Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Deleting links to userboxes

Having just closed an MfD for several userboxes, I was wondering whether there's a way of getting a bot to delete their transclusions? I can't seem to find any instructions on this, and the boxes have a lot of transclusions - would take hours to sort it myself. Number 5 7 16:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well as a user I would be unhappy about a bot delinking them of my page. It is OK if the bot does something useful, such as renaming, but I think it would be preferable to let a redlink remain so that the affected user can take care of the situation. Perhaps they want to use a different box or delete, or recreate the text on their own page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Number 5 7 08:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

XFDs for category redirects

When a category redirect is proposed for deletion, should the discussion be held at RFD or CFD? I'm not sure, so I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 113#Deletion of category redirects. Your participation would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can admins revert NACs if they disagree with the closer's interpretation of consensus (WP:NACD), pertaining to AfD?

Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. Best of regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

It's a little funny seeing another current RfC involving the same section of this guideline. If a NAC closes an AfD, can an admin revert the close if they disagree with the closer's interpretation of consensus and completely avoid WP:DRV? An admin recently reverted my controversial close to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Liga Bet, even though an involved editor already attempted to seek Deletion Review, albeit on the wrong venue. The guideline he cited says nothing about an admin being allowed to do this and only states the following points for basis of an admin reverting a closure:

Deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and taking account of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, please avoid closing discussions.
Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome.
Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.
In cases where an administrator has deleted a page, including by speedy deletion, but forgot to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.
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. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well.

It also states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." While it doesn't state why an admin can reopen, logic tells me that the statement is paired with the 5 criteria directly above (also how it is laid out in the guideline). If it is meant to be a standalone statement, it contradicts WP:BURO and WP:EQUALITY. Allowing an admin (not even an uninvolved non-admin, WP:EQUALITY) to reopen a closed AfD discussion is disruptive and should be taken to WP:DRV which is meant for these exact situations. Also, reopening the discussion violates WP:TPO (which applies to AfD). And as a note, DRV has no prejudice against the closer's userrights.

Final point: Admins shouldn't be allowed to judge a NAC's interpretation of consensus, the community should, which is why we have DRV.

Additional info: The admin stated "......I am entitled, as an administrator, to revert your NAC because it was not an accurate reflection of consensus." Even though it should be decided by the community, not an individual person, at DRV which states: "Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;....." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy and practise are both clear that any admin can revert any NAC for any reason. The rest of your TLDR rant is simply making you look childish and petulant. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since you appear to be getting fixated on an incorrect understanding of policy let me refer you to Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures which states inter alia "Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", from Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions) or could result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. " That's pretty clear that reverting admin can act on their own authority without needing a consensus at DRV behind them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  - Moved from ANI: ....."Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator... [redacted - I already disputed this line ~~above~~. Also, it only applies to the bullets listed above it; it is not a non exhaustive list] ...or could result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review" That essay says nothing about reverting due to disagreeing over interpretation of consensus.

Also it is an essay; it is not enforceable nor does it reflect community consensus over the ability that "any admin can revert any NAC for any reason". MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 07:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Spartaz. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator does not have any strings attached, so in the current text any admin can undo any NAC for any reason. It may or may not be particularly appropriate, especially if the admin participated in the discussion, but it would still be legitimate.

Even as such, Daniel's reversion of your close on the example given above is perfectly fine, because of this sentence: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. NACs are supposed to be reserved for very clear-cut cases (the exact text in WP:NAC is beyond doubt a clear keep). Ansh666 07:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are telling me an admin can arbitrarily revert an NAC closure based on their own agenda not listed in that policy (preceding that first statement) and against the purpose of DRV? Also, Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator does not say 'must' or anything of the sorts. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Ansh666 16:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed " and may be reopened " from the phrase " Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator ". I agree that it goes against TPO, as both are guidelines, it creates a situation where two equal proceedures say "yes" and "no" to the same thing. My suggestion (suprisingly) would be to allow the admins to remove inappropriate AFD closes if the close is shown to either be something only an admin can do (like a close to Delete) or the consensus can be shown to be wrong. This would put the onus on the NAC to document how a close was determined as well. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can - and KoshVorlon you really shouldn't be editing a guideline while and RFC is being conducted to determine whether the guideline should be edited or not. If you're going to determine the consensus of this discussion you should close it (a spectacularly bad idea after less than 24 hours, especially given the subject matter) but editing things while they are being discussed is just confusing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes they can. Chillum 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum and Stalwart111: Do you both disagree that this action violates WP:TPO and goes against what DRV is meant to do? Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..... MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

NACs should be rare. Want the power to close discussions? Submit an RFA. DRV is designed to allow the community to review (generally) admin decisions relating to deletion. Non-admins can't delete articles so the number of non-admin closures being brought to DRV should be pretty low and people take a pretty dim view of bad NACs there. If you're a non-admin and your decisions are being overturned at DRV then that's a big problem in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Actually my removal was a bold removal, so if anyone re-instates the removed text, I won't pull it back out. The point is, it was put in boldy, now it's removed and being discussed, so if the concern is to follow policy and guideline, the proper steps would be, get consensus via this RFC, if the consensus is for the belief that admins can't just close out NACs as they had before, then the wording needs to stay out. If the consensus is that they can, the wording can be returned just as it was. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. Your removal was bold and in good faith, but premature. It should stay in the guidelines UNTIL consensus develops to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously good faith, just confusing. All good. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Can admins revert NACs if they disagree with the closer's interpretation of consensus?" Of course they can. This is longstanding practice. Admins are entrusted by the community, via the RfA process, to make this kind of decision. Nobody "vets" or approves of non-admin closers, they just jump in and do it as volunteers. Their help is appreciated, but ONLY if they are willing to defer to review and possible reversal of their closures by an admin. Admins have been given the "keys" to do this; non-admin closers have not. If someone reopens a NAC close, the person who closed it should view it as a learning experience, from which they can gain experience and learn more about evaluating consensus. User:MrScorch6200, this principle has been confirmed to you by many people, both here and at the original ANI discussion. Your stubborn refusal to accept it makes me wonder if you should be forbidden from doing any more non-admin closes. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why I would need a ban (or how a ban would help the community) if I we are not debating my ability or my closure(s). I am debating the ability of admins to reverse closed discussions. First of all, I would've re-opened it if I was asked, but I wasn't and it wasn't discussed with me before he re-opened. Second off all, it is a clear violation of WP:TPO. Admins shouldn't be exempted from a guideline. Third of all, it goes against the use of DRV and once again, the action violates TPO. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  - Huh? The guideline at TPO says that in general one should not edit or change the comments of others on a talk page. I am baffled what this has to do with the case. A closure is not a "comment", it is an action - one normally taken by an admin, but allowed by non-admins if the case is clearcut enough. Your attempt to WP:Wikilawyer this situation is not gaining you any adherents ~~(have you noticed that not a single person in either discussion has agreed with you?),~~ and IMO your continued refusal to understand the limits of NACs casts doubt on your ability to do NACs. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  - P.S. As for following vs. violating guidelines: the guideline for non-administrators is that they are only supposed to close cases where the result is pretty obvious. "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." The case you closed, the one you are now so indignant about, had five "keep" !votes and ~~four~~ five (counting the nominator) "delete" !votes when you closed it as "keep". That is a textbook example of a discussion that should not have been closed by a non-administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    - Actually, TPO applies to AfD. And User:KoshVorlon agrees (above ↑) that it goes against TPO. See the top of the guideline, "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200 I appreciate your passion, however, pull back a bit, or at least re-read your responses, you're coming across harshly, and I don't think that's your intent. Let me point out that as of this second, Admins can reverse NAC closes on AFD's, however, that idea is being challenged at this time as it (IMHO) conflicts with WP:TPO. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 20:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if TPO (which is a guideline, not a policy) forbids admins from acting according to NACD (which is also a guideline), one solution would be to simply forbid all NAC closures, and say that only admins can close discussions from now on. However, I don't think that would be a positive development for the wiki. Better solution: if anyone other than Scorch and Kosh actually finds this "conflict" to be a problem, we could add "admins reverting NAC closures" to the permitted exceptions at TPO. Even better: consensus could agree that TPO refers to comments but not to actions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that your third proposal shouldn't be decided here, but rather on the respected talk page. We still have a lot of time for this RfC, so let's wait for other users to come along and comment. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines asking for input here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is longstanding practice. Referencing WP:TPO is an attempt at wikilawyering IMO. Non-admin closes have always been subject to review and unilateral overturn by an admin; they were first introduced around 2005 to reduce the admin backlog at AfD. I remember back then, hundreds upon hundreds of articles showed up at AfD since PROD didn't exist, CSD was less robust, and people in general were bad at selecting articles that actually deserved deletion. So non-admins were allowed to close obvious "keep" discussions in order to reduce admins' workload and get some "admin practice" (for prospective RfA candidates). Just because TPO does not explicitly mention this as an exception (assuming it even applies to closures) doesn't mean the intent isn't there that mistakes by non-admins acting in an admin-like capacity can be overturned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Admin's are !voted in by the community on the basis that they are able to judge what's good for Wikipedia and what isn't. Allowing anyone to close an AfD (albeit as a non delete outcome) is certainly subject to admin oversight and reversion if appropriate. I've also closed the similar discussion on this topic at ANI as administrator intervention is not required. Philg88 ^♦talk 22:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes There is no system of governance that is problem free. However, imposing the view that any passing non-admin can perform a close that can only be challenged with DRV would not help to reduce problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all for chiming in and pointing out to this editor that their relative inexperience has led them to an interpretation of policy that conflicts with how it has been executed consistently for 7 or so years. As I wrote on ANI, I had the courage of my convictions that I was acting in line with both policy and general precedent, although one naturally doubts themselves slightly when an editor so belligerently insists that you're wrong. Your kind words and confirmation is appreciated. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes The value of this oversight is quite clear, and the AfD that led to this discussion is a pretty clear example of that value. GoldenRing (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes As a matter of practice. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (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.

Followup: I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, asking whether something should be added to WP:TPO about admins re-opening non-admin closures. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment I think this was closed too quickly. The issue of WP:TPO has gotten mixed into the discussion without being properly aired. In this entire discussion, there is only one example of an NAC being reopened. Not saying that it should be reopened, but IMO this is far from conclusive. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- And the issue of WP:TPO has also been deemed irrelevant by several uninvolved commenters. Besides, Scorch, who initiated the RfC, closed it themselves. Ansh666 03:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That there is a general consensus clearly emerging that this accepted process either does not conflict with the aforementioned guideline or takes precedence over it, both of which come up with the same answer to the RfC question. Ansh666 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, but there is no consensus that WP:NACD takes precedence over WP:TPO. The issue of WP:TPO that was raised here was based on a misunderstanding that WP:TPO makes other editors' edits inviolate, and also, editors were using the word "revert" ambiguously.
I don't know if the admins are claiming the right to literally revert closes, but if so, that is something that would be good to discuss. I suspect that they are rationalizing reverts as expedient, and wouldn't object if we expanded the WP:NACD reopening guideline to mention WP:TPO. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I've updated the WP:NAC essay to change the word "reverted" to "reopened" with the edit comment "revert is not normative practice as per WP:TPO". Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment The issue with the word "revert" is confounded on this talk page in that it is being used with multiple meanings, and in some cases ambiguously. Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with that change. My opinion is that as long as the original close is mentioned either up top or at the bottom, it's fine. Ansh666 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about WP:NACD

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

In Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (NACD), there is a sentence Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. which is, as far as I can see, often ignored: I usually see involved non-administrators who disagree with the close reverting (though, they're often right) and sometimes even edit-warring to keep it open. (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure has the same commonly-ignored instruction: Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", from Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions) or could result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Inappropriate early closures thus waste everyone's time.) Now, if my observations are true (and please, tell me if they are or not) - that most of the time, this rule is not known or ignored - should it be enforced or removed? It seems to me that, if guidelines follow community consensus and practice, that it should be the latter. Ansh666 18:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ansh666: You might consider checking out these closure reviews of RFCs that have been brought up. Cunard (talk · contribs) has been maintaining it since 2013. It's not a long list, but there are cases when a non-admin close is contested and subsequently reviewed by an administrator; some have been endorsed and others reverted or the RfC reopened. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: My concern is more about deletion discussions (and AfD in particular), which is where I see most of this behavior. Part of the problem, I feel, is that people at AfD are often new(er) content creators and don't know the ins and outs of policy as well as RfC participants. Ansh666 21:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The premise here doesn't make sense to me. What evidence is there that the sentence is ignored? I don't see the relation between the sentence and the issue of involved editors (both admin and non-admin) re-opening RfC and AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence often ignored states that non-admins should not re-open a deletion NAC, which does happen. Ansh666 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  - Perhaps you are thinking of the Template used in closing the discussion, that says that the page should not be edited thereafter. Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    - I am most definitely not. Ansh666 03:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
      - In the sentence, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator.", I see the word "administrator", but nothing about non-admins. Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The implication would be that non-admins are not allowed to reopen discussions. Why mention administrators specifically if anyone can do it? (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamesRadar, which is the latest example and the one which prompted this question.) Ansh666 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this might require an RfC on this matter so we can get a clear consensus on this matter. I'm going to start one now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should non-admins reopen deletion discussions after an NAC?

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

Participation here is not really adequate to form a rock-solid consensus, but there does seem to be a general agreement that, as a rule, non-admins reversing each others' closes is not a good idea and it's usually better to seek input from an admin or take it to DRV. As with any rule, this will have occasional exceptions and is subject to common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Should non-admins reopen deletion discussions if it is closed by another non-admin per WP:NACD? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem in the example, and I could give others, is that a participant is re-opening the discussion. This is not a problem of whether or not the editor is an admin, as an admin has been known to re-open an RfC whose close they didn't like. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that is another issue, but I'm pretty sure I've seen uninvolved non-admins do it before too. It's hard for me to find examples, because I've participated in a lot of deletion discussions and read through even more without leaving a trace of involvement. Ansh666 03:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
As a description of best practice, implying that users should seek admin review rather than simply reverting closes they dislike is fine. I oppose making any stronger statement in either direction, however, because these cases are always going to need to be judged on their individual merits. --erachima talk 11:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You mean at an AfD? No. That's what deletion review is for. Discuss it on the closer's talk page, alert a friendly admin, or take it to the due process. Re-opening a closed discussion is disruptive. It leads to edit wars where people repeatedly open and close the discussion, and then newcomers get pissed off when their comments get removed in the crossfire. I've seen it happen, and it's too much drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:TPG (WP:TPO) neither admins nor non-admins should revert a close, as doing so changes the meaning. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Given subsequent developments, I should clarify that reverting a close is not the same as reopening a discussion. WP:TPO does not say that the edits of other users are inviolate. The two key principles are (1) Don't change the meaning, and (2) We are here to build an encyclopedia. Reverting violates WP:TPO by changing the meaning. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of a revert of a close. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

...and here is another. Non-admin closed as "keep" at a time when there were five !votes for "keep" and five (counting the nominator) for "delete". Reopened and relisted by an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN: wrong section. This one's about non-administrators. Ansh666 03:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry. MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we want is edit wars over NACs of deletion discussions. However, if an editor feels that the close was inappropriate then there should be a mechanism to air their concerns. The best way to do that is to ask an admin if they think it was a non-appropriate closure based on the concensus shown. If the admin concurs, then he/she (i.e. the admin) can reopen it. If not, then the decision stands and we avoid a lot of potential drama. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide an example or examples. Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of what? Ansh666 04:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems I should reiterate the framework of the discussion here to answer that question. The premise of this RfC is that non-admins reopening a discussion is problematic and that admins reopening a discussion is proper. I've objected that the problem in the initial example was not an example of a problem with a non-admin reopening, because it would also represent a problem had it been an admin reopening. The poster I questioned has made assertions that are plausible based on reading the guideline, but I'm wondering if the assertions are also founded in practice. Examples might include both NAC reopened by nonadmins, and NAC reopened by admins. Unscintillating (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any examples. This is a guideline discussion about a "what if?" situation, i.e. what do we do at some future point in time when a particular event occurs. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you can just ask an admin or go to DRV. I suppose a non-admin could revert a NAC but it would accomplish little, ultimately someone needs to make a binding decision. Chillum 04:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted non-admin closes and if the circumstances were repeated I'd do it again. (I'd have reverted a sysop if they'd made the same close: some decisions are so dumb that they need to be unilaterally reversed.) It would be suboptimal if this discussion came up with a rule against reverting closes.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 5 September 2014 (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.

Non Admin closing reopened debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Liga Bet

The discussions above including this RFC and also this RFC were due to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Liga Bet non admin closure by MrScorch6200 which was first discussed in ANI discussion and then reopened by Daniel as it was a "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." and after this only one user commented and voted Keep.This still remains a "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." .This should have been closed by a administrator with a clear rationale but it has been closed another non admin Natg 19 without a rationale.Whatever be the result Keep, no consensus or delete. Feel Procedurally and by policy if one non admin's closure is reopened by an admin another non admin should not close it. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. Particularly if there is no rationale, it suggests the closer did not have the experience to realise that it needed a proper explanation to go with a close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the problem with this AfD. I will reopen it and let an admin close it. Natg 19 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Soft deletion

What exactly is soft deletion? And when would you use it? It is very poorly explained here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone nominates an article for AfD and after several relists the discussion receives no discussion or very little discussion, the closing admin can close the debate as "soft delete" and delete the article. But afterwards, if anyone wants the article restored for any reason whatsoever, the article will be restored (same as pretending like the article was never nominated for AfD but was instead deleted under PROD). Formerly (like several years ago), admins were advised to close discussions with little participation as "no consensus," but it didn't make a whole lot of sense given that if they had nominated it under PROD, the article would have been deleted already. So the change in policy was made. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There's continued misunderstanding. It sounds like it will be something less than deleting, but it simply is deleting. There's no way anyone besides admins can see the former article in order to decide to ask for its restoration. An editor commenting in the RFC below, assumes, perhaps reasonably but incorrectly, that "soft deletion" means just courtesy blanking the page. It is not just that, the page is entirely gone. It's not saved in a Drafts area or anywhere regular editors can see it. --do ncr am 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

practice and instructions for RFD analog to "old AFD" notices

On articles AFD'd but kept by "Keep" or "No consensus", there are clear instructions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Carrying_out_the_AfD_close about posting notice using template {{old afd multi}} at the Talk page of the article. In practice the posting is almost always done, AFAIK.

For articles RFD'd, there are no corresponding instructions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions. Template {{Old RfD}} exists, but is it used in practice? (I think it is not usually used, but am not sure. It was not applied in one recent RfD that I followed.) Surely it should be used, always, when the redirect is not deleted, right? Or at least when the RfD discussion is essentially a request for deletion of the redirect?

BTW, on articles MFD'd, there are instructions in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions (item #5 there), about using {{old MFD}}. And I ask here because Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions redirects to this Wikipedia talk:Deletion process page. --do ncr am 05:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably off-topic in this section, but can we also add Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions to this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"No quorum" closures

There appears to be no consensus. Disclaimer: technically I've been plenty involved in the AfD process (including closing them in situations where this proposal would have applied to me). However, given I genuinely couldn't care less and the fact that the outcome of "no consensus" is fairly apparent below, it seems safe enough to make this call. If someone else feels more qualified to close instead, please, by all means. :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

This was raised at a recent RfA. How should AfDs be closed in the absence of discussion? According to the No quorum section this is left to the closer's discretion. They can "keep" with no prejudice etc., soft-delete, or follow the nominator's proposal (usually this will be a normal delete), or indeed do something else. However, most of these cases are currently being closed with the article kept. (I found 12 in the last week that didn't have anyone voting "keep" or arguing to keep; all closed as ~~"keep"~~"no consensus" without action, having the same effect as "keep", by five different people). So if a PROD is placed and nobody objects, the article gets deleted: if an AfD is opened and nobody objects, the article is likely to be kept, even though the proposed deletion will then have had more exposure and usually been up for a longer time. Where's the logic in that? Proposal: that WP:QUORUM be redrafted to recommend soft-delete unless the closer gives a reason to take another course: Noyster (talk), 16:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Since it was my RfA where the question was asked, I will share my answer.[1] While I do think closer discretion should be retained, my own preference in such cases would be a WP:Soft delete, per the logic you have just expounded. In effect this was an uncontested PROD, and it had greater exposure for a longer time than a PROD. IMO it should be treated like a PROD, i.e., deleted but restorable on request. BTW I am wondering: in the dozen cases you found that were closed as Keep, how many were NAC closures? I will share my own recent experience as someone preparing for RfA: People who aspire to adminship want to do NAC closes at AfD to establish a record of competence at them. And some people just like to do NAC closes for whatever reason. This can result in a kind of competition to find and close the (really very few) AfD discussions that are eligible for NAC closure. Basically, there aren't enough "obvious keeps" to go around, for all the people who want to do NAC. I wonder if this creates a kind of incentive to close these no-quorum cases as "keep"? This is just speculation, I don't have any evidence that it's the case. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you ask Melanie, two of the closers in my sample were admins and three not, but I didn't raise this intending to point fingers at particular people, rather to urge a rethink of the guidance that anyone closing these non-discussions is working to, whether admins or not. Congratulations, by the way: Noyster (talk), 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear! Looks as if this thread on how to close AfDs with no quorum is going to get ... closed with no quorum!: Noyster (talk), 13:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Noyster: I just noticed that you said those dozen examples were closed as "keep". Were they actually closed as "keep", or was it "No consensus, NPASR"? I don't see "keep" as one of the options at WP:Deletion process#No quorum, and if people are closing such discussions as "keep" they are not following policy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, the closure notices don't say "the result was 'keep'", they say "the result was 'no consensus'" but the effect is the same: no action is taken and the article sticks around. People may well be discouraged from trying a second AfD after the first one failed, not due to any arguments to keep the article but for mere lack of interest. My suggestion is for the default action in such a case to be soft-delete rather than none: Noyster (talk), 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And I agree with that suggestion. It would be nice if a few more people would chime in here. Does the lack of participation mean nobody watchlists this page? And if nobody watchlists this page, what effect would it have to change the guideline even if it is decided to do it???? --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point: according to the Page information link this page has 237 watchers but we don't know how many are currently active. I've crossposted to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion, a page at least equally appropriate, which nets us another 1,460 watchers: Noyster (talk), 23:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Noyster, if you have the data could you provide links to the 12 AfDs you mentioned above, where an AfD with no Keep votes was closed with No consensus? Having some examples could make it easier to think about this issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here they all are then, all culled from one week of deletion logs:

: Noyster (talk), 00:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC (quorum)

Per the above, when deletion discussions have no comments what should the administrator do? Soft delete, keep, or some other action? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Enforce nominator's opinion, provided that the possible closer doesn't have a contradicting opinion. If no one comments in the deletion discussion, the closer usually assumes that there is no contest to the nominator's opinion. If the possible closing admin/non-admin has an opinion that differs from the nominator's while reviewing the discussion, then it should be voiced in the discussion instead of the discussion being closed. In other news, I'm not sure why we're discussing this; I would believe that my belief is common sense, and has also been the way that it has been for ages. Seriously, this discussion, to me, seems like a solution looking for a problem. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

See the section above, in which User:Noyster checked a dozen discussions where there was minimal participation and no "keep" !votes, but all 12 were closed as "no consensus" - which of course defaults to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Wow, it seems that we really do have a problem here, given that it seems common sense results may vary. In that case, I bid this discussion to carry on valiantly. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

...Provided that Noyster answers EdJohnston's question above. Otherwise, I'm questioning the validity of this claim. Steel1943 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, for a sample I just scanned through a single day's log: January 30, 2015. There were two no-quorum discussions closed as "No consensus": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Tour (R5) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reputation Lewis. There were no no-quorum discussions closed as "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support making soft deletion the recommended option. Also, I've seen a lot of requests on WP:UNDEL for soft-deleted articles get rejected. AfD closers need to be explicit about when they mean soft deletion by actually using the words "soft delete" as opposed to just "delete," and UNDEL patrollers should feel free to restore an AfD with zero participation (not one, or two, for those cases the deleting admin has discretion over soft vs. hard and when not explicitly specified it is assumed to be hard) even if soft deletion is not specified. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Soft delete - if nobody opines, it might as well have been an uncontested PROD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Repeating my support comment from the discussion above. I believe closer discretion should be retained, but the recommended closure should be "soft delete", since the result of the discussion is pretty much the same as an uncontested PROD. Also, if the consensus here is to recommend "soft delete", we need to figure out how to convey that consensus to current closers. Right now they all seem to be closing no-quorum discussions as "no consensus". --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Support soft deletion as the default option when there is no quorum, per MelanieN. There's nothing to stop a closer from specifying something like "on request, may be restored by any admin". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Support soft deletion as the default option, but leave regular old delete available to the closer's discretion. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There is no quorum for consensus but I would expect closers to consider soft delete in these circumstances. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Consider the first of the examples given above: Altai. This seems to be a tedious technical wrangle about disambiguation and so it's not surprising that most editors would soon decide that they had something better to do than get tangled up in that. But the word Altai is clearly deserving of disambiguation as it's a significant region and people in Asia. So, we should not let tiresome wikilawyering of this sort drive off contributors to the point that it damages the project. There are usually obvious alternatives to deletion in such cases and it's no bad thing if the nominator has to fall back on those. Andrew D. (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Altai discussion was correctly closed as "No consensus." IMO that really wasn't a "no quorum" case, because multiple people participated in the discussion; it's just that none of them said "keep" or "delete". The proposal here would encourage a "soft delete" close in the type of case where there is no comment at all except for the nomination, such as this one. And this proposal would not REQUIRE a soft deletion; closer discretion would be maintained and would obviously have been used in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – Prods can be declined, whereas AfD nominations usually cannot, with the exception of withdrawn noms with no delete !votes. Prefer to leave discretion regarding closures as it presently exists, rather than forcing delete closures for AfD discussions that receive no input. For admin closures, WP:SOFTDELETE always remains an option in these cases. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

True, AfD nominations cannot be declined, but a "keep" comment can be made, which takes the discussion out of the realm of "no quorum" that we are discussing here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Soft Delete - I recently nominated an article that had no !votes and was closed as "No consensus", After reverting the close - the afd got 1 delete !vote and was subsequently deleted - I firmly believe with or without that !vote it would've been soft-deleted which brings me on to the next point - More often than not I see the "no votes" AFDs being closed as No Consensus when it's obvious half can and should be soft-deleted,-

So personally I think No consensus type AFDs should be closed and soft-deleted by Admins only - If anyone had an issue we always have WP:DRV and WP:UNDELETION, Anyway that's my 2¢ on it. –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Soft delete If there is a deletion discussion and nobody objects and the reasoning is valid then it should be soft deleted at the admin's discretion. Such a deletion should be reversed upon a reasonable request. Chillum 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

and the reasoning is valid That's a good qualifier, and it's why we will still need closer discretion. If they feel the nomination is not well based in policy, they could and should close as "no consensus". If the nomination seems completely bogus they could even close it as "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Soft delete. In agreement with Chillum here that soft deletion at the admin's discretion and reversion on reasonable request is the appropriate way to go. I would also encourage closers to make a !vote themselves rather than closing a discussion that has no !votes other than the nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Support soft deletion as default. Entirely agree with the logic that it should be treated as though it were an uncontested PROD. I disagree with the wording in the subsection below, but will address it there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Soft delete as per previous commenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
Oppose Rule creep. This is not a common problem, and can easily be solved by renomination. A few frustrating non-deletions is not adequate case for introducing an entire new procedure. Soft close is sufficiently new that it would have to be incorporated into the procedures at many places, and I think at the vey least a fuller discussion would be needed with adequate notice to the whole community. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose delete (soft or otherwise). It creates opportunity for abuse. Should be more input than the nom and closer. If there is no participation, try again. Not such a bad worse case: try again. -- GreenC 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought that soft delete was the status quo already...apparently not. I'll see if I can find the discussion(s) that led me to believe so. ansh 666 11:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There's a few common cases where SOFTDELETE is counterindicated, it is often the right answer, but not uniformly so. Also per DGG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Arriving here late, I see the discussion below may have reached a conclusion (not to make a change). I agree with that. I observe that the cases where there are no votes--and/or where I don't vote--are ones which are difficult, where it would take substantial effort to figure out what's best and/or to express a new kind of reasoning. Or maybe there's some feeling that the nomination is wrong, or there will be an unfair practical impact on some editor(s), or drama is likely, or the timing is not right. These are generally NOT just like PRODs, it is generally clear that there should be a discussion before deleting. These either need to be dealt with, by us facing the difficulties, or closed no consensus. No consensus effectively means either that keeping is the right thing, permanently, or keeping is right, at least for now. I appreciate MelanieN's summary that the consensus is not to change. --do ncr am 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - No consensus is just that no consensus. That said, if you want to add to the closer's toolbox to be able to "soft delete" (which I presume is merely a courtesy blanking of the page) I don't mind that (especially in the case of a BLP), but it should definitely not be the automatic result of a no consensus / no quorum close. - jc37 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - on the occasions when leaving the article visible would cause actual harm to the encyclopedia, I imagine there is already a speedy deletion reason which can be invoked. Bringing an article to AfD indicates either that the proposer thinks discussion is necessary before it be deleted or a prod was rejected, in neither case is there implied support for deletion without discussion. In the case of an article which has been edited by several editors, there is presumably some implication that they think it should be retained, even if they are not watching it (I tend to avoid editing an article if I think it should be deleted, since my time will have been wasted). --Mirokado (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to clarify exactly what is being proposed

I find it is often helpful in a discussion like this to try to come up with the exact wording that is being proposed. Here is the section currently:

Current version:

If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:
relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');

closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and

closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion often used after an articles for deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion.nd delete the page. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion.

Here is what I think we are talking about with this proposal. An important point with this proposal is that soft deletion would NOT be forced or required. It would simply be made a more prominent suggestion in the options available to the closer.

Proposed version #1:

If an AfD nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. If the nominator proposed deletion and their rationale is valid, the article can be considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion.
Other common options which may be used at the closer's discretion include, but are not limited to:

relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');

closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and

closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal, if it was not deletion.

This is just a first draft; comments welcome. MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To me the draft above reorders the list without really implementing the proposed changes above. In other words, the same options are presented without clear preference. If the nomination is valid, it should be considered as an uncontested prod. If it's not a valid nomination to begin with, it should be speedy kept. And, as always, it should be implied that if a would-be closer strongly disagrees with a deletion, he/she can decide not to be a closer and instead weigh in, thus removing soft delete as an option. What about:

Proposed version #2:

If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be valid, the nomination is considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator upon request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be invalid, it can be closed as Speedy Keep (see above).

I left out relist option because it's already presented as having been relisted "two or three times". I left out the NPASR option because that seems like what this proposal addresses directly. I left out the [hard] deletion option because, well, our premise is that there's no quorum for that. I also changed "If an AfD nomination has received no comments" to "If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis." I think that's closer to what we mean by "comments", which is otherwise much more broad and inclusive of administrative notes, off-topic comments, very general neutral questions, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. This is more prescriptive than what I thought was being proposed. (As I said, that's why it's important to get actual language into the proposal.) In effect this eliminates the "no consensus NPASR" outcome. It's true that this discussion was inspired by what appears to be currently universal use of the "no consensus" option, and the feeling by supporters that "soft delete" would be more appropriate in most cases. But I believe "no consensus NPASR" should still be available per closer discretion - although I would like to see it used more rarely, and with a closer comment as to why they did not choose "soft delete". That's why I reordered the options but did not prescribe; I thought listing "soft delete" first implied it as the default, with the others listed as options, with closer discretion maintained. I do agree with your improvement to the first sentence. Hmmm, thinking further about it... how about adding an option "if the closer feels that the article should be kept or that consensus to delete has not been reached, they should post a !vote instead of closing"? Because if the feeling here is that these are unopposed PRODs, but the closer doesn't agree with deletion, they are in effect opposing the PROD - which reopens the discussion, and if no further comments are made, it allows the next closer to choose "no consensus".--MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind putting this addition into context? It sounds good, but I'm unclear whether it negates/replaces But I believe "no consensus NPASR" should still be available per closer discretion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the proposer said "recommend soft-delete unless the closer gives a reason to take another course," I don't think they are trying to remove NPASR as an option - it merely requires explanation as to why they deviated from the norm. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC just asks "Per the above, when deletion discussions have no comments what should the administrator do? Soft delete, keep, or some other action?" I understood "per the above" to mean "per the issue raised above".

The scenario being discussed is one without the variables of a typical AfD, so it doesn't make sense to me why we would have multiple viable ways to close if consensus emerges on a default action. In other words, how would we articulate what kinds of scenarios would make sense as NPASR if the scenarios by definition do not vary except in the validity/quality of the nomination? Wouldn't it just come down to closer preference (i.e. where we are now)? If I understand MelanieN's latter idea correctly, it would present soft delete as the default action while presenting a clear course of action if the closer feels it should be closed as no consensus. That makes the most sense to me. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I kind of dropped the ball here. You are correct that I kind of changed my tune halfway through - I started out wanting to maintain the No Consensus option and ended up saying they should !vote. How about this for a more prescriptive set of guidelines? And we can ask people in the discussion above, do they want to keep the No Consensus NPASR option, or do they want such cases to be closed as soft delete as general practice? Here's a version of the guideline that does NOT offer No Consensus as an option. I guess this is Version 3. --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed version 3:

If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Recommendations:
If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be valid, the nomination is considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator upon request.

If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be invalid, it can be closed as ~~Speedy~~ Keep with an explanation.

If the closer feels that deletion is not the appropriate outcome for whatever reason, they can cast a !vote with their opinion, and allow someone else to close the discussion (which now is no longer a no-quorum discussion).

Sounds good to me. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As minimal modifications of this, (1)if the admin thinks it should not be deleted, it it ought to be keep, not SK. SK implies there is something wrong with the nomination, not just that the admin disagrees. (2) An argument agains the deletion , proposing am ere or the like, or something other than deletion , is an opinion whether or not in bold. Some of the examples presented here ha such opinions. Any reasonable challenge is a reason for not considering the afd uncontested. (3)There needs to be a formal requirement for at least 2 relistings.

But in any case, I quite frankly this is rule creep. The situation is not the common. Theo obvious thing to do is to simply renominate a month later. That almost always gets enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This wording works for me. Might change "If the closer feels that deletion is not the appropriate outcome" to "If the closer feels that the nominator's rationale is valid, but that deletion is not the appropriate outcome, they can...". Otherwise we could consider an invalid rationale as "whatever reason". Not a big difference practically speaking, though. @DGG: I think the SK scenario is when there's something wrong with the nomination (invalid) rather than the admin disagrees (which is the third scenario). Is there another wording you'd recommend other than "rationale to be invalid" that would make it clearer? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually do think "speedy keep" is a misnomer; the discussion has presumably been at AfD for two or three weeks and is ready to close, so a simple "keep" would be appropriate; there is nothing "speedy" about it. They should explain, in a comment or their edit summary, why they chose that option. I'll strike out speedy keep - better yet, I'll try to summarize the discussion here in a fourth proposed wording.

I am getting the feeling that people want "no consensus NPASR" to continue to be an option in this kind of situation, even if "soft delete as an uncontested prod" should be the recommended outcome. This situation (no quorum) seems to come up a couple of times a day. Recent research has suggested that all or almost all such cases are being closed as "no consensus", thus defaulting to keep, by both admins and non-admins. The discussion here is an attempt to change the culture, so that "soft delete" becomes more of an option - perhaps the norm - rather than the time-wasting need to renominate for deletion or the retention of articles that nobody thought it worthwhile to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase "speedy keep" is a little weird, yes, but still seems appropriate. If I nominate an article with the rationale "I don't like it" and nobody notices for three weeks, surely it still qualifies for Speedy Keep. This is the same situation. It should almost never happen that an invalid deletion rationale goes unnoticed -- and is even relisted two or three times -- for so long such that the first person to act on it is the no quorum closer...but if it does happen, it would be a speedy keep. There is likewise nothing "speedy" about a CSD much of the time except insofar as it can be done without discussion when appropriate. Such is the case here.

I am getting the feeling that people want "no consensus NPASR" to continue to be an option - Those supporting above, other than King of Hearts, look to all be favoring soft delete by default, for the AfD to be treated as a prod, and/or to say, as Chillum, that it should be soft deleted at the admin's discretion. Certainly those opposing want to retain NPASR, but I don't think that's what you meant. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point or improperly reading into the opinions above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Version 3 omitted the No Consensus option entirely; Version 4 restores it. I am thinking in terms of the possible. If we propose to outlaw No Consensus and make Soft Delete the rule - that is probably beyond what is possible. We are looking for consensus, and even if that is the majority opinion of people who have commented here (which is not clear), there are still some who disagree. This is not a vote. Our goal is consensus if possible, rather than majority rule being imposed over minority opposition. What I am trying to do - what I always try to achieve with these exercises in multiple draft versions - is to work toward a wording that pretty much everyone can accept. In this case I think a re-ordering of the existing options, and a re-emphasis on what is recommended, might well be acceptable to everyone. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A no quorum situation simply lacks the variables involved with most decisions made by admins/closers all over Wikipedia that call for such gray area: assessing consensus, evaluating arguments, interpreting policy, etc. Instead we have a standard scenario that (assuming we get out of the way whether the nomination was valid in the first place) should have a standard result rather than left to the personal inclinations of whoever happens to be closing. A PROD is a very similar scenario not just in the sense of being about deletion but also because when a PROD expires, it's a very matter-of-fact scenario wherein the "closer" acts based on very few variables: is the PROD valid? If yes, then delete or remove it as would anyone else. There aren't enough variables for something like "removing PROD without prejudice to someone immediately re-adding it". The same is true here. The would-be closer can effectively take down the PROD notice upon expiration by weighing in at the AfD or close a standard way (a standard way for which we can hope this thread will generate a consensus). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this? Proposed wording version #4, restoring the No Consensus option:

If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Recommendations:
If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be valid, the nomination may be considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator upon request.

If the closer feels that the nominator's rationale is valid, but that deletion is not the appropriate outcome for whatever reason, they can cast a !vote with their opinion, and allow someone else to close the discussion (which now is no longer a no-quorum discussion and not eligible for soft-delete).

At the closer's discretion the discussion can be closed as "no consensus NPSAR", but they may wish to add a comment explaining why they did not choose "soft delete".

If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be invalid, it can be closed as Keep with an explanation.

Comment regarding "rule creep": I don't see this as a new rule, but rather a re-ordering of the options currently in the guideline here. Right now the guideline recommends: relisting; closing as No Consensus; "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" whatever that means; or (fourth and presumably last) soft delete. I am mostly trying to change the priority or order of the listed options, so that "soft delete" is the first thing a closer thinks of rather than the last. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that "keep" makes sense at all for the last as it has implications for future nominations. Again, as my comment above, this means that a nomination as "I don't like it," if it makes it to a no quorum close, would be closed as "keep" rather than "speedy keep" as invalid. I don't understand including the third option unless some kind of explanation is given for when it could be an option. The only reason I can see of including it as an option is for the sake of those who don't like the idea of deleting in no quorum cases (making this thread moot). Other than that, it seems like it would have to be based on either the article or on the nomination, both of which are addressed by the other options here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I do think we need to allow for the opinions of people who just don't like the idea of deleting in no quorum cases. And I don't think that makes this thread moot. This thread is about ENCOURAGING people to use Soft Delete, or even making them aware that the option exists. If your only acceptable outcome is to abolish No Consensus and replace it with Soft Delete, then this thread is indeed futile - because that idea is not going to pass. On the other hand, I am hopeful that we COULD pass a proposal to make Soft Delete a more visible and even encouraged option - while leaving No Consensus as an option for those who prefer it. As for Keep vs. Speedy Keep in the (likely very rare) case of an invalid nomination which has somehow survived unchallenged for three weeks, I am open to either. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here you're saying "abolish" and previously "outlaw", which is pretty loaded language. Nothing on Wikipedia is "outlawed" because there's always the caveat to ignore all rules if necessary. Regardless, what is the practical result of making soft delete "a more visible and even encouraged option" if no consensus is "an option for those who prefer it"? Flipping that, the closer's preference has more practical significance than the community's preference. Documented encouragement would mean it's the community's preference, but that's immediately negated by "no consensus an option for those who prefer it". Saying it comes down to the closer's preference makes the decision arbitrary based on the individual who closes it. Whatever is stated about soft delete should preclude personal preference. The problem is, as I've said above, preference is all there is when multiple options are given and there's no role for judgment (i.e. a standard situation with nothing in its particulars to judge). Regarding what can/can't pass, I can't agree. The majority of support opinions above look to be supporting, at weakest, "it should be soft deleted at the admin's discretion" which is quite far from a basis on preference. Yes, yes, majority isn't everything, but I'd like to think that if some consensus can be reached about what is preferred by the community, that it is implemented in a way that has real practical effects. Anyway, with this I'm feeling like I've posted more than my share to this thread so will sit in the timeout chair until others have had a chance to weigh in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Still oppose re-reading the discussion, I think this is a classic example of how wikipedia process works: find a minor problem,and propose a complex solution. And in fact,as often the case for complicated fixes, it is counterproductive to the basic purpose of deletion policy: it puts borderline articles where they will not be found to be improved, instead of where they will be found to be improved; it is a direct contradiction to the basic rule that deletion is the last choice among possible solutions. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To get back to my motivation for starting all this: if you oppose here, you should a fortiori be challenging the PROD system, which achieves the same result (deletion if no-one including the closer objects) with less visibility. The laudable attempt to find a consensus wording seems to be complicating the issue and paradoxically taking us away from consensus. To repeat: Proposal: that WP:QUORUM be redrafted to recommend soft-delete unless the closer gives a reason to take another course. Finally, "no consensus" shouldn't be the closer's verdict in AfDs with no participation; that term is more suitably applied where there was a debate which did not reach consensus. It should be either "no quorum: soft delete" or "no quorum: <keep NPASR/ keep / merge / etc> <rationale>". However, we can draft guidance all we want, but in the end someone has to apply judgement in each case, and in no-quorum cases no-one else has helped: Noyster (talk), 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I am abandoning my attempt to promote this idea, or to find a consensus wording for it. To me it seemed obvious that an AfD where no-one comments but the nominator is the equivalent of an unopposed PROD. In fact it seemed even more delete-worthy than an unopposed PROD, since it had more eyes on it and for a longer time - and in all that time nobody said they thought the article was worth saving. But if someone as experienced and respected as DGG disagrees, then it is simply not going to happen. Those of us who proposed this idea should instead focus on trying to make sure there are fewer discussions with no consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the concept, the problem is the implementation. I think rather than go about it this way, try to see if you could get support for the following: "Any page which was deleted as a result of Delete in an XfD, which had no commenters other than the nominator, may be considered a "soft delete", which means it is to be treated like a Prod, that is, that it may be restored upon request. An admin is obviously free to not grant the request at their discretion. (As a volunteer project, no admin is ever "forced" to use the tools.)" - This way, we're not relying on any closer in the past to ever have known about "soft deletion". - jc37 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please can someone post a link to a "soft-deleted" article so we can see the difference between that and a "deleted" article? Although I occasionally click on deleted article redlinks to find the deletion discussion I have never until now seen the term "soft delete". --Mirokado (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The term 'soft delete' is used in closing the discussion, Mirokado, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. There is no difference in the actual deletion of the article except it will be restored on request, usually at WP:REFUND. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2015 (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.

I put a AFD up but it didn't go on the page

So I put up a AFD for Zsolt Turi which indeed did get it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsolt Turi but for some reason it said error and didn't get on the page-seems to be a error there. (On another note yesterday a page I put up as a XFD didn't even get one for some reason until I redid it, and titles with ? don't seem to go through XFD) Wgolf (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you're using Twinkle - make sure that you wait all the way until the script redirects to the discussion page before closing the tab and/or window - this will allow it to complete all steps of the task successfully. And if you did do that, well...then I've got no idea. ansh 666 17:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)