Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

relisting commenting proposal

I read through the straw poll on relisting limits and it's pretty clear that admins wish to have the ability to relist an AFD as many times as necessary. The current process suggests that admins leave an explanation in an AFD when re-listing it for the 3rd or more time. This is a bit too late in my opinion.

The current process has admins placing a simple re-listing template, often scripted, which gives the AFD participants very little information. At that point, participants know only that the process has been extended and that an admin has judged that consensus has not been reached. This isn't very helpful and gives no idea of what to do next, especially for new editors who may already view the process as little more than a delay to an eventual deletion. I'd like to propose that the process be updated to suggest if not require that each time an AFD is re-listed, a comment be added by the admin with a brief description of why it was re-listed. The brief comment should make it clear why the admin did not see consensus in the discussion, what was missing from the discussion, and should have enough information that participants will know what to do next. If there are too few participants, say so. If arguments are not based around policy or guidelines, say so. If participants are turning the discussion into a case study of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, point it out. If topic is one that is difficult to find sources for and you'd like to allow more time for participants to help with that, say it. Relisting an AFD isn't magically going to produce an actionable discussion. Multiple re-listings can be disruptive as it places scarlet letter on the article, discouraging participation, especially for new editors who might say to themselves "whats the point, its just going to get deleted" before contributing to either the article or the AFD. AFDs I've participated in where admins have taken the few minutes to provide this kind of feedback when re-listing go much more smoothly and close faster with less controversial results.--RadioFan (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that there needs to be a little more dialog when relisting a discussion regardless of the number of times relisted, even if it's just to say "insufficient participation" or something like that. I believe that a field for a reason should be added to the {{relist}} template, and that would solve that part of the problem. Thus instead of putting in {{subst:relist}} to relist a discussion, one would put in {{subst:relist|blah blah blah}}. Then if no reason is put in, the default message should be large and in red (i.e. deliberately obnoxious) saying that a reason has not been given, and to please edit to add one (similar to when a {{reflist}} tag is forgotten).

Now as far as relisting as many times as necessary, three weeks is already a long time for an article to be in limbo. If a consensus is not achieved in three weeks, then it seems, at least to me, that it's time to take the subject out of the deletion discussion process for a while. History has shown us that the truly irreparably bad articles are almost always eventually deleted, and the salvageable ones are eventually salvaged and made to shine, though it may take multiple AFD discussions with a few no-consensus results over a period of time for it to finally break "delete" or "keep". So unlike some of these people (and not forgetting that polling is not a substitute for discussion), I believe that rather than remove a two-relist limit, we should set a hard limit on relists that requires invocation of WP:IAR (and by its nature, a very good explanation) to go past. Whether such a hard relist limit is two or if it's one, three, etc. we can work out by discussion.

But that's my two cents on the matter... SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems completely unnecessary. The default reason for relisting is "not enough participation yet to reach a clear consensus or indicate a clear lack of consensus". There is no need to force people to add the same reason over and over again. The relister should only provide a reason when it is different somehow. As for a limit to the number of relists, that seems to be a solution for a non-existant problem. How many articles are relisted three times or more? Very, very few. What is the harm done by this? None, in my opinion. If people are annoyed that an article has tbe AfD box for three weeks, then participate in the AfD, or (if you want it kept) improve the article to convince other people that it is worth keeping. Fram (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, there is no comment field within the relist template, and one should be there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious whats going on when an AFD with one or fewer editors other than the nominator have participated is relisted. The tag does pretty much say it all as you point out. However. That default reason is all the information provided on most AFDs which are relisted, including those with several editors weighing in. This leaves participants (and lurkers) wondering what the admin was thinking, what they saw as missing in the discussion. Any admin who has really read through the comments and concludes that a consensus based on guidelines and policy still has yet to be reached, can certainly take the extra minute or two to provide a brief note on what they see lacking in the discussion when going through the process of relisting. If they cant put into words why an AFD with sufficient participation will benefit from relisting, the discussion should probably be closed as no concensus. I think that better guidance when relisting will, at least in part, solve the problem of multiple relisting making a hard limit unnecessary.--RadioFan (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in any case, the relist template now accepts an optional comment parameter, as in {{subst:relist|blah blah blah}}. The template looks the same without the comment, and shows a comment line with the comment. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I found it helpful

I found this page helpful. I am an author doing a proposal and needed to fill out the market comparison section for my agent. I did not realize there were two Elizabeth George authors. Being able to trace each through wikipedia was a benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.201.60 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Wikipedia:Deletion discussions into Wikipedia:Deletion process. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Deletion discussions seems to have been made redundant by several templates (it appears to be more like a jump-off point than an actual essay, guideline, or policy). Whatever information it has fits here better, and the various references to Wikipedia:Deletion discussions in other articles are probably better pointing here anyways. It seems there is no point in that article as of now. --Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support just as long as Wikipedia:Deletion process is the surviving title. Wikipedia:Deletion discussions seems a good candidate to merge into this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, Wikipedia:Deletion process would remain untouched except for whatever we chose to merge - which are basically links to relevant stuff, some of which is already linked from here.--Cerejota (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be in line with strategy:Proposal:Accelerating the learning curve for new editors, as part of the likely overhaul. --Trevj (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Seems that is the subject matter. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, ensuring the WP:XFD shortcut gets redirected to the top of this section. Zangar (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support

A520 | Talk me away!/sign it! 18:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Reduntant Wikipedia pages in Wikipedia only make it harder for newbies . --Kangaroopowah 19:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Deletion process Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Users interested in this discussion should reply at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process, where it is receiving more attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Idea to cut down on repeated relists

To cut down on the chain relisting of articles with no discussion at all occurring between relists at WP:AfD, we should add a requirement to the process of relisting a discussion: the previously uninvolved closer who relists the discussion should be requiredstrongly encouraged to contribute a substantive argument to the deletion discussion they have relisted. At the very least, this would generate one discussion opinion per relist. Hopefully the opinions of the relisters would help establish a consensus one way or another. There are enough Admins and Editors making relists that loosing closers to involvement after their relists will not cause a shortage of uninvolved closers for subsequent relists. Monty₈₄₅ 05:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say nix on that. Either you're going to have people less willing to take any action, or get relists and poor !votes. I'd rather have someone not !vote at all if they don't have any opinion on the matter, but are judging that there is not yet a complete consensus on a discussion. Basically, I'd rather have no !votes at all than have a forced !vote to get the proper consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say this is a valid suggestion at or after the second relist. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NPASR#No_quorum.  Alternatives to relisting include

• closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and
• closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. Soft deletion is the closing of an AfD with minimal participation as "delete" with the understanding that anyone who wishes to contest the deletion at a later date may request restoration for any reason at WP:REFUND. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD.

I have also seen cases in which relisters should close AfD nominations with WP:SK#1.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Non Admin Closes

I have started an RFC on the standard of review for non admin closes. It is located at Village Pump (policy) and may be of interest to readers of this page. Monty₈₄₅ 02:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Date format in instructions

Would someone please fix the problem with the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions concerning date format of the {{tl:tfdend}} template. The instructions don't work if a leading zero is in the day field, even though the instructions call for dd format. I have twice tried to fix this by specifying a different format that does always work but keep getting reverted. Discussion with reverter here. SpinningSpark 16:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn nomination

WP:WITHDRAWN

This part of the policy states currently that the nominator can withdraw his nomination at any time. To me, if a weight of delete votes have been passed prior to the nominators desire to withdraw those votes have a weight of their own and the nominator should not be able to overrule or ignore them. I would like to add some kind of comment to the section to assert this. Thoughts? Youreallycan (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The rest of that section already states this. You may always withdraw, but this will only lead to a speedy keep close if no (good faith) delete (or merge, ...) opinions have been given yet. Fram (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So, if the AFD is not closed and continues along with many more votes, at the end of the seven days, the nominators dated comment is not a reason to close the AFD as Keep? Youreallycan (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it just counts as a "keep" opinion, no more, no less. Fram (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I have replied on your talkpage in regard to the AFD that my raising this point here relates to - Youreallycan (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

NAC as speedy delete

I'd like to see the following text, or something akin to it, be added to the non-admin closure section:

If a page is speedy deleted, but the deleting administrator does not close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion.

In such a case, the close is simply a housekeeping matter, since the decision has already been made by someone else. It's simple enough that this exact thing is done by bots in some situations — as you can see in the Maryland seal image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 6, AnomieBOT works at FFD to close discussions for images that have been deleted under F8. I'm proposing this because it's at variance with the current wording: I see nothing wrong with the nominator closing a discussion in this situation, since the nominator isn't exercising any judgement in the matter. As well, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, which is based on this page, says "Non-admins may not use a 'speedy delete' close"; I'd like it to be obvious that "speedy delete" closures in this specific type of situation are permitted. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already there, under "Appropriate Closures":

• "Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed". (emphasis added)

I don't think having it done by bot would be a bad idea though, it happens frequently enough and would save the speedying admin (or someone else) a bit of work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge completed

All information from the Wikipedia:Deletion discussions article has been merged to this article (Wikipedia:Deletion process), per consensus at the Merge discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing special in a mop

I wish to garner consensus around modifying a point in the section on Non-administrators closing discussions to reflect the fact that administration is a technical but not a process privilege.

* Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.

would be modified to read

* Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to a highly experienced and uninvolved editor.

as in this diff. The rationale for doing so is quite simple: the basis for differentiating administrators from non-administrators can be justified on technical grounds or work-flow bases, such as "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome." However, differentiating administrators from non-administrative editors on a fallacious ground that administrators have any different capacity to read consensus turns a technical privilege into a social privilege. Changing the wording to reflect the underlying desire of this section, to ensure that controversial closes are closed only by editors with considerable experience at reading consensus reflects the actual purpose of this section. I would be very happy to come to any consensus wording that matches the rationale, as I am not attached to the particular form of expression. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks. Having been through a couple of close calls, and having watched several RfAs, I don't see adminship as just a technical issue; admins are selected by the community after close scrutiny of their actions on wiki. An editor with many thousands of edits (thus experienced) would still not necessarily pass the admin bar. In this case, I agree with the current consensus - admins (i.e. those who have passed a community test of neutrality and adherence to core principles of the wiki) should close difficult discussions. Otherwise, what is the metric to decide whether someone has 'considerable experience at reading consensus'? there are editors here who have thousands of edits, but who I would not want to become admins. --KarlB (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you might be aware from recent Signpost articles, the administrator selection process has been anything from open slather to a trial by dunking in the past years. De-sysopping for poor behaviour is a common occurrence, and I don't see any indication of the suggestion that administrators are necessarily experienced editors that you assert. I agree that there's a difficulty in evaluating what editor experience is, though I'm relatively happy with the "I know it when I see it" criteria, and moreso the "I know it when I don't see it." Key triggers are relatively obvious in closures, such as reverting to a "failed" close. (Incidentally, the edit notice on XfDs could be substantially more prominent, and point towards non-admin closure policies; after quite a lot of reading for consensus and assimilation of argument it was disappointing to discover my closures were inappropriate. WP:AN maintains a list of discussions requiring closure, and that's where I noted the discussions requiring closure I attempted to close today.) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins are unable to complete certain outcomes (examples listed at WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures). A non-admin considering such a close, e.g. keep versus delete, might be biased away from the prohibited delete outcome toward keep or no consensus. I prefer the "regulars" over other closers, admin or non-admin. I think that listings at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure attract less experienced closers (the experienced ones having disqualified themselves through participation) and tend to have aberrant outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the change in wording. The formal definition of an admin on Wikipedia is a "user with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance"; this is purely technical - all that we ask is that the user be trusted by the community. Many users are trusted by the community, and most don't become admins, not least perhaps because they may not wish to access additional technical features - that doesn't mean that we don't trust them to close discussions. The proposed guidance would still note that "non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome", which makes sense, but would recognise that where experienced and uninvolved editors are technically able to act on an outcome, they should be able to close discussions. This feels in keeping with our core values. 06:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable with this proposed change. We all agree that the difficult closes should be made by a highly experienced editor and I will conceded that experience is not necessarily correlated with admin status. Nevertheless, admin status is the least-bad proxy we have for demonstrated experience and judgement. Adminship may be a technical permission but the social vetting that accompanies it focuses on judgement. Adminship is also a proxy for time-on-project which is, again, our least-bad proxy for time-to-have-found-and-understood-Wikipedia-policies.
  The problem with the more ambiguous wording proposed above is that it will escalate difficult debates from "I disagree with the close" to "I dispute the closer's qualifications and experience". That latter argument is a distraction and one that we do not need to subject ourselves to. The adminship proxy is imperfect but it's a bright-line distinction. And there is no rush. If a debate sits open for a week or three extra waiting for an admin to find and clean it up. the project is not harmed. This is not an issue that desperately needs fixing. Rossami (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• The project is fundamentally harmed by proxying a social distinction off a technical one. I believe that I have addressed the poor quality of this proxy in the post above at 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC) and would like your response regarding the low quality nature of the proxy: that administration does not indicate suitability to conduct closures, as it is not indicative of experience. Moreover, the basis of your argument that administrator bits proxy for community experience turns a technical privilege into a social privilege. I agree that there is a problem in any evaluation of closing qualifications, but a suitably experienced editor could levy such accusations and make them stick against a poorly experienced administrator executing a close currently. Closes to "delete" are currently unavailable to non-administrators regardless of this line's wording, as non-administrators lack the technical tools to complete such closures. One solution out of this would be to have a community selected body of deletion closure clerks, where this evaluation is meant (for administrators and non-administrators) to determine if their experience meets community expectation in relation to closures—such a proposal may be too radical a measure and is suggested as a point of discussion to unpack the core rationale of this discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - It has been my experience that some administarators seem to find a bit of glee in reversing non-admin closures. In the past I have been:

1.) Threatened by admins who were actually the nominator of discussions I've closed.

2.) Had my closures reversed by others due to conflicts that had nothing to do with AfDs

3.) Had Snow keeps (8-0 !votes) reversed, simply because I wasn't an admin.

4.) Had 20 day old hopelessly deadlocked, 5 times relisted, "No Consensus" closures reverted because I "was closing a controversial discussion"

I understand that Admins have to deal with a lot of new users out there, but I am not one of them. I have account creation rights, have undergone the identification process, and have access to the ACC tool, plus most of the other available responsibilities. I think I know when to close a discussion. The phrasology implies that an admin somehow is the only entity that knows how to close a discussion, and that should be changed. The mop is just a set of tools. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the principal that when it comes to a deletion close, a non-admin should receive the same level of deference as an admin with the same level of experience. Yet I'm hesitant to support changing the language, as I don't want to encourage editors who lack the experience to properly close tough AfDs to get in over their heads, and even with such strong language, it still happens. Ideally, we would leave current language, experienced editors would know that the current language does actually allow them to close controversial discussions, they would learn that through observation of the actions of other editors, and admins would respect such closes, but I guess that may not be a realistic approach. Monty₈₄₅ 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Relisting ad nauseum

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battery Energy Drink. I mean, what's the point? __meco (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This one which I just came across is worse: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryon Coterie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryon Coterie (2nd nomination). Relisted twice, closed as 'no consensus' with no comments. Nommed again, relisted twice, closed as 'no consensus' again with a single comment. Renommed again and now finally heading for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryon Coterie (3rd nomination) Given that the subject is transparently not-notable, I don't know why no admin had the guts to close that one as 'delete' long ago. Robofish (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

XfD

What does XfD mean? Hyacinth (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The X in XfD refers to the value (A, T, F, C, R, M) representing all deletion discussions, for example, Articles, Templates, Files, Categories, Redirects and Miscellany. In other words, XfD is shorthand used to refer to all types of deletion discussions (the general deletion process itself) , not just one specific type of deletion process. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What does VfD mean? Hyacinth (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

VfD is the older, slightly odd term that was once used for XfD. It stands for "Votes for deletion". There's at least one discussion in the archives that attributes this to a software issue, but I've never heard that before. Wikipedia is notoriously lousy for documenting its own history (WMF should hire an archivist for this purpose alone which would help guide future decisions) but you can see some discussion of the problem [1]. It was finally moved to AfD in September 2005[2] after the results of this requested move discussion. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Relisting discussions - remove from the log for its original date except for CFD

For as long as I can remember, I have always wondered why discussions at WP:FFD and WP:PUF aren't treated the same as discussions at WP:CFD. Under WP:RELIST, it suggests that "When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion)...", and I have always wondered, why are FFD and PUF not exemptions? The discussions at these venues are grouped by date just like CFD is, and it would only seem logical that they follow the same relisting procedure, but they doesn't. This probably applies to WP:TFD as well. I'm curious as to why this inconsistency exists. — ξ^xplicit 00:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's so funny, I came here to ask the exact same question. And Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions makes no mention of relisting, the way other xfd instructions do. I actually went on IRC and no one on there could tell me either what I'm supposed to do differently. Anyway, hope I haven't screwed up anything TOO badly, thanks for asking this! delldot ∇. 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, the more I think about it, it seems that only WP:AFD and WP:MFD are subject to this procedure (unless I'm forgetting other venues), mainly because nominations get their own separate subpage, while nominations at venues like WP:FFD, WP:PUF, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, and the like, are all listed together by date. If no one has exceptions to it, the guideline should be updated to reflect this. — ξ^xplicit 03:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean, we should only ever relist AFD and MFD discussions? What should you do if you have a CFD or something that you think needs to get relisted? delldot ∇. 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my wording was crap. What I meant to say was that AFD and MFD are only venues where a nomination should be removed from its original log date because those are sorted by subpages (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr K Murugesan, which is transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 7). The nominations in the other venues are only separated by subsections, and they don't get their own subpages (like Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 7; there would never be a Wikipedia:Files for deletion/File:Rotating Ntitan (large).gif page, for example). In the latter cases, the original nomination should not be removed from the original log. This is why CFD is exempt from the "removed from the log for its original date", and venues like FFD and PUF should logically be exempt as well. — ξ^xplicit 23:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. But you wouldn't want to just leave it open there, do you just put the closing templates around the whole thing and write within that you're relisting? I've just been removing the whole thing and just leaving the subheader with a link to the relisted discussion. But if there's a better way to do it, I'll totally do it that way. Thanks for the help. delldot ∇. 03:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When relisting at CFD, we cut/paste the whole discussion to the new date. And copy the header so it is the same in both places, and leave a hatnote linking to where it was relisted to. And place the relist template under the discussion at the new page. It's pretty simple. I don't see why the other log page xfd processes shouldn't be doing the same. - jc37 09:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. I think I will add these steps to the admin instructions page for cfd if no one objects. I think other xfds (at least tfd) do the same thing, at least if it's the same as the last time I checked several years ago. delldot ∇. 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

NAC

I've seen a number of issues raised on WP:AN recently that call into question the current vague wording of WP:NACD. I have also personally run into a number of NACs that I felt were questionable, but where the person making the close relied upon the "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator" part—that is, accepting to some degree that the decision is borderline, but arguing that the "are better" specifically does not prohibit close calls. In my opinion, one of the two major sticking points of many RFA's revolves around whether the person can be trusted to make decisions on AfDs, especially close calls. And yet, NACD seems to allow anyone to make those close calls, so long as the close is either relist or keep. This seems inconsistent to me. I think the line should be changed to "Close calls and controversial decisions must be left to an administrator."

Furthermore, the line, "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided" is actually wrong. If an admin were to close a page after voting or having an interest in the page, he or she would have violated WP:INVOLVED, which can be grounds for de-sysopping. That is, by saying "should be avoided" rather than "is prohibited", this actually gives more leeway to NAC closers than to admins; plus, of course, it's leeway they shouldn't have, since no one should make a final decision on an AfD that they have an interest in. Thus, I propose that we change those words to "is prohibited".

Of the two changes, I think the second one is necessary (we can't allow NACs to do something that admin are expressly forbidden from doing), and the first is desirable. I'm not sure if we should just be content to have a consensus here, or if it would be important to get wider input via an RfC or notification at the Village Pump. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot one other point: Someone pointed out in a recent WP:AN discussion that WP:NAC, which as essay providing advice to those doing NACs is actually stricter than this policy; revising as I've suggested brings the two closer. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support both changes. Based on how the recent discussions at AN have gone, I think the changes you suggest reflect actual consensus for how things should be done. Process for the sake of process helps no one; I would suggest just leaving this discussion open for a week before making the changes rather than bothering with a RfC. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• To address the second point first, I agree, and I think that change should be uncontroversial enough to not require broader community involvement. Support the involved change. As for the change to the borderline rule, that I think requires at least an RFC, particularly as there are RFCs open at Wikipedia_talk:Non-admin_closure#Non-admin_closures_should_be_discontinued and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Review that deal with NAC issues. I would Oppose that change. While its true that NACs of borderline cases often do end up creating unnecessary drama, I continue to believe in the spirit of WP:NOBIGDEAL and to oppose a special carve out where admins are super editors. What an editor should and should not NAC really should be something for the judgement of that editor, who should have sufficient experience to make that judgement. We would be more effective to focus on which non-admins are making the closes, and try to encourage the less experienced ones to avoid controversial ones. Monty₈₄₅ 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose first change, Support Second Change - There should be no "close calls". That entire section (and the wording of it) is part of the problem. If I close a 30 day old 50/50 !vote that has been relisted five times as "No Consensus", that is the proper thing to do. It's not a "close call", it's not "closing a controversial discussion", it's closing a discussion that is not going to be resolved and is wasting everyone's time. One does not have to be an administrator to be able to see this and understand it. One needs only have some measure of experience on Wikipedia. I would be in favor of having ALL discussions closable only by admins before this option, because at least then there would be a clear and concise line about exactly who can do what. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment NACs can already be reversed, reopened, or reclosed with a different result by any admin, so I fail to see the problem here. If no admin is willing to overturn the close, I would tend to say it was probably correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There are so many non-admins reverting closed discussions, that it was muddying the issue a bit, I have addressed that below. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• How about saying specifically when you can and can not have a non-administrator close? For instance you don't want someone trying to close a discussion after only two days have passed, and the discussion is still active. And if there are four keeps and three deletes, then why not wait and let an administrator handle it, instead of just stating "Keep"? Dream Focus 02:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Because a non-admin of sufficient experience will have better judgement than an administrator with little experience. A snow-keep after 2 days is perfectly valid. I closed one as a NAC, two other editors illegaly reverted the closure (TWICE!). When it was finally closed by an admin, it was closed exactly the way I closed it. Suprise suprise. A *LOT* of wasted time caused by two people who do not like to follow the rules. Rules are made for a reason. Those rules should not be broken unless there is an extremely good reason! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Relist Section Breaks

On AfDs where the consensus is mixed (meaning that there's a significant discussion up to that point) and the AfD gets relisted for a broader consensus, I'd like to suggest that a 4th level heading titled "Relist break" be included so that the discussion can be broken up into reasonable edit portions. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Non Admin Reverts

I see this happening more and more. Non-admins are simply reverting closed discussions without review. This is technically against policy. I get this occasionally from non-admins who have issues with me from other parts of Wikipedia, but I see it happening to others as well. The rule is pretty clear that only admins should be able to simply revert a closed discussion, but perhaps it is not quite clear enough.

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 obvious as you thought.

I have been bold and underlined the word "Administrator" in the hopes of making the rule more clear. If anyone has any concern, please feel free to revert it, and we can begin a discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, as I do not see evidence for a consensus that this word should be emphasized over any other portion of the section. Please also note that rule is not a wholly accurate description of a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Very agreeable. We should have the discussion then. I will move/copy this discussion.  Done--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I say if the close was done inappropriately, it should be reverted by anyone. We should change the wording to state that. You can't have someone come by an active discussion that's only been open for two days, and just decide to close it. [3] I've seen AFDs where the first few people that showed up to comment went one way, then others showed up and said something else later on. It should continue for the full 7 days unless the nominator withdrawals and everyone is in agreement. And Sue Rangell, I don't recall seeing you in other parts of Wikipedia, so I hope you aren't claiming I reverted you for some personal vendetta or something. Have other people reverted your nonadministrative close elsewhere, or is just this one case you are upset about? Dream Focus 02:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if it were up to me, admins would be the only ones allowed to close. That would eliminate any confusion. I am not concerned about any particular case. I am concerned about all of the cases where non-admins have illegally reverted a closure, be it mine or anyone elses. This is not about personalities. This is about people following the rules. If the rules are not followed, there is chaos. I don't think I would be in favor of granting more power to non-admins in this matter. If anything I would want to go in the other direction, and make it so that only admins can do closes, period. This will eliminate a lot of unnecessay drama. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In a Wiki context, what do you mean by "illegally"? VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, someone who acts against policy in bad faith. Obviously the discussion here is about those editors who ignore the rules and revert closures without being an admin, not to help Wikipedia, but simply because the closer did what needed to be done, and they didn't happen to like it. This inevitably results in the discussion being re-closed, this time by an admin, who ends up closing it the original way it was closed in the first place. A major waste of everyone's time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at the close you are defending [4] shows IMO that you failed to properly close the discussion.  There is no explanation in the close of the reasoning, and there is no further information in the edit comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, the guideline should be updated to change "administrator" to "uninvolved editor". No tools are needed to revert a bad non-admin closure since no deletion could have occurred in the first place. If we are worried about preventing "mini-wheel warring" on NAC's, we could add a requirement that once a NAC has been reversed, the AfD should only be closed by an admin. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a possibility. I have not had the time to research other closures, but of mine that were closed against policy, there is a very sizable portion (about 4/5 or more) in which the culprits were in fact quite involved in the discussions, including those discussions cited above. I am still wary of giving more power to non-admins, but such a change might be a step in the right direction. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Those involved will most likely be the only ones that notice. We need specifically to say when non-administrator closes can be done, and that anyone who violates this rule by doing an inappropriate one can be reverted by anyone at all. Dream Focus 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It's enough to have the non-admin closes monitored by administrators. Non-admins breaking policy is what caused these problems in the first place. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the word "Administrator" be underlined?

Should the word "administrator" be underlined? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Transversed from "non-admin reverts" so as not to be confused with the more general discussion above)

I see this happening more and more. Non-admins are simply reverting closed discussions without review. This is against policy. I get this occasionally from non-admins who have issues with me from other parts of Wikipedia, but I see it happening to others as well. The rule is pretty clear that only admins should be able to simply revert a closed discussion, but perhaps it is not quite clear enough.

"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 obvious as you thought."

I have been bold and underlined the word "Administrator" in the hopes of making the rule more clear. If anyone has any concern, please feel free to revert it, and we can begin a discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, as I do not see evidence for a consensus that this word should be emphasized over any other portion of the section. Please also note that rule is not a wholly accurate description of a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Very agreeable. We should have the discussion then. I will move/copy this discussion.  Done--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Question - change:

"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 obvious as you thought."

to

"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 obvious as you thought."

• Support - There are a lot of editors who seem to be ignorant of the rule, in fact the problem seems to be quite commonplace. This is the tiniest of changes. It does not change any rule, but serves only to emphasise a rule that already exists and is clearly being overlooked or ignored. Underlining the word "Administrator" will help combat this problem without any negative effect whatsoever. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Against as ridiculous and also the word "administrator" shouldn't be there at all. See discussion above and below. Dream Focus 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason that this word of the guideline needs more emphasis than the surrounding ones. Unless a new, strong consensus were to form against the practice, I would support any editor who ignored the rules and reverted an obviously hasty or incompetent non-admin close regardless of any underlining in this guideline (note - not a "rule" and not a policy). VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is the problem. So called "obvious" bad closes are being reverted by inexperienced editors. The "obvious" bad closes end up being re-closed admins the same way they they were closed in the first place. So there *is* a problem. Admins are the only ones allowed to revert a close without going to deletion review, and that is the way it should be. Underlining the word "Administrator" will remind those who might forget or overlook that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - If a non-admin can close it, a non-admin should be able to open it back up again. This proposal seems to have been created for purely personal reasons in response to an incident in which an AFD was closed improperly by the non-admin in question, who threw a fit when another non-admin reverted. The solution here is not to add underlining here but to have editors who don't know what they are doing stop closing AFDs improperly in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest opposite I don't know if this can result in a change in the other direction, but I agree with the above that administrator is not needed. As NAC's should only be done non-controvsially then it makes sense that a challengable one should be revertable by any editor. AIRcorn (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewording

Suggested rewording for the section Non-administrators closing discussions.

• Issue 1: Addition of the following
• Non-administrators may not close an AFD that has not run for at least 7 days unless it qualifies for a Speedy Keep.
• Issue 2: Addition of the following
• Non-administrator may not close a discussion unless at least 90% of those participating agree on a course of action.
• Issue 3: Addition of the following:
• Anyone may revert an improper close by non-administrator.

I am in favor of all three of these things of course. Dream Focus 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. 1 & 2 are further carve outs for admins without good reason. Most NACs are fine, when there is a problem, it is almost always with the non-admin closer themselves, restricting good non-admin closers wont fix that. As for 3, in the absence of blatant error, I tend to think that non-admin closes should go to DRV like any other disputed close, and even if the error is blatant, the close should not be reverted by an involved editor. Monty₈₄₅ 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Is there any possible reason to close an AFD before the 7 days are over, other than the Speedy Keep criteria listed on the guideline page already? Dream Focus 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, WP:SNOW is not that uncommon. There are also some times IAR cases, but those are much rarer. Monty₈₄₅ 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if the first handful of people to notice and participate say one thing, that doesn't mean going the full seven days won't bring in far more people that say the opposite. What is gained by closing things early instead of waiting out the full 7 days? Dream Focus 16:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally the contributors to an article don't appreciate having the AfD tag on the top of the article, its seen as a black mark. In cases where there is overwhelming opposition to deletion, there is no point in leaving the discussion open, and the tag on the article any further. The exact threshold for SNOW is always a bit of a judgement call, 4 keeps and no deletes is probably not enough, 10 keep and no deletes probably is, especially if there has been at least some time, say a day, for editors to have registered opposes. SNOW closes are part WP:IAR, part WP:BURO. Monty₈₄₅ 16:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We need specific numbers otherwise we have problems like someone closing an AFD in just under two days time.[5] It goes to AFD at 23:12, 4 December 2012‎ and then gets closed by a non-administrator on 20:36, 6 December 2012‎. I reverted the person, they then arguing with me on my talk page, and then trying to close it again, only to have someone else then revert them. They are now arguing here and in a deletion review for another closure they did. So some set rules would prevent these sorts of long debates from regularly happening and just dragging things out. Dream Focus 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Its hard to write out a policy that covers all eventualities. I personally would not have closed that discussion at the point it was after 2 days. Yet looking at it with the advantage of hindsight, I can't really say it was wrong either, as even after the close was reverted, no one opposed in the next 5 days of the normal listing period. I would urge Sue Rangell to be a little bit more cautious with SNOW keeps, and to make it clearer in the close that it was a SNOW close, but I don't see that one as a serious problem. Monty₈₄₅ 16:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all three: #1 basically disallows non-admin closures as SNOW, #2 sets an arbitary threshold for SNOW, and #3 would lead to a huge bucket of syrup in that it allows non-admins to challenge AfDs on the slimmest of reasons. pbp 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Why should a non-admin be allowed to say SNOW after a handful of people show up and comment? So if you go to an AFD, and the first few people that showed up agree with how you were going to vote, you can just close it and say "snow"? As for the arbitrary threshold, would you prefer none at all? If its 5 keep and 4 delete, a non-administrator can close it. And it does not allow people to challenge AFDs on the slimmest of reasons, it says "inappropriate" meaning it violates something on the list. Would you object to that one if it says "anyone can revert a non-admin who closes something in violation of the listed rules?" Dream Focus 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Because your rules are overly bureaucratic. Also, I don't understand why you're so against non-admin closures. You are a well-known keepist, and non-admins can't close AfDs as delete. Therefore, more non-admin closures means MORE of the outcomes you like! pbp 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. #1 is common sense, and thus unnecessary. No one, admin or non-admin, should be closing AfDs early, absent a good reason. #2 sounds overly formulaic. #3 is not well specified: Who determines whether the close is "improper"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all three - If it works, don't fix it. These are badly written and confusing. The present system works fine. I would just say to maybe underline the rule that keeps getting missed/ignored. (See poll just before this one) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 and 2 per WP:CREEP. Support #3. The spirit of what we are trying to address is already in the guideline: 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 obvious as you thought. #3 might best be supplemented with the (obvious) note that if a NAC is reversed, it should not be NAC'd again. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all three, except for one specific case of #3. A NAC before 168 hours has elapsed can be reverted per WP:BRD, because a non-administrator closing a discussion early must always count as being bold.—S Marshall T/C 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support three Why should this be limited to administrators? If any editor comes across a poor NAC they should be able to revert it as they are supposed to be uncontroversial anyway. Whats the worst that could happen, an admin comes along later and closes it the sameway. AIRcorn (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Amend the non-admin close instructions as follows

Old version

Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator.

Proposed version

Decisions are subject to review and, in cases where the closer is involved, the discussion may be reopened by any uninvolved editor. In other cases, the normal Deletion Review process should be followed.

Admins should have as little special authority when it comes to closes as practical without bogging down the system or creating needless repetition of work. Monty₈₄₅ 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Against If someone was seen by the community is being qualified to close things, then they'd be voted up to the status of an administrator. Their main job is to close AFDs. Dream Focus 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. Admins do a whole lotta other stuff besides closing AfDs, and a person isn't just handed the mop because they think he can close an AfD pbp 17:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow...Administrators do Soooooooooo much more work than just close AfDs. Closing AfD's is arguably the LEAST important thing that administrators do. Administrators do all sorts of much more important things ranging from removing copyvios to protecting personal information. Anybody can close an AfD...--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - "in cases where the closer is involved", if a violation is suspected, then "any uninvolved editor" may just the same effort to post to Deletion Review. (Keeping in mind that you cannot just jump in and reopen things without writing a solid explanation. Just the same, do it in a designated forum). Also I agree with the above, if you feel yourself strong and smart, go for adminship. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of deletion-related pages

I have removed the List of deletion-related pages section as redundant. Every link except one, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, appears 2–5 other times: in {{Deletion debates}} near the top, in the text itself, and/or in the See also section. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Deprecate NPASR

I would like to propose deprecating the acronym NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination) in favor of something else, such as NPAIR (no prejudice against immediate renomination) or WPAIR (without prejudice against immediate renomination).

On a page that discusses various "speedy" processes, including speedy deletion and speedy renaming (of categories), the phrase "speedy renomination" can be confusing. It implies that there is a speedy renomination process, which of course there isn't.

In addition, there is nothing inherently "speedy" about the renomination process. The intent of the phrase is that editors are free to renominate a page without waiting for a certain period of time to pass, and that even an immediate renomination will not be considered disruptive. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "no quorum"

This page has seen two versions of the conditions for "no quorum" in the last year, with each editor accusing the other of changing it without discussion. They are right that there has been no discussion - I can find nothing significant in the archives - so maybe it's time we had one. Should the condition for no quorum be:

1. very few comments from any editor besides the nominator?
2. no comments from any editor besides the nominator?
3. other?

RockMagnetist (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think his main objection was to XfDs other than AfD. I think we can avoid this discussion by specifying that it is to mean no comments for non-AfDs, and few or no comments for AfDs. For the latter, there is definitely community consensus for it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. While "no quorum" was not specifically mentioned, the effect of it (i.e. allow admin discretion in cases with little or no discussion) was agreed on. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Boy, I wish straw polls were a more visible part of the record. I skimmed it quickly, and found the following summary statement near the bottom: "There was very strong support for treating debates with very little debate on a case-by-case basis, while a minority supported "soft" deletion." RockMagnetist (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, and again linked to the straw poll in my edit summary. I've also linked to it in the "Archives" box at the top of this page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about other XfDs, but I guess you're right about the meaning of "no quorum" for AfD's. However, I think there is something missing from this section. Many of the contributors to the straw poll emphasized that an admin should consider the quality of the nomination and votes. Although that is said elsewhere, it seems worth emphasizing here because the "no quorum" condition sounds like an exercise in vote counting. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But I think "closer's discretion and best judgment" already has that covered. Otherwise, the page would contain strict rules as in this number of votes = this result, rather than leaving it up to the closing admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory notification of XfD

I've participated at both AfD and CfD and I've found that the process of notification of proposed deletion varies widely between areas and between individuals. When I made my first proposed AfD, I was quickly informed by more experienced Editors that I had not left notices on the Talk Pages of the article creator and main contributors and this needed to be done ASAP. So, I thought this step was mandatory.

But I've since found out that this notification is only encouraged. The result, I believe, is that there is a small group of regular Editors who weigh in on these deletion discussions and Editors working in related WikiProjects or on similar articles can be stunned to find an article or category has been deleted.

I'd like these kind of notifications should be mandatory or, if not required, then be listed in the deletion instructions as another step the Editor is expected to take. I realize that this would not be necessary for CSD, PRODs or cases where the article or category creator is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I think there would be a lot less divisiveness about Deletion Review if there was more of an effort to incorporate people's opinions before consensus was determined. AfD already has a system for alerting WikiProjects of relevant cases and I hope CfD could have something similar.

But I wanted first to post here to see what kind of support there is for more thorough notifications being issued when files, articles or categories are up for deletion. I think there is a perception that there is a small group of people who make decisions at AfD, CfD and, I assume, MfD and I think being more transparent would establish more goodwill between Editors, Article Creators and WikiProjects and those involved with the deletion process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I take the opposite tack as you: I think the divisiveness comes from too many people participating. Oftentimes, the most divisive people who participate are the creators and the people from the WikiProject who find it an anathema that GNG and NOT be enforced. I don't really think it even needs to be recommended for anybody but the creator...if a person is concerned about a particular article, it may be on his/her watchlist; if a particular topic, he/she may check deletion sorting for that topic. As for the creator, he gets an automatic notification with most XfDs anyway, since nowadays most people use Twinkle. As such, I would Oppose mandatory notification, partly because I consider it to be overly bureaucratic. The "small number of editors" complaint can be said of anything in Wikipedia-space, I fear pbp 22:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If we really do want mandatory notifications, I'd say a bot is the way to do it. Could probably even identify major contributors to notify. Monty₈₄₅ 02:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - Automatic bot notification to the creator and/or top 5 contributors, say, would be probably good. It is true that interested editors should have articles on their watchlist, but they can easily miss. If editors don't want automated XfDs notification, they can opt-out. More eyes on AfDs for example are often needed, given how many get relisted endlessly with only 1 or 2 commenting. Deletion or retention should be the result of a reasonably large consensus, not of a couple of editors who look at XfDs that day. --cyclopia^speak! 11:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that automatic notification of a page creator by a bot is an interesting idea, but what criteria would a bot (or even a human, for that matter) use to identify the "top 5 contributors" to a page? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the original comment raises a number of distinct questions: Should the creator of a page be notified?; Should interested WikiProjects be notified?; and How can we increase participation in deletion discussions?. These questions are related, but it would be mistake to think that they are the same. WikiProjects, for example, already have the option of opting in to Article Alerts, which will notify them of any deletion discussions (including CfD) affecting pages that were tagged by the project. I think we also need to be careful not to fall into the trap of dividing editors into black-and-white groups of "creators" and "those involved with the deletion process". Although there are some editors who work exclusively in one area, for the most part there is extensive overlap between the two groups. The arguments that sometimes occur are not because of a conflict along a creator–deleter axis but rather because editors actively involved in the deletion process sometimes have strong disagreements on certain points. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin instructions at RfD

I don't know about anyone else, but I find these confusing. They look simple, but there's so much coded stuff at the top of the RfD edit page that I'm still not sure what goes where. (OK, I close more AfDs - mainly because I deleted the subject and like to tidy up). Peridon (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Peridon, I am curious as to what you are talking about. Mainly, I'm curious since I've been spending some time trying to tidy the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions page so that the example looks more current, and was wondering what subject your concern is addressing. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't fully remember now, but they didn't seem as clear as the AfD ones. Oh yes, it was where to put the top template. There's so much stuff there in the edit window, unlike at AfD where the header is there at the top alone in all its glory. I don't know if it's commented stuff or template or what. Finding the section header isn't easy when you don't go there much. Also, why do the instructions say 'consider boldface for the result' when result is already in bold? Peridon (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)