Keep the article want a more decisive decision for their point of view. Secondly, I think "No consensus" decisions are challenged more frequently at Deletion review. And in my experience, an admin being called to Deletion review is similar to a regular editor getting a notice to go to ANI. It's an unpleasant experience, frequently involves personal comments, not about the closure but about the admin's competency and people who don't like you come out of the woodwork to light a bag of poop on fire on your doorstep. That's been my experience.
• b) Over the past 18 months, I've seen a growing burnout of editors at AFD. Folks who used to be regular participants rarely show up now. This is especially true after the deluge of AFDs on athletes that we had a year ago which had the same recycled arguments on both sides over and over and over again. I can understand this burnout especially for the editors arguing Keep, they often spend hours searching for sources which are later dismissed as worthless and it's decided that the article will be deleted. That is frustrating and after repeating this effort multiple times with no success, I can imagine they think, why bother? So, my perception is that the majority of editors participating in AFDs typically favor deletion and those trying to Keep articles from deletion are in the minority right now.

Any way, this burnout means that frequently we have only 2 or 3 editors participating in an AFD discussion. A common situation is to have a nominator arguing for deletion and then one or two editors arguing Keep. What this discussion needs is a half dozen more editors weighing in so I'll relist it.

So, those are just some thoughts about relisting. I don't think the answer is to ban 3rd relistings but make "No consensus" decisions less contentious to make and some how bring more editors into AFD discussions and you'd see fewer relistings. I put out a message on the Village Post asking for more AFD participants, we need both more closers and more participants, we'll see over coming weeks if it has any effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert J McCann deletion

@Tarcanes and Explicit: Community input needed here. We may need to revert a deletion, and I don't know the proper procedure. I may have misunderstood in that I thought I recommended a deletion of a redirect page. Regardless of what I understood at the time, it looks like the deletion was in error. Please read Robert J McCann Article and tell me the proper procedure to correct this, if it needs to be. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no procedural errors here - Robert J. McCann was properly deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. McCann, and the redirect Robert J McCann was deleted as it pointed to a deleted article. Even if your delete !vote was mistaken, IMO there would still be a consensus to delete, as the only keep argument there misrepresents notability rules. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally disagree * Pppery *, Robert J. McCann is a plenty notable figure within the financial and golf industries. The sources are accurate and the Wikipedia notability rules regarding the subject are met. This article's deletion should be reverted. Tarcanes (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the merits of the AfD here, we're discussing whether the proper process was followed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66 and Tarcanes: This isn't the correct page for discussing a particular AFD result. This page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Deletion process. If either of you feel an error was made, the thing to do would be to follow the guidance given in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tarcanes: I believe I followed the correct procedure on this. But please feel free to use the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as mentioned in the post right above this one. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Nominator withdrawal

There have been some issues with that process lately. Namely, a nominator withdrawing is seen as a instant keep, even if there are one or two editors in favor of deletion. Has the policy changed? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:WDAFD - A nominator can withdraw an XfD that they nominated for deletion, as long as it's not an attempt to short-circuit discussion. For example, if they nominated something for deletion, and the discussion looks like it's moving in a "Keep but rename" direction, and the nominator doesn't like that, they cannot suddenly withdraw. The discussion is active - it's too late to withdraw. - jc37 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is I've seen closers ignore the "no other users support deletion" part. Sure, it is usually only 1 delete !vote, but it is still incorrect to close it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If you are seeing a pattern of that happening, bring it with diffs at WP:AN, to be addressed. - jc37 18:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not the same user. I think some people just misread the rules. Example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen University (4th nomination) QuicoleJR (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not exactly the same... technically Piotrus !voted to redirect, but there are four keep votes and otherwise no advocates for deletion. A WP:HEY-type withdrawal is perfectly acceptable there in my opinion. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Is a !vote to redirect (or merge) a !vote to delete for this purpose? I support "no" but acknowledge that the community may wish to clarify this point. I don't think it would have made any difference in this case, but there may be other examples where it might. Regardless, absent some clarification, a discussion without an extant bolded delete !vote is eligible for closure after nominator withdrawal. Jclemens (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Soft delete

Where are the limitations on soft deletion described? I know that previously-nominated or PROD'd articles can't be soft-deleted, but shouldn't this be said somewhere? It would be good to know (if it has been written about) what the limits on those limits are (e.g., is a previous discussion from 2006 still a bar on soft-deletion now in 2023? if someone nominated 1000 articles for deletion in a bundled nomination and that nomination was snow-closed, are those 1000 articles now all inoculated against being soft-deleted? etc.) Or is this an area where there is no consensus yet? FOARP (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the details of the previous discussion matters. For mass nominations, a snow-clos with consensus to keep on the merits should (imo) prevent a soft delete, but a discussion closed as a train wreck shouldn't (again imo) as long as some effort has been made to make the previous participants aware of the new discussion (the more recent the mass nomination the more important this is). Old discussions, a well-attended discussion with a strong consensus or which was clearly controversial should definitely prevent a soft delete but a poorly attended discussion with just a couple of weak comments from 10+ years ago not so much, particularly if there has been a significant change (real world or Wikipedia policy/guideline related) since the last discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If the train-wreck discussion contains any "keep" !votes from non-sock users, then the article would not be eligible for PROD, and therefore it would not be eligible for soft deletion either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"keep" votes on the merits of the page(s)* concerned, yes. Procedural-only keeps/keeps explicitly without prejudice, maybe less so. *Someone saying "keep Foo, no opinion about the rest" shouldn't have any impact on non-Foo articles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Soft deletion is only an option when there is no quorum, and the crux of WP:NOQUORUM is that the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. So the policy governing soft deletion (perhaps confusingly) is WP:PROD, which is quite clear that any objection permanently cancels the proposed deletion. Of course we should always treat these things with common sense and apply IAR where necessary, but the general principle of all the deletion policies is that deletion requires a positive consensus unless it's completely and unambiguously uncontroversial. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The part that's always confused me is the paragraph after that, which says "If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to...soft deletion." Doesn't that mean that previously PRODded articles can indeed be soft-deleted? If that's how others read it, perhaps the guideline should be clarified to reflect common practice among admins, most of whom (including me) pretty much never soft-delete if the article was previously PRODded, AfD'd, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point; I hadn't seen that before and agree. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I was actually just thinking about starting an RFC to remove that before I saw this discussion, and this discussion was tipping me towards just doing it boldly without the RFC but given there was a (somewhat lightly participated) discussion back in 2017 supporting its inclusion I'm thinking I should indeed start an RFC if I want to make the change. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it does. I think it just means soft delete is an option for an XfD with no participation apart from the nominator. I don't think soft deletion would apply if user 1 PRODs article A, user 2 removes, user 1 XfDs article A, and then there's no participation after say three relists. I don't think this ever really happens, though? SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Allowing NAC deletes at CfD

WP:NACD states Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages. Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan. emphasis mine. However, on CfD, the vast majority of "delete" closures are listed at WP:CFDW for depopulation (orphaning) by a bot. Since the categories are not ready to be deleted and need to be listed at a page before being deleted (seeing the similarities to TfD?) NAC deletes should be allowed. Not even to mention common usage. If we go to a random recent log page, say Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 12, there were 4 delete closes, all of which were NAC. I know we'll need a RfC to change the guideline, but I'm starting discussion here beforehand. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 22:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just add it BOLDly and see if you get any pushback. Non-admin delete closes at CfD have been the norm for years due to the dearth of active admins in that area, and even the admin instructions refer explicitly to the "deletion of a category manually emptied for a merge/delete result by a non-admin". Guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Transwiki section

@Red-tailed hawk: I see you restored the transwiki section citing one example. While I had missed that example as I was searching for "transwiki", not "transwikify", I note that the process listed in the section you restored was not followed, and in fact Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki has not had any entries added to it since 2009. We already have as a guideline that "Other (non-standard) decisions, and "combinations", may sometimes be appropriate at the closer's discretion", which can cover the rare transwiki closes when they happen without the need for a separate section, so I still think the transwiki section should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the transwiki text were deleted. The idea that enwiki folks should have to go on another wiki, not know their norms or notability guidelines, and create pages over there seems a bit risky and burdensome. Also, if this is only getting used once a year, that is another sign that transwiki-ing could potentially be sunset to make the deletion process less complicated. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the reason for its rarity is that people don't understand the other wikis well, but I don't think the solution here is to deprecate the process wholesale. Valuable content that belongs on a sister project would (in general) be better off moved to a sister project rather than deleted outright and, even if it is a rare case, I don't see it being rare as a reason to delete all references to that possibility. Perhaps the section can be rephrased (or incorporated explicitly into the non-standard decisions area), but I don't think outright removal of it is warranted here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see my edits as deprecat[ing] the process wholesale. I see them as reflecting that the process has already been de-facto deprecated ages ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: would it work to add "or transwiki" to the sentence listing examples of nonstandard closures and delete the separate section containing instructions that nobody has wollowed? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Should anyone be allowed to relist something anytime?

I just learned today that anyone, not just administrators, can decide to relist something. This includes those who vote delete then decide to relist it so it isn't closed as "no consensus", they wanting time to hopefully get more to show up and agree with them. It seems like anyone can just drag things out if they aren't going to get the results they want. There should be stricter rules for this. How about a rule that if you vote in the AFD you can not relist it? Or if an administrator goes in to close an AFD, and they determine not enough people participated, they can relist it. No reason to let anyone else do that. Dream Focus 01:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith isn't necessary to see why someone who's involved shouldn't relist. If we're going to allow for non-admin closures, I see no reason to prohibit non-admin relistings, but it should certainly be someone who's uninvolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I‘ve considered relisting to have the same criteria as closing a discussion (WP:NACD). Maybe that could be clarified there? „These restrictions also apply to relisting discussions.“ Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There should be clear rules.

1. To relist, you must be qualified and competent to close. This means you must be WP:UNINVOLVED, among other things.

2. Don’t do comment-free relisting. It is pointless to disruptive. Relisting doesn’t generate more attention, but instead hides the discussion by shuffling it. Old discussions get more attention by being in the backlog. A need fr relisting is when the discussion needs refocusing, or if something new has been introduced that justifies calling back the early !voters to reconsider and giving them seven days minimum to do so.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I think your second point significantly contradicts current practices. The vast majority of relists are without comment, the problem is that there‘s not enough AfD participants. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 13:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Current practice has become stupid, with willy nilly pointless relisting all over the place. It’s a problem. It makes participating more difficult when the XfD list is being shuffled pointlessly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest as an alternative for when an AfD discussion has lasted 7 days without a clear result? It sounds a little like you‘re arguing against relisting in general, am I interpreting that correctly? Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I see what SmokeyJoe is saying and agree with it. Relisting with comments is much better, both for the participants and the next admin who touches it (close, next relist, etc.) to see where things were going as of last relist. Relisting is often used badly... but with comments, it's less bad. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, closes too often have no explanation. It's a culture across the board, like useful edit summaries. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, it may be useful to require some kind of comment for relists and non-obvious closes. That also doesnt seem like an undue burden. What do you think? Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 07:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think every close or relist needs a comment, but there is never any harm in adding a comment where one isn't needed so I support encouraging them to be added. As for who can relist, there are occasions when INVOLVED relists are fine - for example at RfD when similar redirects are added to the discussion after several days it's not uncommon for the discussion to be relisted at that point and sometimes by someone who is involved, but except where something has unambiguously significantly changed about the facts of the discussion (not just new arguments) then relisting should generally be left to someone uninvolved. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

At RfD when the discussion is not going the way I like, may I added some similar redirects that better make my point, and relist? SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out, I don't think we should assume bad faith and look for ways a system could be exploited. If nothing else, it's WP:BEANS. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You should never been adding pages to a deletion discussion "to better make your point" (in at least some cases that would disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). The only reasons I can think of to be adding more redirects to your own nomination is that you've just discovered they exist or comments in the discussion from others make them relevant in a way your original nomination didn't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Where a discussion has lasted 7 days without a clear result, good options can include:

1. add a !vote

2. relist with a comment on what the result is looking like being and why it is not clear.

3. leave it alone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

So you'd support a proposal to make comments mandatory in relists? Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

How about we go for "expected to when appropriate" before jumping straight to "mandatory"? Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That‘s what I would prefer as well, I‘m trying to figure out what other people in the discussion think :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I definitely oppose requiring (or even encouraging) comments when relisting for the most obvious reason: there are an insufficient number of !votes. If there are already a decent number of !votes, then yes a relisting comment should be provided. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If there are insufficient !votes, why relist? Do you think relisting attracts new attention? I think it does the opposite, relisting hides the discussion from the backlog lists. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

TBH I'd rather people occasionally left things in WP:OAFD a little longer before relisting at least some of the time, though I'm not sure how to encourage that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Can't a discussion technically be closed at any point in time after relisting? Relisting is a purely administrative thing, it should never be controversial. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That‘s right, it doesn’t do much except move the entry to a different log. I do think that it would be good to encourage relisters to provide feedback if the relist isn‘t obvious. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 06:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The allowed closing anytime, including immediately, after a relist is a partial acknowledgment that many relists were pointless.

  Relisting is not purely administrative, it is disruptive. At AfD and MfD t shuffles the list order, which makes the discussion harder to find if you saw it and were still thinking about how to contribute. At TfD, RfD and CfD it’s even worse, as relisting means the discussion gets copy-pasted to another page, breaking watchlist of the discussion. The discussions are then biased to the XfD regulars, who regularly browse them all, at the expense of non-regulars. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Technically, yes. But I think "polite society" would hold that an admin or closer would wait the full 7 days from the point of a relist before they choose to make their closure. Whether or not that's actually true in practice, I'm not certain. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don‘t think that‘s necessarily the case. It‘s not uncommon for a relisted discussion to be closed „early“, particularly if concerns raised in the relist are addressed. For example if the relisting admin asks if there is consensus for a proposed redirect target that most delete !voters haven‘t seen yet. Early closing of relisted discussions is not uncommon and perfectly appropriate if a consensus has developed since the relist. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure where to put this remark, but I personally would also be OK with with "suggesting" that a comment be provided with a relist. It'd probably take a while for people to start doing so; I don't know if many people who currently relist would turn to WP:RELIST for a refresher on how the procedure should go. Nevertheless, I think it's a good practice and including an explanatory comment would help on the WP:AGF side of things by reducing the possibility that someone would call out a good-faith relist as being lazy, biased or agenda-driven. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  If we choose to make the need for comments with relisting stronger than currently (whether that's encouraged, mandatory or something else) then I suggest we add a note to the next admin newsletter to help get the word out. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Thanks to everyone who participated so far!

To move the discussion forward, here‘s a concrete proposal:

Editors who decide to relist a discussion are encouraged to provide a comment regarding the discussion, particularly with regards to any issues that need to be resolved before closing. This does not apply in cases where a relist would be considered obvious, such as discussions with very low participation that are ineligible for soft deletion.

I think this is a fair expectation for editors who relist discussions (not a particularly large or unreasonable added workload), and it can be very helpful for participants who are unsure what the discussion needs. Even a brief comment like „What do others think about EditorXYZ‘s source assessment table?“ or „Is there support for the proposed redirect?“ can be great. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. Basically what is desired is a brief explanation of why it was relisted rather than closed, and/or what is standing in the way of a closure. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Support This will also encourage relisters to answer that question in their own minds, which they may not be doing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Support Editors who decide to relist a discussion are encouraged to provide a comment regarding the discussion, particularly with regards to any issues that need to be resolved before closing.. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This does not apply in cases where a relist would be considered obvious, such as discussions with very low participation that are ineligible for soft deletion as such relists, when comment-free, are completely pointless, slightly disruptive, and not to be encouraged. Also oppose condescending passive language such as “would be considered” obvious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Relists in cases of low participation are basically just a technical matter, what‘s the damage? I don‘t think an AfD being lost in the old logs increases its visibility (compared to relisting and entering it into the more recent log). The idea of something being considered „obvious“ is not new; see e.g. WP:INVOLVED. It‘s not condescending to exempt cases where wide agreement can be expected from additional scrutiny or requirements. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

“Just a technical matter”? You mean busywork? That’s a reason to stop it.

Have you ever seen a discussion “lost” in AfD logs? Only when not listed correctly. Unless there’s a technical problem, old discussions get multiple special advertisements, automatically. Often, you see something relisted multiple times with no new comments, showing that relisting (comment free due to low participation) does not serve this stated purpose.

If you want to write “would be considered” into policy, it needs more information. By whom. What things are considered? “Obvious” is a bad word for any instruction. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think there's a problem which needs to be solved here, considering after something is relisted, a discussion can be closed at any time, so an incorrectly relisted discussion is not a problem. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Relists already come with a explanation: "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". Certainly additional comments can sometimes be helpful to emphasize outstanding points of disagreement in long or complex discussions (and most closers, including me, already provide them in those cases), but most of the time the reason for relisting is clear and further comments would simply restate the obvious (e.g. "I don't see a consensus yet on whether she's notable; giving it another week"). If a closer's relisting practices are subpar, the best thing to do is to discuss it with them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Without a meaningful comment, I’ve noticed that "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" is false rhetoric. It doesn’t work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates

Jc37 has made a large number of changes to the policy page (and I've made one small one) in the past ~12 hours that are a mix of copyedits, reorganisation of content and small updates reflecting current practice. While I do not have any issue with any of the changes, as this is a key policy I encourage others to do their own review. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: @Thryduulf: Where did Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days. come from? I can't find that text on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. No other clear issues but need to run changes side by side instead of using diffs at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiblame shows that was added by @Pppery with this edit in March 2022. The edit summary cites Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 13#Should Wikipedia:Copyright problems be listed here?, the titular question remained unresponded to for almost three months. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The point of that edit was to reflect reality - pages are in fact being deleted through that process, with the most recent example being Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 July 29. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not because of any seven day rule, though, is it? Anything at CP could be deleted at any time. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Older than 7 days, there is a de-facto 7 day rule. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the paragraph to be more precise. Articles are only deleted after 7 days if they qualify for presumptive deletion. I was confused since merely being listed there doesn't qualify an article for deletion... SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes

I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at WP:NOQUORUM about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD, meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include WP:BLPPROD?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.

This was discussed at the previous 2016-2017 RFC that formalized Soft Deletion as a process, and support for allowing at admin discretion was unanimous but had very little participation and no formal close. The original implementation of soft deletion from 2011 until it was removed in 2013 allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.

I'd like to try to come up with an actual consensus on the issue, so we can give clear advice to closers. With that in mind, I'm presenting a few options below for discussion and feedback. Please note that this is not an RFC, just an attempt to hash out options and wordings that could be presented in an RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue @King of Hearts, Unscintillating, Laurdecl, JFG, and MelanieN plus the thread on my talk page that led me to start this discussion @UtherSRG, Jay, and Liz: The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is well thought out and very neutrally worded. Excellent work by those involved. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Revert to 2011 process

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:

• relisting the discussion.
• closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
• closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
• soft deleting the article.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD, but is a function of WP:AFD and not inhibited by previous PRODs. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 1)

Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 2: Disallow soft deletion for previous PROD

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:

• relisting the discussion.
• closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
• closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
• soft deleting the article.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 2)

Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3: Allow at admin discretion (clarify wording)

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion in the past, soft deletion is typically the default closure. If there has been a previous proposed deletion, WP:BLPPROD, or declined speedy deletion request, soft deletion is still a valid option at the discretion of the closing administrator. If there was a previous discussion at Articles for deletion that generated substantive participation and resulted in a closure that wasn't speedy or procedural, soft deletion should not be used.

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 3)

This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

General discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes)

My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true:

• The following people/places were notified of the discussion at least 7 days ago:
  • The editors placing, endorsing (if applicable) and removing the PROD template
  • Editors (excluding bots, blocked editors and IP editors) who have commented on the talk page in the last ~year
  • Any relevant WikiProjects (presence on an article alerts list counts as a notification for this purpose)
• The nomination has been added to relevant deletion sorting list(s).
• The nomination was made for reasons that are unambiguously different and/or additional to the reasons for the PROD.
• The previously declined PROD has been noted on the discussion page for at least 5 days

Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that, it can likely be simplified), and I'm not sure where it fits in your options, but the intent is to avoid double jeopardy and give a reasonable chance for the people most likely to have an interest in the article to be aware it has been nominated for deletion. The final bullet is so it is alert casual viewers of the discussion that there is something that probably needs looking at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's great input, thanks. To be clear, anyone here can propose new options. I'm just trying to finesse some wordings for a future RFC, and I can definitely see an interest in preventing abuse of process though this suggestion is fairly complex. As far as preventing "double jeapordy", one idea I mulled over but didn't write up here was adding a statute of limitations for how old a PROD could be to block soft deletion. The article that prompted this, Miss American Beauty 1963, was PRODded and deprodded within an hour of its creation in 2009, and has been entirely unsourced for the entire 15-year article history. I think allowing soft deletion on articles that haven't been PRODded within the last 1, 2, or 5 years might be a different path that could filter out articles that are likely to have anyone interested in them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• I am in favor of Option 2. I have always had a close interpretation of soft deletion, i.e. we should literally pretend that the nominator, instead of starting an AfD, had instead tagged the article for PROD. In response to Thryduulf's third point, there is no exception that allows an article to be PROOed a second time just because the reason is different from the first. Personally I think it is easier to just keep the procedure as simple as possible. And since soft deletion allows anyone to request a REFUND for any reason whatsoever, the PROD removal can be assumed to be a standing REFUND request regardless of the reason. Now if we want to expand soft deletion based on some criteria as The Wordsmith states, I'm not inherently opposed as long as we do the same for PROD - basically, for me, the rules should be exactly the same for the two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts That's a good point and removing that bullet does simplify matters (especially as it's the most subjective one). I think option 2 is closest to what I think should be happening in the absence of consensus to expand - and I'm not opposed to tying that in to expansion of PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)