View source for Wiki143 talk:Deletion process

{{oldmergefull
| otherpage = Wikipedia:Deletion discussions
| date = 5 September 2011
| result = merge
| talk = Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process/Archive 7#Merge_discussion
}}
{{Copied 
|from       = Wikipedia:Deletion discussions
|from_oldid = 
|to         = Wikipedia:Deletion process
|to_diff    = 
|to_oldid   = 
|date       =
|small      =
}}
{{archive box}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 90K
|counter = 15
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
{{Shortcut|WT:DELPRO|WT:DPR}}

== admins justifying actions per NACD and/or policy regarding reopening discussions listed under a section discussing closing them ==

[[User:OwenX]] {{diff2|1267100359|recently}} wrote "as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity per [[WP:NACD]]" he relisted/reopened a deletion discussion. This caused me light confusion; he says he's an admin, but he also refers to a policy which specifically refers to non-admin actions? {{pb}} Upon closer examination, the policy "Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by [..] or an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity" is given under the header "Non-administrators closing discussions." This seems out of place. What would be a more appropriate place for it? After skimming the article, perhaps a new header for reopening closed discussions? At the very least, it must be hard for a reader to find the sole reopening-related policy under a heading that specifically refers to non-admin actions and specifically refers to closing, not (re)opening, discussions. Regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 14:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:It also says that they should state their reasons for the re-open. Which probably should be more substantive than merely "per nacd".
:That aside, an admin re-opening a discussion closed by a non-admin? That section seems like the best place for that. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::: What section? [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are absolutely right about stating my reasons. Thankfully, {{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} {{diff2|1267103177|linked to the DRV}} that prompted me to relist the AfD minutes later. In hindsight, I should have done so myself. Thank you for the reminder. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I did not post here to question or discuss any individual action. I'm here because I feel the instructions related to reopening needs a section of its own. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. I boldly went ahead and implemented your suggestion, moving the paragraph to a new section for a more logical flow, and adding a new, easy to remember shortcut to it: [[WP:REOPEN]]. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Per the time of this reply the only real improvement is the addition of a shortcut users can use in their future edit summaries, but there's no entry in the TOC, and a shortcut wasn't what I was asking for anyway. Why not add a subsection for reopens just as there are sections for relisting discussions and closing discussions? And then collect every related policy in that one place. 
:: AND make sure the rules are comprehensive, that is, a reader should be able to go there to learn how and when a non-admin can and should reopen a discussion as well as how and when an admin can and should do it. Making it a subsection to non-admin closes just raises more questions than it answers: what if I want to reopen a discussion that wasn't closed by a non-admin is just one. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 15:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If you check the page history, you'll see that I did, in fact, add a header, '''Reopening a deletion discussion''', which was then correctly lowered one level by {{u|Primefac}} so it falls under the NACD section. But the header was then removed by {{u|Jc37}}. This is as good a place as any to discuss this. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 15:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Admins re-opening a discussion closed by another admin would be something specifically noted at [[WP:ADMIN]]. It's not. As far as I know, there's no specific [[WP:CON|consensus]] about that. It pretty much just falls under the normal discretion that we entrust admins with. See [[WP:RAAA]].

What this page is noting, is that a non-admin closure may be reverted by an admin. This was as a result of several discussions about non-admins performing actions that had been ascribed to admins, such as closing discussions. 

To answer [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]]'s specific question, if a non-admin wants to re-open another non-admin's close, they should talk to the closer first, and if still concerned, ask an admin to assess, just like any action typically done by an admin. Depending on the reason for the re-open, this may be done at WP:AN, or at [[WP:DRV]]. 

But expanding the "rules" here is just unnecessarily adding to [[WP:BURO|bureacracy]]. As noted, we already have policy covering this, we shouldn't need to cover that here. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: Just to clarify, I'm not asking for more rules. And I'm not too keen on the mindset that reopening something implicitly critiques the closer. I find it more constructive to just treat the close as an edit that may or may not need improvement. So, [[User:Jc37]], if you could distill what you just said into a paragraph and post it into the article, and add a subheader visible in the table of contents that comprehensively helps the reader that'd be great and everything I could ask for. Something like a TOC link that says "go here for what gives when you have reason to want to re-open a closed discussion" which leads to actual advice, maybe: "if the closer was an admin, talk to the admin or bring it up at [insert venue here]; if the close was a NACD, and you believe you have good reasons, you can simply reopen the discussion, here's the steps to follow: [1, 2, 3]". Hope you see I'm only pointing out what I believe is a case of "editors go here for advice but find only silence". Cheers [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 13:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I believe the majority of that info is already there. And what isn't, is already covered by other guidelines/policy.
::This page covers a lot of topics - we don't need a separate header for each one. We have plenty already.
::I believe [[User:OwenX|OwenX]] already added a shortcut, so it's already easy to link to.
::I really don't think there's much more to do here. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Shortcuts only help when someone knows they exist - and use them. They don't help the reader that goes to this page by themselves - while table of content entries do. {{tq|the majority of that info is already there}} I don't doubt it. But is it easy to find? (No). {{tq|we don't need a separate header for each one}} Unless you're prepared to argue that 8 subsections of section five is the absolute maximum, and adding a ninth would ruin the page, I'm not sure I find your argument compelling. {{tq|I really don't think there's much more to do here.}} Thank you for your opinion. Though had I shared it, I wouldn't have started this talk discussion. Now, can I ask if you're going to actively oppose me making it easy to find the advice/policy/instruction regarding reopens? Because that'd be great - if I have to make the edit myself, I will, but I don't want to waste my time. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 15:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. I think the subsection is at least as useful or commonly searched for as, say, [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion requested by_subject]], which is half as long as the one we're discussing, and ''does'' have its own header. A level-3 sub-header - one level beneath the NACD header - would serve the goal {{u|CapnZapp}} suggests, without crowding the ToC. I really don't see a valid reason to oppose this. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The point I was making is that if you add too many headers, you end up with something called "wallpapering", which is a hindrance, rather than the help you seem to think it is.
:::::There are lots of topics on this page. Creating a header simply becaause "IWANTIT", just adds to clutter.
:::::As for the section you mention, it has its own section due to [[WP:BLP]]-related issues.
:::::Anyway, in reading the above, I'm reminded of the line from The Princess Bride "I don't think it means what you think it does".
:::::You started out this discussion thinking that this was a guideline about admins' ability to re-open '''any''' discussion, when it's not.
:::::So here's what I suggest: Write up a section about '''''that''''' and we'll see if we can add it to WP:ADMIN (probably as a part of [[WP:RAAA]]). Because that's beyond the scope of NACD.
:::::You talk about things being "difficult to find" - spreading admin responsibilities on various other pages would be another example of exactly what you seem to be clamoring about. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od|5}}Know what, JC, I find you tiresome to discuss with. Why? Because you decide for yourself what I want, instead of reading what I actually want. You decide that 8 subheaders is fine but 9 gets me accused of vaguely made-up policy breeches like wallpapering and iwantitis. I don't want to edit other pages! (Your hint is: I'm here, not there.) I want this page to clearly and quickly answer any (and all) reopen-related questions a visitor might have. I thought that would be an entirely uncontroversial improvement to an obvious flaw/omission, but I have come across too many self-appointed article guardians to waste my effort. In short, I'm outta here. Owen, good luck getting even a comma past this guy.  [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 11:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am reading your words, which you have just now reiterated - you want everything here.
:Anyway, I have attempted to engage with you and to suggest a way forward, but apparently you aren't interested in that. Which is fine, this is a volunteer project, after all - one may contribute as much or as little as one may want.
:In the meantime others (including OwenX, above) have been engaging, and more than merely a comma had been added - all prior to you deciding to disengage. 
:But whichever. Have a good day. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 05:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== RfC on contested BLARs ==

There is an RfC on the proper venue for BLARed articles at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Amending ATD-R}}. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

== Bias towards inclusionism ==
The burden to deletion seems to far exceed creation, which encourages promotional and public relations editing. For example, [[Hometown Anthem]] was declined more than once at AfC, then creator went forward with simply putting it into article space. It was successfully delete by AfD, but it was created again, by the same user and it is now needing to go through AfD again. Same with [[Red Cord Records]]. The same editor has re-re-re created a handful of articles successfully deleted by AfD with more fluff, such that they were unable to be deleted with CSD G4. Each iteration of AfD takes community resources and when there's significantly more hurdle to deletion than recreation, it only encourages promotional and fan page creations. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 16:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Also, [[Emerald Moon Records]]... [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
: While I am in no way defending the editors of the articles you mention, I want to say I consider this "bias towards inclusionism" to be a generally '''good''' thing. It ''should'' be easy to add material and difficult to delete it, or we wouldn't see people trying :-). Also, with all due respect to the frustration you're likely experiencing right now, I do need to question if this really is a bias at all. After all, deleting something is ultimately as easy as pressing a button, while creating something can be a painstaking process (at least if humans are involved). Consider the times where you put a lot of effort into making an edit... only for someone to revert you. What's the bias here? Someone can undo hours of your work in seconds! (I'm simply assuming you share this experience with 99.99% of us editors here). What I'm fishing for is this - could it be that other tools would be more appropriate here? (Like warning the user; banning the user; tools to handle sockpuppets; bans on IP ranges, and the like)? Cheers [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 17:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::A hurdle that requires more community resources for deletion than creation is not a good thing when it comes to companies/organizations, people and products as that area is highly susceptible to promotional editing which becomes like graffiti which takes substantially more work to remove than apply. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:::When I saw the title in my watchlist, I'll admit I didn't expect this to be where the conversation headed - this is more an issue of someone recreating articles which will never be notable, which we can easily salt if needed. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 18:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, all of my G4 requests were denied. On a policy level, perhaps we might need a CfD (creation for discussion) for the re-creation of anything that's been through AfD. What happened here shows how they can easily re-create, but if they've added more fluff to it since the last version, a team needs to come together and expend time to establish consensus while the re-creation is allowed to occur without consensus. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't know how often this happens, though. Just send it back to AfD and note that it may need to be salted. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don't know exactly how often, but each time it happens, it is a prodigious waste of community time. Something could be done better to prevent it from happening. Is automatical referral to Creation for Discussion on a previously AfD'd article unreasonable? Here's another example [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) (2nd nomination)]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Inclusionism is a historical school of thought concerning the scope of Wikipedia according to which notability should not exist as a standard for eligibility or should be much more permissive, and also many [[WP:NOT]]-type pages are seen as fine (directory pages etc.), and deletion is an extreme action that should only be taken in the direst of situations. Inclusionism lost the war of ideas and deletionism won. Real inclusionism seems ridiculous today. It turned out that the community does not want inclusionism and has adopted and uplifted deletionism through extant policies, notability guidelines, and deletion processes. But this does not mean that there is not a bias toward creation. Even with deletionism as the victorious and governing ideology, there is still a systemic bias toward allowing new content in without bureaucratic hurdles. That is not a "bias toward inclusionism", it is a bias toward new content. To delete, we still need to put in the work to prove that it's the correct action. To keep the engine running, we need to pour the juice. That is the price of keeping deletionism in power and running. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::All those articles on record labels, hole in the wall LOCAL taverns and restaurant pages are a good indication of excessive inclusionism. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 02:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:The cost of [[WP:AfD]] is well justified.  AfD is not just a process to delete what should be deleted, it is a learning process for all involved.  The difficulty in a successful nomination to delete does not encourage promotion and fan page creations, these will be deleted, and the deletions are precedent-setting, and if any editor repeatedly creates articles that get deleted, various things will correct them.  You can help by calling them out.
:Guidelines, especially Wikipedia-notability guidelines can only be reliably written, reviewed and refined by data from the outcomes of AfDs.
:Don’t resent the number of AfDs. Value them. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

== WP:NOQUORUM and number of participants ==

# Jclemens commented a few times at [[WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 24#Tyson Apostol]]. The DRV referenced [[WP:NOQUORUM]] (shortcut to [[WP:Deletion process#No quorum]], this guideline).
# [[Special:Diff/1271677809|Jclemens added]] {{tq|(that is, between two or more participants)}} to [[WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators]]. [[Special:Diff/1272111894|I reverted {{their|Jclemens}} edit]] and started [[WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Multiple participants]].
# [[Special:Diff/1272135106|Jclemens commented again]] at the DRV: {{tqb|My epiphany: {{tq|the AfD with one participant}} is not a ''discussion'' because discussions require multiple people. Nothing in [[WP:DEL]] authorizes deletion without a discussion, so any XfD with no participation has no deletion policy guidance or standing.}}

I disagree with Jclemens's reasoning and conclusion.
# [[WP:Deletion policy#Page deletion]] delegates to WP:NOQUORUM: {{tq|In certain circumstances,<sup>[5]</sup> poorly-attended deletion discussion may be [[WP:NOQUORUM|treated as proposed deletions]] (PRODs).}}<!-- oldid=1273930358 --> The [5] note also links to [[WP:Deletion process#No quorum]].
# The ''No quorum'' section does not mention the number of participants. It includes {{tq|few or no comments}} twice, {{tq|unopposed}}, and {{tq|minimal participation}}.<!-- oldid=1272853346 -->
# The section also contains ''Soft deletion'', which is generally applied to one or two participants including the nominator and excluding deletion sorting. Selected [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=%22The+result+was+soft+delete.%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1 recent AfDs closed as ''soft delete''] by various closing admins:
## [[WP:Articles for deletion/Chen Jirui]] 2
## [[WP:Articles for deletion/Drew Talbert]] 2
## [[WP:Articles for deletion/Tabaghat Aa'lam Al-Shia]] 1
## [[WP:Articles for deletion/Powercfg]] 2
## [[WP:Articles for deletion/Hatundere railway station]] 1
## [[WP:Articles for deletion/Marco Rigamonti]] 1
# [[WP:Consensus]] (policy) and [[WP:Silence and consensus]] (related essay) focus on disagreement or the lack thereof, not a specific number of participants.
# As a counterexample, a bare [[WP:PERNOMINATOR]] (shortcut to [[WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Per nominator/X]], essay) comment has low value despite incrementing the participant count.
# I believe that highlighting the numeric difference and substituting "deletion nomination or discussion" when text covers both are unnecessary complications discouraged by [[WP:Avoid instruction creep]] (essay, shortcut [[WP:CREEP]]).

Should this guideline be revised to accommodate Jclemens's interpretation? [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
: [[Special:Diff/1274234022|I linked this]] at the previous discussion, [[WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Multiple participants]]. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:This is an incredibly long discussion of whether we should formally legislate to refute or accept the arguments of a well known but idiosyncratic single user at a highly technical venue. This doesn't seem a useful use of anyone's time but here I am. Fact is, the user frequently makes factual statement that reflect their interpretation of policy which is frequently not entirely (if not at all) based on a plain reading if said policy. These arguments should be weighed by the closing admin and given the amount of currency that admin seems fit. For many years DRV discussions were mainly closed by specific admins, GRBerry, myself, RoySmith who were all highly experienced at drv. More recently participation has declined and literally anyone has closed drvs.  That's not ideal but reflects the hollowing out of our admin and userbase and further legislation isn't a solution. The simple answer to the question is that consensus is found when sufficient policy based argument has been made and sufficient time/chance to refute this has existed. That can be anything from the nom to 100 editors. Ultimately, it relates solely to the quality of the arguments. Which honestly has been declining for some time. Hope this helps. Don't you think you should ping {{ping|Jclemens}} to this discussion. Further disclosure, Jclemens and I have been at polar opposites for years about the point at which deletion is justified. I respect them deeply even when I disagree as deeply. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 08:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Thanks for taking the time to comment. I neglected to ping, but [[Special:Diff/1274234022|I did post a link]] at Jclemens's and my previous discussion. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for the generally accurate summary, Flatscan, and thanks for the ping, Spartaz. The only thing I would change in the summary would be the conclusion. Rather than {{tq|Should this guideline be revised to accommodate Jclemens's interpretation?}} a more accurate summary is '''How should we best resolve the disconnect between DEL policy, which expects discussions that are inherently between two or more persons, and current practice that does not require multi-participant discussions in some cases?''' I didn't choose 'discussion' as the term used in policy. That dates back before me, and I literally just realized this contemporaneously with the DRVs referenced above. I have no particular interest in any particular case under discussion, and am actually OK if the consensus is to use 'discussion' in the [[wikt:discussion]] sense 2, more akin to the solipsistic 'discussion' in academic work, that's still OK. But for right now, the plain sense of our policy is that deletions only happen after discussion, and a one person argument isn't a discussion in the common usage. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::Actually, I want to give credit where credit is due. My epiphany was due to {{U|Utopes}} comment {{diff2|1272890101|here}}. I apologize for not consciously crediting that until I went back to review what had prompted that train of thought. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the clarification. I continue to disagree with your interpretation, but I will wait for others to comment. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::Obviously out policy has always been "what we do" vs "what we have written down". That's how policy evolves.  [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 20:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::In general, I agree, but when the policies first said 'discussion', we had more active editors and fewer VfDs, such that the idea of a discussion with only the nominator commenting would have been unheard of. Look back at the 2008-era AfDs that are being revisited now, and it's not uncommon to see 12-20 people commenting. Now, a well-attended AfD is about six. I'm sure someone with better query skills than me can document whether this trend is real or just anecdotal. We absolutely do need to deal with the world as it is, and it's a lot sparser on active AfD participants now. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 22:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::::You are absolutely right. I don't close AFDs any more as the sparse contributions means that outcomes are too random and it's too easy for a non policy based voice to prevail. For someone like me, who is almost entirely consumed with weighing arguments against policy, it's just no longer tenable as the community is trending towards preferring nose counts.  [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 11:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
== "[[:Wikipedia:DPROCESS]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DPROCESS&redirect=no Wikipedia:DPROCESS]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Wikipedia:DPROCESS}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:RaschenTechner|RaschenTechner]] ([[User talk:RaschenTechner|talk]]) 12:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)