This page was nominated for merging with Wikipedia:Deletion discussions on 5 September 2011. The result of the discussion was merge.

Archives

August 2004 – March 2007 March 2007 – August 2008 September 2008 – November 2008 December 2008 – June 2009 September 2009 – December 2009 December 2009 – January 2011 January 2011 – October 2013 May 2014 – Relisting straw poll

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Deletion discussions was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Deletion process. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The Search all deletion discussions function just keeps saying "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Oktalist (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q about the current setup. Can we easily, button-push search 9 or 18 pages about deletion

• WP:Articles for deletion
• WP:Stub types for deletion
• WP:Miscellany for deletion
• WP:Deletion review
• WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting

and about copyright WP:Copyright problems and about discussion

• WP:Categories for discussion
• WP:Redirects for discussion
• WP:Templates for discussion

for any phrase of interest, say an article title?

A No. But on the actual page of interest, where we have the template that posts its review status, we can easily integrate three search links into it

• discussion
• deletion
• copyright

Then mention this here for reviewers to go there and use the three search links. Those search links are here, so they look for this page Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. They work there to find all mentions of themselves in the WP or WT namespaces or archive subpages. Three search links, one for each intitle parameter, each searching two namespaces for the fullpagename, up to 100 results on one page.

Why? (Besides the char cnt limit), CirrusSearch intitle parameter does not currently recognize OR. InputBox is not currently able to wrap or glue the query terms we need.

I will replace the misinformation after implementing the template changes. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So many templates Too many changes. (See scores of 'em at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion, Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, and Wikipedia:Template messages/General.) Search links on the page of interest might be best for all concerned, but other ideas are

1. Delete the Search all deletion discussions section?
2. Put some new instructions there instead: how to use the search link?
3. Provide for a template on the page of interest: A new template, ((search-afd))? A changed ((Search deletion discussions)) template? One of these would provide temporary search links there if simply previewed, but permanent if transcluded.

Most of the notices naturally point to a discussion page. But also having a search showing all mentions of the page in project space is a good idea. — Cpiral§Cpiral 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to nominate an article for speedy deletion. I am looking for the procedure for this. I don't have time to become an expert on Wikipedia. I have commented on the article's Talk page of my intention. Grounds for the dfeletion are Wikipedia's standing as a reliable resource. Please see Talk page for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heterotelergone#Nominate_for_DELETION. Over to you cogniscenti out there. LookingGlass (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having just wasted time with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine van Loon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak (wasting, since I now have to consider spending ~5 minutes of my time remoninating them) I've looked at WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:RELIST and it seems that the practice of closing AfD's after 2 weeks (two relistings) of no participation is based on

Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the ((relist)) template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient.

Well, let's think about this for a moment. What is the proof that "its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors"? I am not aware of any research for this (and I speak as a contributor to Wikipedia Research Newsletter). Vast majority of AfDs do not involve the creator or major participants (I am not talking about controversial ones, I am talking about your average AfD). There is nobody being discouraged, instead the notice may serve to draw some people into discussion. Clearly, not very efficiently, but I doubt that people get discouraged. This is a baseless assumption that cannot be assumed unless proven.

Now, what is happening is that we don't have enough volunteers to comment in AfDs, so some get ignored, if they slip through the cracks - in other words, if they don't appear at the right time to be noticed by one of the dozen or so people who comment at AfDs. They then go back to languishing in their problematic state until they are usually relisted few months or years later, making one of our few precious active volunteers waste time through the relisting process.

I therefore think that the unproven claim of discouragement by an ongoing AfD notice is outweighted by the familiar problem of time waste through having to relist an article. I suggest that the above paragraph is removed, and that we keep relisting discussions until there is at least one other participant.

At the very least, given that we have Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, which can be monitored, but not Category:AfD debates relisted 2 or more times, I'd suggest that we change the RELIST recommendation and our practices from relisting twice to relisting three times.

Finally, I wonder if we can have a page that could be watchlisted that would be updated by the bot and would list nominations that have had no participants for 2-3 runs, like WP:AA, that we, active AfD particpants, could then easily flag and prioritize? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Or we could just treat them as PRODs. Just another option. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If an AfD has been relisted twice and had no participation, I don't think a third relist is going to help. If you look at the ones that are relisted three times, most end up being closed as no consensus anyway. Relisting indefinitely until there is at least one participant will just clog up AfD and waste people's time. I agree with Someguy1221, they should be treated as PRODs. If no one has objected after two weeks, WP:NOQUORUM should be followed and the AfD should be either relisted a third time at the closer's discretion, closed as soft delete or closed as no consensus with NPASR.
  I like the idea of a page for monitoring nominations with no participants. That could be a useful and might decrease the number of AfDs that go two or three relists with no comment. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These can be found using User:Cyberpower678's current AfD listing, though unfortunately that's not currently being purged of closed discussions: Noyster (talk), 10:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Noyster, I'd not seen that before. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Someguy1221: if nobody has opposed seven days after the first relisting then it's uncontroversial, so treat as WP:PROD. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The AFD process does not scale because it concentrates all the discussions in one place. It is already dysfunctional and the proposal would cause it collapse completely as you'd get an ever-increasing number of Flying Dutchmen which would result in a template overload. Instead, people should be considering alternatives such as pure wiki deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. There was a proposal last year to treat AfDs that don't receive participation as PRODs. The number of relistings was subject to an RfC in 2010. – Uanfala (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As noted by several people above, AFDs with no objections are functionally WP:PRODs anyways. If anything, we should spell that out more explicitly, that AFDs which lack comments are treated as uncontested PRODs. --Jayron32 13:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Do you want to break AFD? Because that's how you break AFD. I'm not opposed to relisting in general, but am opposed to requiring indefinite relisting. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I support the idea of treating them like PRODs, but when this has been mentioned in the past I recall there was some opposition to it. I closed one of the two AfDs above because I've been trying to help with the backlog here. As mentionuned already, a third realist rarely results in enough !votes to do anything other than close as no consensus. From a functional perspective I honestly think a speedy renomination might draw more comments than another realist (though that is just speculation). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• For reference, as a semi-frequent AfD closer I either skip, relist (if there is only one or no relists or if the deletion rationale is questionable) or delete with a cite to WP:SOFTDELETE (if there are at least two relists, a reasonable deletion reason and no dissent). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Barring a previously removed WP:PROD, they should be treated just like proposed deletions because they are functionally equivalent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Lots of oppose arguments suggest that such discussions should be treated as expired PRODs (also known as "soft deletion"). However, that is not what happened with the two AfDs that Piotrus cites above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine van Loon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak. They were both closed instead by non-administrators as "no consensus without prejudice against speedy recreation". Perhaps what we really need is to amend WP:NACD to only allow administrators to make the determination whether to close as soft delete or to close as no consensus. This is coming from a non-admin who has made such "no consensus without prejudice" closures in the past: I typically only made such closes when there was one clearly expressed opposition to deletion (similar to a deprod), but no other comments beyond that and the nomination. If there was a discussion with no comments at all besides the nomination, I would save the closure for the administrators so that they may decide whether to soft delete, which seems to be the preferred outcome. (TL;DR: If there have been no comments to an AfD besides the nomination, non-administrators should not close it.) Mz7 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose. In both cases, I would say it was Piotr's fault. Weak non-nominations like that, "I think", "it seems", would be better speedy closed for failing to make a deletion rational. The nominator should be championing the proposal, not throwing questions out there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And both of these nominations ask questions, so could also have been closed as WP:SK#2 WP:NPASR disruption, as AfD is not a forum to pose questions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't go for WP:SK#2, just #1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And I would !vote to overturn any speedy keep closure of either nomination at DRV. There is very clearly a deletion rationale in both nominations: that the available coverage does not satisfy WP:GNG. "It seems" and "I think" are extremely common phrases used for politeness – yes, they could be eliminated to make the nomination sound more assertive, but an argument is definitely still being made. Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  An AfD nominator is supposed to give reasons for deletion. Not meeting the GNG AND there being no merge target is a good reason. Someone thinking there may be a deletion reason is not a deletion reason. The nominator should present evidence of having tried, not just throw up questions for later reviewers to do the work. When Piotr does that, it is no surprise at all that AFD reviewers pass it over. And if he keeps doing it, maybe unscintillating is right, he is disrupting AfD with half-arsed nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  But alternatively, support barring Non-Admins from closing uncontested XfDs (or at least non admins who have not discovered how to use ((db-xfd)).) They should !vote instead. A non admin providing the first responding !vote is far more valuable than providing a non-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose  AfD volunteers are not the problem.  Reading these AfDs occurs in seeing that the community has clearly expressed an opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As a frequent AFD closer I more or less close on 2 relists as relisting for a third time achieves absolutely nothing, When I used to do relisting I would relist for a third time ... and found it to be an utter waste of time, But anyway I do agree on that we should treat them like prods - If no one comments after 2 weeks/at the end of the 2nd relist then softdelete them. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- Treating them equivalently to a non-disputed PROD is a better solution. That, incidentally, is what should have happened with the two articles that prompted this discussion. Reyk _YO! 09:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the first, "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion. Consider alternatives to deletion like improving the article, merging or redirecting" was not met, and so the nomination wasn't even good enough for PROD. The nominator was not sure there was a valid reason. The subsequent redirect shows that AfD was the wrong step. WP:BEFORE had not been followed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Today I learned that asking rhetorical questions is a sign of indecision. Reyk _YO! 12:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a subtlety to rhetorical questions that doesn't survive brevity and text-only communication. Knowing that the nominator is reliable is an underlying premise to your position, a premise often not true. On face value, the nomination is a gut reaction without any work done. Nominators should champion their proposal, assert their case, so that others can simply check. As an xfd reviewer, I resent nominations that require to reviewers to do more work than the nominator. Nominators should state a proper deletion reason in simple explicit terms, not in subtle rhetoric. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If, instead of either closing or relisting, the person reviewing the AfD would assess the nomination and add an opinion of their own, then all AfDs would have at least one opinion in addition to that of the nominator: Noyster (talk), 10:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Relisters should comment, not relist, unless there is some point to relisting. Usually, relists are pointless. If a relister has done the bare minimum of reading the discussion and determined that it is not ready for closing, they should be required, at a minimum, to say why it is not ready. Ideally, they should identify an open question preventing a Soft Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, non-admins closed them this way? In that case, I'm just overturning them in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, as that is fairly clearly something akin to WP:Relist bias. Non-admins can't delete, so they close like this instead of leaving them for an administrator who can treat them like a PROD. Non-admins shouldn't be closing such discussions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very valid point too, Rob. Non admins obviously are biased against closing as "soft delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you feel better for doing that ? ... Admins also closed this way and have done since atleast 2015, If admins treated these like prods in the bloody first place these wouldn't needed to be closed as such but hey you're the "experienced" admin who knows absolutely everything!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh BTW BU Rob13 you've missed one. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davey2010: First, that one was redirected to a valid target. Second, I'm not quite sure why you're upset. You, yourself, stated we should treat them as PRODs above. I'm equally critical of the administrators who relist discussions like these, and I've stated my opinion on that before. WP:NACD, a guideline, states "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins". WP:NOQUORUM provides no less than five possible actions for "no quorum" discussions, so it's clear such discussions are "close calls". Ergo, non-admins should not close them, per an existing guideline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm upset because you didn't bother asking me first - I appreciate technically admins can revert anyone however it's common courtesy to ask them first (and had you asked I would've reverted instantly), That aside had this been an admin you wouldn't of reverted at all, I agree I do but seeing plenty of admins close this way you just assume this is the way it's done and as I said above If admins closed them as delete then I obviously wouldn't of ever touched them in the first place, Unfortunately plenty of editors have closed this way because many have simply seen admins do it and assume it's the correct way. –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davey2010: I apologized for not consulting you directly first. I took your comment above supporting this general idea as indicative that you would support such an action. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  BU Rob13 - I support the proposal of treating 2/3 relists as soft delete but I don't support being reverted the way you had although I understand the reasons why etc etc, But anyway no worries and I apologize for getting abit annoyed with you, Anyway it's all in the past, Shit happens as they say lol, Anyway happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @BU Rob13: commenting here as the other non-admin involved. I would have been fine treating it as a soft delete (but I now see the PROD you placed on Martine van Loon has been contested and the page converted to a redirect.) I just want to echo Davey2010's concerns here though: there has not been a consistent application of soft deletes on these articles by administrators. For those of us who try to help out with the non-controversial closes, it does look like this is the correct way to close something that has been relisted twice without comment and the WP:NAC essay even lists it as a valid thing to do. I am 100% behind treating AfDs with no discussion after a certain period of time as PRODs, and will refrain from closing double relists with no discussion in the future, but we should be more clear on how we are treating these cases in general, because as I think this discussion is showing, there is a general consensus for soft deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @TonyBallioni: As you were writing that, I was writing the formal proposed language below. As for the essay, I'm quite surprised to find that there. I've removed it, as it's clear from this thread that such closes are controversial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  "is a general consensus for soft deletion" subject to the AfD having a substantive and persuasive nomination meeting at least the requirement of WP:PROD#Nominating point 1, and the deleting admin using their discretion to agree with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: See my proposed wording below. While I've noted that "soft deletion" is the "typical" outcome, I've quite literally stated they should be treated like expired PRODs and wikilinked to WP:PROD. This is to make it clear that the closing administrator can exercise discretion, as always, on whether to delete or not. They should have a decent reason if they're declining to delete, though. In other words, I'm proposing soft deletion as the default outcome, but not the only outcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thank you. I would like to also emphasise my main reaction to the OP, which could be: "An AfD nomination should be at least as comprehensive as a minimal PROD rationale". I think the whole problem here may be rooted in the problem of too-soft deletion rationales. Softly worded deletion rationales are not very easy to respond to usefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it would then depend on the initial proposal. If the person who filed the AfD was in fact arguing to delete the article, their argument was sound and policy-based, and no one has objected to or refuted it after the maximum time has elapsed, that is a "delete" result. If their argument was poor or not based in policy, or it was a "procedural" nomination where the nominator wasn't arguing to delete, that's a "no consensus" result with no prejudice against speedy renomination. We already do too many relists, let's not just keep at them. At some point, it comes time to call the discussion closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Formalistic in the extreme; these should be treated as expired PRODs. Neutrality^talk 19:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In favor of the below alternatives. If no one is commenting then either there's no consensus for deletion or there's a consensus of one, like a PROD. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The "soft delete" idea below is much more elegant. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The problem is lack of participation in AFD. That problem should be solved by, for instance, neutrally listing AfDs that lack participants at WikiProjects or other boards/pages. Or set up a board specifically for AfDs without participants. Nowadays, in my opinion, we have far too many rabid deletionists on Wikipedia who AfD scores of articles without doing the least bit of WP:BEFORE. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indefinitely relisting. We'll end up otherwise with a 16,000 backlog like New Page Patrol that even after the recent campaign, users are not in the slightest bit interested in addressing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the backlog can get bad enough already without infinite relists... ansh666 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - At some point the discussion has to end, especially if no one bothered to drop by to discuss. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This seems a solution in search of a problem, I haven't noticed an uptick in zero-discussion AfDs. After two relists, treat them like PRODs. Carrite (talk)

Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

Another proposal: restrict non-admin closures

I made a comment about this above, but the argument essentially boils down to this: When an AfD discussion has received no comments besides the nomination, closers are currently advised by WP:NOQUORUM to weigh between three options: 1) relist, 2) close as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR), and 3) treat it like a PROD and close as "soft delete", which allows any editor to ask for undeletion at WP:REFUND.

Non-administrators are not capable of deleting articles, so "no consensus NPASR" and "relist" are the only outcomes technically available to them. Administrators are the only ones capable of a "soft delete" closure, and accordingly, they are the only ones capable of factoring that into their evaluation of the discussion. Rob mentioned above that this is a natural extension of the "relist bias" documented at this essay. Therefore, I propose a restriction on non-admin closures to be added to WP:NACD as follows:

• If an AfD has received no comments besides the nominator and the discussion has been relisted at least twice, the discussion should be closed by an administrator so that they may weigh the option of soft deletion.

Mz7 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I updated the NAC essay to read as follows: AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, but should not be closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination by non-admins if there is a reasonable basis put forward and there was no opposition as the closing admin is likely to Soft Delete the article. It would make sense for the text in both places to reflect the same sentiment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for updating the essay! Mz7 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The question proposed was a bit different, but what I said at, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions was,

  This proposal would make more sense if AfD nominations were typically sincere efforts to prepare the community for a deletion discussion...

  Another point to consider here, is that if the community has no interest in an AfD nomination, then the community has spoken, and what it has said is that there is no need for a discussion.

  In summary, I could support this proposal were it limited to AfD nominations that explicitly state that they are proposing deletion, and were the closing administrator to stipulate that the nomination had sufficiently prepared the AfD community as per the edit notice give to AfD nominators."

    Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I see a couple of problems with this text.  "Reasonable basis put forward" already has a guideline, which is WP:BEFORE.  How many notability AfD nominations right now show evidence of WP:BEFORE D1?  So this is currently an almost non-existant sets of AfDs that would be affected by this proposal. 

  Another problem is the words "likely to Soft Delete the article", which is not neutral wording, and might make a closing administrator think that he/she is supposed to be soft deleting articles.  Given the community input that does not consider that discussion is needed, the bias if any should lean to policy, which to preserve content contributions.

  I'm also unclear on what problem this is solving.  We already know that administrators can soft-delete articles from a NAC closure.  Where are the examples of a problem that is being solved?  I looked at the "relist bias" essay, but the example is contrived.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Spartaz's wording could use some tightening, and I have no problem with allowing administrators to choose between soft deletion and NPASR, depending on the nomination itself. But only an administrator should be making that judgment, since only an administrator can properly factor in the option of soft deletion (since they are the only ones that have the ability to close that way). It might be true that administrators can summarily overturn "no consensus" non-admin closures as "soft delete" per WP:NACD—and BU Rob13 did this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak above—but in practice this is rarely done, and nominators are left to decide between speedily renominating (starting the cycle all over) or giving up. At some point, we have to say, "just delete it." If you want it back, you only need to ask. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposed by Mz7. If NAC are still allowed to make the other two closure options, per 'low-hanging fruit they probably will and it will be too late for an admin to make a more appropriate closure. There is often talk of allowing such decisions (and New Page Patrolling) to be made by new and/or inexperienced users who are drawn to maintenance tasks and get it wrong, but there still remains a huge gap between them and vetted admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as commonsensical, and not in competition with the above proposals (rather, the above proposal that has a lot of support).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Makes sense. If there's any possibility for an outcome that requires admin tools, an admin should be the one making the call. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I'd add a clause to cut down on third relistings as well, if that's still a problem. ansh666 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not so sure as per WP:CREEP, assuming the above section passes. I was going to oppose, but in writing my rationale and reading the rationales of others, I'm not 100% sure anymore. I don't have any quarrel with the content of this suggestion, but think about the context here. In my proposal above, we're making the default admin action "delete". We already don't allow non-admins to close as "delete", and we strongly discourage non-admin closes at deletion processes that are likely controversial. The default of soft deletion makes clear that non-admins cannot close these types of discussions, so I don't feel any strong need to add text spelling that out. If a non-admin can't understand that they shouldn't take action on discussions where the outcome is "soft delete" by default, they likely don't have the competence to close discussions whatsoever. Note also that my proposed text in the above section states "closing administrator" when it comes to the alternative options, so this is already in there in a somewhat subtle manner. I guess I just need convincing on the necessity of this? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about this a bit more, I have to oppose due to the instruction creep issues. Additionally, I believe that enumerating many specific use cases where non-admins can't close discussions may have the unexpected side effect of giving the appearance that the list is exhaustive. It's better to keep things in more general terms like "controversial vs. uncontroversial" and correct the occasional mistaken editor as necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was something I came up with in the original discussion following Piotrus's proposal. If your proposal passes, and it looks like that's where it's heading, I'm totally fine with withdrawing this one to see where things go. Mz7 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unnecessary instruction creep. Shooing the occasional overenthusiastic helper into something else more suited to their skillset isn't so difficult. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:CREEP should not be used to oppose beneficial instructions. Admins are the most qualified to close AfDs and the only editors able to soft delete articles. Laurdecl ^talk 11:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:CREEP - Adding to what BU Rob13 said in the second sentence of their oppose, I generally oppose specific restrictions or allowances (e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC) regarding non-administrator closures at individual deletion venues. Furthermore, though in most circumstances I'm not a fan of NPASR closures, a non-administrator may weigh soft deletion as an option and choose not to close a discussion if they believe that is a reasonable outcome. I agree with Opabinia regalis as well, though I'd have phrased it differently. Lastly, if the page in question has survived a previous deletion discussion, no consensus and relist would be the only reasonable outcomes. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When the choices are "delete" or "no consensus", a non-admin is naturally going to choose "no consensus" because that is the only one they can implement. This decision needs to be made by an administrator, and the NAC instructions should clearly say so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Proposal: Create a new CSD criteria for AFD's without Participants

I'd make a different proposal in these cases: I'd lobby for the creation of a csd X3 category stating in essence that after three relists at afd with no participation of any kind an article should thereafter be treated as speedy deletion eligible for criteria given in the afd nomination.

Under this scheme then administrators would be given the latitude to make executive decisions concerning the fate of individual articles provided that they were deleted under the (as yet to be created) X3 criteria explicitly noting the executive decision in question was made because of a lack of participation at afd in addition to whatever reason(s) was/were given at the afd. This gets around the expire prod proposal above by incorporating the csd aspect into the afd process, which is diplomatically important here. The PROD procedures are laid out at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and explicitly state (and I quote) "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected", however by its very nature afd expects opposition to the process since the community involvement means drawing in people of all wiki-walks of life. By contrast, the addition of an X3 criteria to the existing Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion noting that speedy deletions of an article listed at afd would by their nature be contested, but after 21 days of non-participation it would come down to the admin corp to make an executive decision on a contest article as they would if the article was listed at possibly contested csd's.

Assuming this was adopted the requirement would be to list the relevant afds under the aforementioned category and require admins deleting under X3 to note to the best of their ability the relevant deletion reason(s) from the afd in the other criteria box at afd. Deletion under X3 criteria would be subject to Deletion Review, if participation there judged the article to have been deleted without cause it could be reinstated on grounds of having passed a "reverse afd" which upheld or overturned the X3 deletion. This also simplifies the relist debates, after three turns they can be automatically added to the afd articles (in a perfect world by a bot) and the admin corp can deal with them as they arrive. I am open to hearing general feedback on this proposal, or your reason(s) for supporting or opposing the proposal. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm getting the point of this. First, I'm not really concerned with applying the philosophy behind PROD tags to this proposal. This proposal states that no participation at an AfD should be treated like an expired PROD, not that it is an expired PROD. Second, an AfD with zero participation after relistings may have begun with an expectation of opposition, but no opposition developed. Soft deletion and this proposed X3 aren't meaningfully different, except one involves speedy deleting an article via AfD (?). I'm not really getting the point of a CSD criteria here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Getting consensus for new CSD criteria is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. While new ones could well be useful, the opposition based on 'too much bureaucracy' usually prevent consensus being built. With additional CSD criteria, I also see increased possibility for misuse/misunderstanding by new or inexperienced users who are drawn to maintenance tasks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems too creepy and confusing. As demonstrated above, this does not seem to be a significant problem and, in the few cases, it's readily addressed by the would-be closer making a comment rather than pushing a button. Andrew D. (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per both of the above, and as a bureaucracy increase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as would add to regular backlog at CSD. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the description kind of defeats the purpose of it being a CSD. Let's stick to PROD. ansh666 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No need to create a CSD criterion for something that an admin already has the discretion to delete, or not delete. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – confusing and unnecessary. Laurdecl ^talk 08:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall discussion regarding the various proposals

• Comment: In my opinion, the problem with these various proposals is that they make it too easy for an article to get deleted without anyone adequately doing WP:BEFORE. To counter this problem, I propose that it be required for all articles facing any sort of deletion to have the Template:Find sources or Template:Friendly search suggestions placed on its talk page. And require that any admin utilize those links before actually deleting. And I must say I'm concerned that so many admins do not even have their Google search results set to 100 results per page (here's how to do that), and so they only see a bunch of spammy garbage for their first several pages of results, and they don't ever even get the correct number of Google hits. These are all problems that result in many articles on notable subjects being deleted simply because of the increasing lack of participation at AfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it goes to a soft delete you know that anyone can get the content restored at any time without argument? But I do agree that exactly as we do with prod the deleting admin needs be diligent in what they decide to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At an AfD, ((Find sources AfD)) is transcluded at the top. As with expired PRODs, administrators are expected to evaluate the rationale and exercise their judgement to determine whether they should soft delete the article or choose to act as any other editor and remove the PROD (or, in this case, cast a keep !vote, relist, or any of the other suggestions that are retained in the proposed new text). At some point, we do have to trust our administrators to behave properly as already documented at WP:PROD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just remarking that I've seen admins going through cat:expired PROD and deleting them as fast as they can load the deletion interface. There doesn't seem to be very much 'BEFORE' being done, and FWIW, unless the PROD itself is obviously contentious, the value of deep in-depth BEFORE (for a PROD) is debatable (not that PROD deletion is an area where I work). Most of these problems arise upstream and are all problems that result in many articles on potentially notable subjects being deleted simply because of the increasing lack of participation at NPP, and the predilection for the low-hanging fruit in the feed by inexperienced patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I patrol prods. The process is supposed to be reserved for uncontroversial cases but one often finds it being used inappropriately in cases that seem to be mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As a fresh example, see food blogging. Notice that this is a fairly new topic and it has a long list of references which seem, at first glance, to be reasonable. Notice also that the nominator removed most of the prose and then prodded the article on the grounds that it didn't have much prose. WP:BEFORE was not followed in this case because there seems to have been no consideration of alternatives to deletion such as just marking the topic as a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was using AWB which of course is wrong for NPP. I've left them a message. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - If we consider an AfD with no participation to be treated like a prod (a proposal I supported)... what purpose does actual prod continue to serve? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A smooth transition between AfD and PROD I think is probably a good thing. PROD will still be relatively light weight, for supposedly easy cases, but can be stopped without any reason. AfDs that are unanimously deleted probably should be PRODded? PRODs that are challenged probably should have gone to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only distinction I see is that it can be stopped for any reason, whereas at AfD the expectation is that you articulate a policy/guideline-based argument for keeping/deleting. It seems like if this passes it would be easier to just allow a specific kind of AfD participation along the lines of "deprod", avoiding a noquorum close being treated like a prod by taking same action (symbolically) as would be necessary to remove the prod. Effectively just combines the two processes in a way that's not just more efficient but more sensible (in that it allows one to be "converted" into the other rather than starting and closing one process, then starting and closing another). I suppose this could be a subsequent discussion -- I just see prod as losing relevance with this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD with no other participation can be killed off with a mere "Keep, worthy topic, nominator's rationale is unpersuasive". Assuming no other comments, and that no bad faith assumptions can be made, no closer could reasonable close as "delete" without supervoting.

Noting User:Jayron32's question above (11:52, 6 December 2016) on times, these two open-AfDs vs age snapshots (1 & 2) tell me that 7 days is NOT the standard run time for an AfD. Nearly all AfDs run for two weeks, and are closed in the third or fourth week. If instead of relisting unparticipated AfDs for a few weeks, the relisters converted week old trivial to PRODs, I think this would be a good thing.

A further wish would be that it is easier to review editor's track record in AfD and PROD nominations. I know there is tool for AFDstats, but it is a bit hard to find and slow to use, and Wikipedia:Twinkle creates a "PROD log" entry for editors using twinkle and not opting out of logging. I wish this sort of logging was mandatory, becuase most of the problems are caused by very few people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior PRODs and soft deletion

Unscintillating just made a change which states that an article which has been previously PRODded is still eligible for soft deletion (thus making it different from a true PROD, which it would be ineligible for). My question is: Does this represent current practice and established consensus? We had a discussion over this on my talk page, but I'll paste the relevant bit below:

Hmm, this is far more interesting than I thought. I initially added the language about soft deletion being similar to PROD in my implementation of straw poll consensus in March 2011. This wording is removed unilaterally by Black Falcon in February 2013, in a long series of edits in an attempt to clean up the page. In November 2013 Callanecc makes a change which includes a statement that contested PRODs may be soft deleted as part of implementing RfC consensus, but then self-reverts hours later when others argue that consensus was not achieved and he agrees. So it looks like at this point there is absolutely no guidance on whether contested PRODs that are sent to AfD may be soft deleted. If you guys have any leads, I'd be glad to hear them.

— King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care either way but this is something that we have to get sorted out. Also, would the existence of prior AfDs (as opposed to PROD) inhibit a subsequent AfD from being soft deleted? On this issue however I would say yes, especially if the previous AfD had a strong consensus to keep or a no consensus after a long debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As for what I intended the post to mean, I intended it to mean that soft delete is simply one of the options for a closer, without regard to previous soft deletes and PRODs.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I for one support Unscintillating's change. It seems common sense to me and checking page histories for PRODs would waste admin time. Laurdecl ^talk 08:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support admin discretion on this matter (so don't care about prior PRODs). — JFG ^talk 22:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The rationale for a soft deletion is similar to the rationale for a PROD, but the process is not the same and does not have to follow the same rules. The rationale is, delete because the article has been tagged for possible deletion for at least a week (commonly a week for PROD, three weeks for an AfD with two relists) and no one has objected. Basically, if this is an article that had a valid deletion rationale from the nominator, and no one objected during a period one to three weeks, it can be soft deleted without further ado - subject to later restoration upon request by any administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the history of the WP:NOQUORUM WP:NPASR shows that it has been there a long time.  I would say that the original purpose no longer exists.

There is a competing long-standing idea that renominations after a no-consensus close should wait for two months.  We recently had a renomination take place after a month and a half, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UrbanClap_(4th_nomination) that received broad objection.

There is a idea new to me recently proposed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20 by User:Knowledgekid87 to change WP:NPASR to say, "no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)."  This has broad applicability for relist problems that have been around for a long time.  But, I don't think that this should apply to WP:NPASR, and I am proposing a different fix below.

WP:NPASR remains an important concept for procedural closures, but even there a problem exists if a review goes to DRV and someone is already starting a new discussion.  And commonly for speedy closes, it is expected that the same nominator is empowered to improve and renominate.

In the midst of all these issues, I propose moving WP:NPASR out into its own section, and allow a WP:NOQUORUM No-consensus to default to an expectation of two months before renominating.  The other issues here would need separate discussions. 

Proposal

Create new section below WP:NOQUORUM, removing the existing NPASR text from WP:NOQUORUM

=== NPASR ===

((Shortcut|NPASR))

NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination".

Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite the contrary, there appears to be broad consensus just above here on this very page to close these as soft deletion. Obviously, oppose this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: In regards to the word "contrary", there is nothing "contrary" to be seen.  If you want to rewrite WP:NOQUORUM, you can't delete WP:NPASR, as it is a widely used acronym and needs to be defined somewhere, so this proposal doesn't conflict with changes to WP:NOQUORUM involving PROD.  Please state a problem that has more detail than "obviously".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above, there is support that instead of NPASR closes, we should generally see soft deletion in cases of low participation. Here, you're suggesting we require or expect (It's unclear which?) two months after an NPASR close before deletion can again be considered. The former pushes deletion closer to the present, and the latter pushes deletion farther into the future. These outcomes are at odds with each other. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I do not wish to be flaked by merely following existing guidelines any longer. Proposal on its own also sounds perfectly reasonable. You have my support. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We don't do fixed time periods on anything. This is too bureaucratic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support instead refining the meaning or NPASR to mean "by another editor". Closing "noquorum" only to see the original nominator and sole participant immediately renominate is obviously an absurdity. It was implied by commonsense, but now is worth documenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per both Rob13 and Spartaz, who are more concise than I would be. >;-) As someone who wanders into AfD instead of dwelling in it (i.e., as an average editor), it doesn't matter one whit to me who nominated something at that XfD or any other, only the pro and con arguments are of import.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In the example given where there was an objection after the same person renominated after a month and a half, the previous AfD was not closed as NPASR -- it was simply no consensus (with participation). If it were NPASR, it's pretty common, in my experience, for the nominator to turn around and renominate it without pushback (although many encourage waiting in such a scenario). If someone did so for a third time, it might start to attract sideways glances, but I haven't encountered that. Regardless, no problem with someone renominating in the case of an NPASR. No comment at this time regarding whether a different person should nominate following a no consensus with participation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:NOTBURO and the false premise uncovered by Rhododendrites. ansh666 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• False premise?  What are you talking about?  NPASR is 0 months, and the example I gave is 1 1/2 months.  0 months is not the community norm for a no consensus discussion, and the original reason for the no consensus noquoroum to be NPASR (IMO) no longer exists.  How is eliminating an obsolete practice that competes with and confounds an established practice, bureaucracy?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite understand this response, but to clarify, the false premise Ansh666 refers to is that in this section you linked to a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination), which, given the context, seemed to be offered as an example of an AfD renominated after NPASR (or otherwise of unknown relevance to the present discussion). It was not, however, renominated after an NPASR close, but a no consensus close. Hence it it doesn't make sense as an anecdote to build an NPASR-related proposal on. NPASR is only when there isn't a quorum -- in that case, there was plenty of participation to establish a quorum, hence no npasr. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a discussion of normative behavior for "no-consensus" AfDs, as specifically applied to noquorum no-consensus closes.  I established at the start of my argument that the current reason for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR is obsolete.  Please reread the development of the discussion; verify the history; and include that knowledge, or my opinion of that knowledge, in your analysis. 

  I also established that we have two community standards for no-consensus re-nominations, and the result is whiplash for those who get caught in the competing rules.  I established that there is community sentiment to fix the problem, which appears in the title of the discussion.  I established in the example which caught your attention, that the default community norm for no-consensus renominations is and remains at two months.  As for the "anecdotal" issue, the AfD that started this discussion is an NPASR, and you have the links to that AfD.  So I have also given an example of NPASR. 

  If you want to come up with new justification for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR; please also address the issues of competing community standards, and the need to retain NPASR unchanged for procedural closes which allow a re-nominator to fix errors in the previous AfD.  Further, please address the issue of the need to break out NPASR from its current location.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be a bit confused, normal "no consensus" and "NPASR" are not the same thing. ansh666 08:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ansh666: No, you can look at the Project Page, and see that No Quorum#No Consensus is tied to "WP:NPASR".  Part of this proposal is to unbind these two different things.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I should be a bit more clear. Just like a square is a quadrilateral but a quadrilateral is not necessarily a square, NPASR is no consensus but no consensus is not necessarily NPASR. No consensus closes are NPASR only when there is no quorum, not by default. ansh666 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ansh666: As to your last sentence, this sounds correct, and certainly it helps to agree on the current meaning to move forward. 

  But you are also saying "NPASR is no consensus".  This part is incorrect and this erroneous coupling is one of the reasons for this proposal.  WP:NPASR has meaning independent of No quorum#No consensus.  NPASR is an acronym that means, "No prejudice against speedy renomination.  Specifically, WP:NPASR is commonly applicable to Procedural closes and various parts of WP:Speedy keep.  The definition of the acronym needs to be split out.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand what you're getting at now, but I don't see what the fact that NPASR also applies to other forms of closes in a common-sense fashion has to do with the original proposal, which is making NPASR no longer apply to no quorum closes. ansh666 18:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at the proposal itself, I think you will see that it is elegantly simple.  But maybe we should focus on splitting out NPASR, and get that clarified as being an acronym.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I was one of the original proponents of NPASR, and I've always envisioned it as a way to cut down on endless relisting. In practice, most AfDs closed as NPASR are not renominated, so it's not a big deal for me even if the original nominator immediately sends it back. If they care about it that much then frankly they deserve a second hearing, and let's worry about this only if it becomes an issue; it's already much better than endless relisting which can be thought of as automatic, indiscriminate renomination regardless of whether the nominator is even following the discussion anymore. (By the way, there shouldn't be too many NPASRs in the first place because soft deletion should be used whenever viable.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking today at an old reversion of WP:Deletion policy, and I saw in there that the NPASR concept, not necessarily with the same words, predates WP:Deletion process.  You've raised many interesting points, although I sense that there is no longer an expectation of an endless discussion like there may have been then.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this talk page is listed at the category Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. I can't figure out why. Can anyone locate whatever anomaly here is causing that listing, and fix it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Bradv 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good eye! --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a bold edit, but I got reverted without any discussion. If you want the edit to stay in then we need to discuss this and get consensus for it, see WP:BRD. @Ansh666: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bit bizarre if any editor could close any discussion at any stage, and then claim that a mod is required to undo that close (but this is happening). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was inserted just a year ago by Esquivalience. After such a time lapse its removal looks less like a case of BRD than one of unexplained content removal. However, there may be grounds for reviewing this stipulation; could you support your case with a couple of examples?: Noyster (talk), 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC it was the result of a RfC; I will check and get back to you later today. ansh666 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: looking back through talk page archives, this stipulation has been in the guideline since at least 2008; the most recent edit was mostly just a rewording. The closest we have to a formal endorsement is this RfC. See also Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I've restored the content. ansh666 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666: Thank you. I have specified that it is about deletion discussions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: that is not at all true. The RfC was clarifying specifically for deletion discussions, but it does still apply to all non-admin closures. ansh666 00:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666: Do you have any evidence for that claim? I don't think you are correct. Please discuss instead of reverting. Talkpages are important. I removed the words "or another appropriate venue" that you added, because deletion review is the appropriate venue for deletion discussions, and you seem to be trying to change it so that it would apply to all discussions anywhere (which is of course outside of the scope of this page). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow forgot what page I was on; the current wording is correct for deletion discussions. The phrasing at WP:NAC in each section is correct for those types of discussions. Sorry about the confusion. ansh666 07:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admistrator closures may only be reopened in the following manners: by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasons in full (but not solely because the closer is not an administrator per this RfC; de facto in regard to non-deletion discussions, at least by what I found offhand) per WP:NAC; by consensus at deletion review in the case of deletion discussions, by consensus at move review in the case of requested moves, or by consensus at the administrator's noticeboard in the case of other discussions per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have followed NAC closes for a long time. Any NAC may be undone by any WP:UNINVOLVED admin (UNINVOLVED is generally required for admin actions), if they find fault with the close. Merely being an NAC is not sufficient reason. Their reasons "in full" is an overstatement, they only need to give a good reason. Often it is diplomatic to not provide "every reason in full detail". Also note that nothing is fully prescriptive. A particularly bad closing action may be BOLDly undone in some circumstances, a consensus anywhere (not just at WP:AN, and there are caveats such as in providing sufficient notifications) can justify anything, and WP:IAR. NB. A good NAC is one for which there is no conceivable justification in reverting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed for the most part: "[The uninvolved administrator] only need[s] to give a good reason", "A particularly bad closing action may be [bold]y undone [per WP:IAR]" (though dropping a note at WP:AN would probably lead to an uninvolved administrator reopening the discussion in their individual capacity if it is particularly bad which is the best road to take), and a consensus in other places may be adequate to reopen a discussion in some cases. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]