Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Or we could just treat them as PRODs. Just another option. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If an AfD has been relisted twice and had no participation, I don't think a third relist is going to help. If you look at the ones that are relisted three times, most end up being closed as no consensus anyway. Relisting indefinitely until there is at least one participant will just clog up AfD and waste people's time. I agree with Someguy1221, they should be treated as PRODs. If no one has objected after two weeks, WP:NOQUORUM should be followed and the AfD should be either relisted a third time at the closer's discretion, closed as soft delete or closed as no consensus with NPASR.
    I like the idea of a page for monitoring nominations with no participants. That could be a useful and might decrease the number of AfDs that go two or three relists with no comment. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Someguy1221: if nobody has opposed seven days after the first relisting then it's uncontroversial, so treat as WP:PROD. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The AFD process does not scale because it concentrates all the discussions in one place. It is already dysfunctional and the proposal would cause it collapse completely as you'd get an ever-increasing number of Flying Dutchmen which would result in a template overload. Instead, people should be considering alternatives such as pure wiki deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note. There was a proposal last year to treat AfDs that don't receive participation as PRODs. The number of relistings was subject to an RfC in 2010. – Uanfala (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted by several people above, AFDs with no objections are functionally WP:PRODs anyways. If anything, we should spell that out more explicitly, that AFDs which lack comments are treated as uncontested PRODs. --Jayron32 13:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do you want to break AFD? Because that's how you break AFD. I'm not opposed to relisting in general, but am opposed to requiring indefinite relisting. — xaosflux Talk 13:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I support the idea of treating them like PRODs, but when this has been mentioned in the past I recall there was some opposition to it. I closed one of the two AfDs above because I've been trying to help with the backlog here. As mentionuned already, a third realist rarely results in enough !votes to do anything other than close as no consensus. From a functional perspective I honestly think a speedy renomination might draw more comments than another realist (though that is just speculation). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • For reference, as a semi-frequent AfD closer I either skip, relist (if there is only one or no relists or if the deletion rationale is questionable) or delete with a cite to WP:SOFTDELETE (if there are at least two relists, a reasonable deletion reason and no dissent). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Barring a previously removed WP:PROD, they should be treated just like proposed deletions because they are functionally equivalent. ~ Rob13Talk 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Lots of oppose arguments suggest that such discussions should be treated as expired PRODs (also known as "soft deletion"). However, that is not what happened with the two AfDs that Piotrus cites above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine van Loon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak. They were both closed instead by non-administrators as "no consensus without prejudice against speedy recreation". Perhaps what we really need is to amend WP:NACD to only allow administrators to make the determination whether to close as soft delete or to close as no consensus. This is coming from a non-admin who has made such "no consensus without prejudice" closures in the past: I typically only made such closes when there was one clearly expressed opposition to deletion (similar to a deprod), but no other comments beyond that and the nomination. If there was a discussion with no comments at all besides the nomination, I would save the closure for the administrators so that they may decide whether to soft delete, which seems to be the preferred outcome. (TL;DR: If there have been no comments to an AfD besides the nomination, non-administrators should not close it.) Mz7 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose. In both cases, I would say it was Piotr's fault. Weak non-nominations like that, "I think", "it seems", would be better speedy closed for failing to make a deletion rational. The nominator should be championing the proposal, not throwing questions out there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    And both of these nominations ask questions, so could also have been closed as WP:SK#2 WP:NPASR disruption, as AfD is not a forum to pose questions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    I wouldn't go for WP:SK#2, just #1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    And I would !vote to overturn any speedy keep closure of either nomination at DRV. There is very clearly a deletion rationale in both nominations: that the available coverage does not satisfy WP:GNG. "It seems" and "I think" are extremely common phrases used for politeness – yes, they could be eliminated to make the nomination sound more assertive, but an argument is definitely still being made. Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    An AfD nominator is supposed to give reasons for deletion. Not meeting the GNG AND there being no merge target is a good reason. Someone thinking there may be a deletion reason is not a deletion reason. The nominator should present evidence of having tried, not just throw up questions for later reviewers to do the work. When Piotr does that, it is no surprise at all that AFD reviewers pass it over. And if he keeps doing it, maybe unscintillating is right, he is disrupting AfD with half-arsed nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    But alternatively, support barring Non-Admins from closing uncontested XfDs (or at least non admins who have not discovered how to use {{db-xfd}}.) They should !vote instead. A non admin providing the first responding !vote is far more valuable than providing a non-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose  AfD volunteers are not the problem.  Reading these AfDs occurs in seeing that the community has clearly expressed an opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As a frequent AFD closer I more or less close on 2 relists as relisting for a third time achieves absolutely nothing, When I used to do relisting I would relist for a third time ... and found it to be an utter waste of time, But anyway I do agree on that we should treat them like prods - If no one comments after 2 weeks/at the end of the 2nd relist then softdelete them. –Davey2010Talk 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Treating them equivalently to a non-disputed PROD is a better solution. That, incidentally, is what should have happened with the two articles that prompted this discussion. Reyk YO! 09:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Looking at the first, "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion. Consider alternatives to deletion like improving the article, merging or redirecting" was not met, and so the nomination wasn't even good enough for PROD. The nominator was not sure there was a valid reason. The subsequent redirect shows that AfD was the wrong step. WP:BEFORE had not been followed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Today I learned that asking rhetorical questions is a sign of indecision. Reyk YO! 12:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    There is a subtlety to rhetorical questions that doesn't survive brevity and text-only communication. Knowing that the nominator is reliable is an underlying premise to your position, a premise often not true. On face value, the nomination is a gut reaction without any work done. Nominators should champion their proposal, assert their case, so that others can simply check. As an xfd reviewer, I resent nominations that require to reviewers to do more work than the nominator. Nominators should state a proper deletion reason in simple explicit terms, not in subtle rhetoric. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: If, instead of either closing or relisting, the person reviewing the AfD would assess the nomination and add an opinion of their own, then all AfDs would have at least one opinion in addition to that of the nominator: Noyster (talk), 10:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Yes. Relisters should comment, not relist, unless there is some point to relisting. Usually, relists are pointless. If a relister has done the bare minimum of reading the discussion and determined that it is not ready for closing, they should be required, at a minimum, to say why it is not ready. Ideally, they should identify an open question preventing a Soft Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, non-admins closed them this way? In that case, I'm just overturning them in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, as that is fairly clearly something akin to WP:Relist bias. Non-admins can't delete, so they close like this instead of leaving them for an administrator who can treat them like a PROD. Non-admins shouldn't be closing such discussions. ~ Rob13Talk 23:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    That's a very valid point too, Rob. Non admins obviously are biased against closing as "soft delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Do you feel better for doing that ? ... Admins also closed this way and have done since atleast 2015, If admins treated these like prods in the bloody first place these wouldn't needed to be closed as such but hey you're the "experienced" admin who knows absolutely everything!. –Davey2010Talk 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Oh BTW BU Rob13 you've missed one. –Davey2010Talk 23:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Davey2010: First, that one was redirected to a valid target. Second, I'm not quite sure why you're upset. You, yourself, stated we should treat them as PRODs above. I'm equally critical of the administrators who relist discussions like these, and I've stated my opinion on that before. WP:NACD, a guideline, states "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins". WP:NOQUORUM provides no less than five possible actions for "no quorum" discussions, so it's clear such discussions are "close calls". Ergo, non-admins should not close them, per an existing guideline. ~ Rob13Talk 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm upset because you didn't bother asking me first - I appreciate technically admins can revert anyone however it's common courtesy to ask them first (and had you asked I would've reverted instantly), That aside had this been an admin you wouldn't of reverted at all, I agree I do but seeing plenty of admins close this way you just assume this is the way it's done and as I said above If admins closed them as delete then I obviously wouldn't of ever touched them in the first place, Unfortunately plenty of editors have closed this way because many have simply seen admins do it and assume it's the correct way. –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Davey2010: I apologized for not consulting you directly first. I took your comment above supporting this general idea as indicative that you would support such an action. ~ Rob13Talk 00:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    BU Rob13 - I support the proposal of treating 2/3 relists as soft delete but I don't support being reverted the way you had although I understand the reasons why etc etc, But anyway no worries and I apologize for getting abit annoyed with you, Anyway it's all in the past, Shit happens as they say lol, Anyway happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 01:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @BU Rob13: commenting here as the other non-admin involved. I would have been fine treating it as a soft delete (but I now see the PROD you placed on Martine van Loon has been contested and the page converted to a redirect.) I just want to echo Davey2010's concerns here though: there has not been a consistent application of soft deletes on these articles by administrators. For those of us who try to help out with the non-controversial closes, it does look like this is the correct way to close something that has been relisted twice without comment and the WP:NAC essay even lists it as a valid thing to do. I am 100% behind treating AfDs with no discussion after a certain period of time as PRODs, and will refrain from closing double relists with no discussion in the future, but we should be more clear on how we are treating these cases in general, because as I think this discussion is showing, there is a general consensus for soft deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: As you were writing that, I was writing the formal proposed language below. As for the essay, I'm quite surprised to find that there. I've removed it, as it's clear from this thread that such closes are controversial. ~ Rob13Talk 01:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    "is a general consensus for soft deletion" subject to the AfD having a substantive and persuasive nomination meeting at least the requirement of WP:PROD#Nominating point 1, and the deleting admin using their discretion to agree with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: See my proposed wording below. While I've noted that "soft deletion" is the "typical" outcome, I've quite literally stated they should be treated like expired PRODs and wikilinked to WP:PROD. This is to make it clear that the closing administrator can exercise discretion, as always, on whether to delete or not. They should have a decent reason if they're declining to delete, though. In other words, I'm proposing soft deletion as the default outcome, but not the only outcome. ~ Rob13Talk 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. I would like to also emphasise my main reaction to the OP, which could be: "An AfD nomination should be at least as comprehensive as a minimal PROD rationale". I think the whole problem here may be rooted in the problem of too-soft deletion rationales. Softly worded deletion rationales are not very easy to respond to usefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it would then depend on the initial proposal. If the person who filed the AfD was in fact arguing to delete the article, their argument was sound and policy-based, and no one has objected to or refuted it after the maximum time has elapsed, that is a "delete" result. If their argument was poor or not based in policy, or it was a "procedural" nomination where the nominator wasn't arguing to delete, that's a "no consensus" result with no prejudice against speedy renomination. We already do too many relists, let's not just keep at them. At some point, it comes time to call the discussion closed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Formalistic in the extreme; these should be treated as expired PRODs. Neutralitytalk 19:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose In favor of the below alternatives. If no one is commenting then either there's no consensus for deletion or there's a consensus of one, like a PROD. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The "soft delete" idea below is much more elegant. — JFG talk 21:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The problem is lack of participation in AFD. That problem should be solved by, for instance, neutrally listing AfDs that lack participants at WikiProjects or other boards/pages. Or set up a board specifically for AfDs without participants. Nowadays, in my opinion, we have far too many rabid deletionists on Wikipedia who AfD scores of articles without doing the least bit of WP:BEFORE. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose indefinitely relisting. We'll end up otherwise with a 16,000 backlog like New Page Patrol that even after the recent campaign, users are not in the slightest bit interested in addressing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the backlog can get bad enough already without infinite relists... ansh666 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At some point the discussion has to end, especially if no one bothered to drop by to discuss. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This seems a solution in search of a problem, I haven't noticed an uptick in zero-discussion AfDs. After two relists, treat them like PRODs. Carrite (talk)

Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In a case like this where there is a clear super-majority for one option, a closer needs to make it clear that they have reviewed all the discussion, not merely counted noses to come to a conclusion. In particular, I reviewed the "oppose" !votes below for any points that other editors may have overlooked, especially policy, legal, or technical reasons that would overrule consensus. I see no arguments that would fall into those categories. There are arguments about deletionist/inclusionist bias and requests for clarification on details (e.g., number of relists) which may need to be addressed in the normal WP:BRD cycle. Accordingly the consensus is for treating this type of AfD discussion like a PROD (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No-one's formally proposed this solution above, but it certainly has received a lot of support. Let's see if there's actual consensus for it. I propose changing the text of WP:NOQUORUM to the following:

If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. See WP:PROD for more details.

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

  • relisting the discussion (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 which may be used after an article's 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. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
  • There is consensus among the community that problematic or likely-problematic articles[1] with an appropriate redirection target may be blanked and redirected by any editor if there are no objections. This similarly applies to deletion nominations as well; if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option.

References

  1. ^ Usually articles unreferenced for years.

Note that most of the text is the same, but I have cut out a "special case" where no comments have been made other than the nominator, in which case the nomination will be treated as an expired PROD. In the spirit of our current PROD process, articles that have had a PROD declined will not be considered as expired PRODs, since PRODs are meant to occur only once per article. ~ Rob13Talk 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Turning this into an actual RfC to get more input. ~ Rob13Talk 23:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that if you're going to convert and AfD to a PROD, PROD policies should be used from there forward. AfD and PROD policies may be inconsistent with each other. I don't think that is something we need to address as part of this proposal. Just follow the applicable policy. WP:PRODPATROLLERS such as myself would like to have the 7-day PROD period to review before these things are deleted. My participation at AfD is topic specific so it is unlikely I will have already seen an AfD before it is converted to PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Jayron, 7 days is ok for prods because prods, by their very nature, are supposed to be obvious and unlikely to generate any controversy. AfDs, on the other hand, are there because their claim is possibly controversial... the most common AfD reason, for example, is lack of sources (in the article), but this means that in order to verify that the deletion is valid, people need to go and actually look for sources. This simply takes time, and it takes more time than prods require. Fieari (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you point to where I proposed that Admins would automatically delete these without looking critically at them? Because I was not aware THAT was the operating procedure with PRODs, and if it was, then PROD is broken beyond repair. If, however, PROD works as it is supposed to, where the admin looking at the PROD makes their own assessment as to whether to delete or not, and could possibly just remove the PROD and note the rationale was invalid, I fail to see why an admin would ALSO not be just in doing that with a dead AFD after 7 days. You've not made ONE argument why an admin SHOULD respond differently to an AFD. If admins deal with PRODS appropriately, that is use their own judgment and sometimes also not delete the article if it doesn't deserve it, you have not made a case why they could ALSO not do that with an AFD. --Jayron32 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
PROD is intended to work as you say. Administrators are supposed to validate grounds for deletion. And I assume they do this. On the other hand, there is no reasonable way for a non-administrator to check whether or not this is actually happening. So we have 7-days for non-administrators to have a look at this stuff before it goes behind the curtain. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PROD and low-input AfD are different and are watched by different people with different ways of approaching. By all means if a low-input AfD doesn't generate a decision, close as no consensus and then send it to PROD if you like. If low-input AfD are to be treated like prod, then the following ought to be allowed: "Well, its been re-listed twice, and there there's still only one vote plus the nominator. But I support the article, so -- treating it like a PROD -- I'm contesting the deletion request and therefore removing the AfD banner and saving the article". Right? Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thanks for the ping. As I understand this proposal, it is suggesting that after 7 days, instead of relisting, just go ahead and softdelete as if it were a prod and the admin agrees with the proposer's reasoning. I strongly oppose this idea. AfD is understaffed (undervolunteered?) and all too often, there just aren't enough eyeballs... it's not that no one cares about it, it's that no one has even looked at it. I think it wouldn't be so bad if articles relisted three times could then be treated as prods, but for the first week? Absolutely not. Do not do this! Repeat: I would consider a policy of treating AfDs that have been relisted 2 or 3 times as if they were prods to be okay, but NOT after 1 week. For those asking why it matters, since the admin basically gets a vote him/herself? It's because AfD has an active minority population who may be a little bit trigger happy on proposing deletions, and who will claim deletion criteria (such as non-notable) without doing due-dilligence first... so the proposed reasoning looks good, but with some actual research, it should be kept. This simply takes TIME. And 1 week is not enough. Fieari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if the AfD has been relisted twice and still not received comment (i.e. after 21 days). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This seems to be a move in the direction of more deletionism, mergism and redirectionism, of which we have too much already in encyclopedia. I have seen many uncommented afd's where it was certainly controverial to delete said article, yet commentators are sometimes too busy to comment or may have glanced over it, or may have felt that since the discussion was not leaning in any direction, they were fine with it as seeming neutral-leaning. I believe this proposal will destroy the process of articlea creation since article creation isn't easy and takes a lot of time. If this proposal gets the go-ahead I will see it as a slap int ehface of content-creators, and another sign that content creators are treated horribly by Wikipedia. Not all content creators are savvy enough to go retrieve a deleted article. And it is a hundred times harder to start an article from scratch than it is to improve an existing one. The only way in which I might support this proposal is if the article creator is considered to be an automatic keep vote, although even that is iffy. This proposal is so horrible that I am considering never contributing to this Wikipedia again if it passes. All the "support" voters are clearly unaware that the AfD process has a vigorous community of trigger happy nominators, some of whom nominate articles merely to get their edit count up. I can only see Wikipedia going downhill from here if this passes. It seems that this has enough votes to pass, hence I will conclude that Wikipedia (as it stands now) is an enemy to the content creator, and are treated as if they are discardable. The proposer falsely assumes that all wikiedians log into their account at least once a week, hence verybody must have seen the deletion-banner. Proposals such as these are the reason why there is a knowledge ga in wikipedia, with tons of possible articles uncovered. Whats the point of creating an article when you have the horrible choices of (a) creating a stub know stubs are easy meat for deletion (b) creating a comprehensive that takes a ton of time and energy (c) leave a noteworthy topic uncreated without any hassle whatsoever. 92.19.191.33 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with the additional condition that the debate has been relisted in an attempt to get more participation. The idea makes sense: such a deletion nomination has been uncontested and is presumably uncontroversial. As it stands such a debate would likely be closed as no consensus, which doesn't benefit anyone. If the closer does feel that the nomination is flawed or controversial then they do have the option of leaving a comment in the discussion, at which point the debate would no longer fall under these conditions. Hut 8.5 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Leaving it to the closer's judgement should resolve most problems. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The same result would have occurred if the nominator had not sought the community's input, and just placed a PROD tag. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, these days it is easier to get something deleted via PROD than via AFD. Renata (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I've thought about this for a long time, and I cannot bring myself to either support or oppose as it is written. Since the 30-day mark just passed by, I figure I might as well jot down my thought process. This proposal affects AfDs that receive no comments after seven days (not after two or three relists as some others have suggested), and I fully understand the objections to that: as I pointed out in a comment above, many many AfDs are closed with an alternative to deletion that was not considered in the first seven-day listing period. This is because most AfD patrollers only look at "today's log"; given the high volume, it is easy for an AfD to remain unnoticed on its first day, and a relist brings the discussion it back to "today's log" for another opportunity to be seen. On that same basis, I opposed the proposal earlier this year to "treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions".

    I recognize, however, that this proposal is different than the one earlier this year. It does not impose a rigid requirement that AfDs must close as soft delete after seven days. What it does is ask the closing administrator to more strongly consider soft deletion as an option once no comments have passed after seven days: i.e. deleting if there is no obvious reason not to. This proposed practice is technically not disallowed under current guidelines: PROD-like "soft deletion" is an option that closing administrators should consider, among the options to relist the dicussion and to close as "no consensus without prejudice against speedy renomination". However, in current practice, uncontested nominations are typically relisted on sight.

    Now, it might streamline the process to "just treat them like PRODs", and such a change would be welcomed. That's the primary reason why I hesitate to oppose "officially". But what I can't seem to let go of is the fact that they're not PRODs. There should be a reason why a user would consciously decide to forgo the PROD process and choose to create an AfD, and that should be that the user believes it is controversial and wants to see a consensus on the matter. I fear that users will start ignoring the PROD process since uncontested AfDs would become functionally the same, with the convenient exception that a random IP cannot remove an AfD notice. I would support the proposal wholeheartedly if it were tweaked to recommend PROD treatment after one or two relists. Mz7 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I really like this option. AfDs in areas of low community interest can struggle to garner much comment. The Prod system is a good one and I really like the guidance offered in the second half of the proposal. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It would seem to me that if there is no one fixing the problem, the notability may be a problem (admittedly it may merely be a problem with interest instead). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support- this seems a sensible solution. But I would not want administrators to be forbidden from closing them as regular delete at their discretion. Reyk YO! 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like a good way to streamline our processes and reduce bureaucracy. I'm not worried about articles being mistakenly deleted because of a lack of eyeballs, since with fewer relists clogging up the AfD queue we should be able to get more eyeballs on each article. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: Please see my comment below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support The admin closing the AfD is probably more knowledgeable about guidelines than any of the participants anyway. Laurdecl talk 11:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support defaulting to delete after a finite number of relists (say 2, as others have proposed above) has not generated any input. Weak support defaulting to delete after 1 week (too short but better than relisting mindlessly). Deryck C. 17:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In my opinion the issue is not the articles themselves, but rather low participation at AfD. We need to figure out a way to increase participation (by experienced editors) at AfD. For myself, I realize that I forget about AfD because it's out of my mind unless I have seen something at a noticeboard or Wikiproject or someone's talkpage. There needs to be a system of listing orphan AfDs at WikiProjects or other locations to drum up participation. Or maybe there should be a reward (like a barnstar) for excellent and thoughtful and repeated AfD participation. Or remind people via the Signpost. or at CD. Or have a drive. Or etc. There's a reason we have PROD, and there's a reason we have AfD. No need to confuse or conflate them, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support after at least one and preferably two relists. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Neutrality, with the preferences that a proposed deletion template hasn't been previously removed, and that the discussion be relisted twice. Of course, deletion in this manner shouldn't be an applicable result if the page has survived a previous deletion discussion, which I'm taking is implied. The previous sentence and first preference above per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Deletion #4 "never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never [previously (in these cases)] discussed at AfD" due to the the statement "treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD". Though I'm supporting this as an improvement over the current system, Kvng makes some compelling points, hence the weak.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose (strong if that means anything) An admin evaluating a deletion discussion with no input (or not enough), should do one of the following things: 1) If they agree with nomination, vote to delete (and the next admin passing by will have a clear deletion to perform); 2) If they disagree with the nomination, vote keep/merge/... (and the next admin passing by will have a no consensus/keep to close); 3) If they are surprised that no one commented, then relist (but this should be a much rarer option than currently, as the first two options should solve many such issues) 4) If they have no opinion, do nothing (there is more work to do, move on). I think this is quite simple. I ca not understand why admins should be making ano wo/man decision justice - we're not Judge Dredd, are we? - so instead of increasing our discretionary powers, why not increase our collaboration levels? Nabla (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: Minimum number of relists

I agreed to this on the assumption that we treat them as PRODs if and only if they have not received any !votes after 2 relists (essentially a 21 day period). Is this correct? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read the exact text of the proposal in this section. --Jayron32 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: You could have just answered. By my reading of the proposal, this is not how it would work. The proposal seems to be suggesting that after 1 week, instead of relisting, simply softdelete immediately (if the admin agrees with the proposer). My !vote for this RfC is above with this in mind. Fieari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have modified my !vote accordingly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as blameless vandalism. The penultimate wp:vandalism is to delete a good page, where regular editors cannot even view the page to confirm purported content problems. But the ultimate Vandalism (with a capital "V") is to allow an enemy to merely nominate an opponent's page, or any page, wait 7 days, and voila! ExpiredPROD deletion, with no one to blame for vandalism. The enemy nominator can claim "merely nominated" and the deleter can claim "merely policy" to delete backlog of retro-PROD pages. The fallacy of the above Support !votes has been to ignore the aftereffects once automatic retro-PROD becomes law, and XfD logs become flooded with hater nominations. These automatic XfD ideas are like a powerful move in a Chess game, which would give a hater even more weaponry when opponents are on wp:Wikibreak or at holiday events focused on family and friends (like now?). In a Chess game, look several moves ahead and then not make a foolish move with disasterous consequences. Strong Oppose. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    • PRODs can be reversed extremely easily—in fact, the WP:PROD policy states that administrators can undelete PROD-deleted pages automatically on request at WP:REFUND, no reason is necessary. This proposal would work the same way: deletions under this system could be reversed automatically on request. As for flooding the logs with hater nominations, more editors patrol the XfD log than the PROD categories in my experience, so it would actually be easier to slip a PROD through the cracks if you used the system we already have. Is this happening right now? Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this point is very important. I think a large majority, including myself, support treating AfDs with low participation as uncontested PRODs. But just from the opening statement, it wasn't obvious to me this would affect the number of relists to be done, and it seems there is disagreement about that too. So a second RfC on how many relists to do may be in order: the options could be zero (without a good reason to do otherwise), one (without a good reason to do otherwise), two (without a good reason to do otherwise), or perhaps up to admin discretion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, look again at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions.  The proposal there was, "I propose that AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week (168 hours) without any "keep" votes (policy-based or not) be closed as soft delete..."  The close was, "There is a consensus against deleting articles at AfD that have no input other than from the nominating editor."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I see that you are anti-soft deletion; just to clarify, my comment is intended to be anti-soft deletion as well to curb its effect given that the proposal passes, while still being broadly supportive of the idea. My comment is moot if the proposal doesn't pass. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, your OP was to state the need for additional RfCs.  Your and my personal opinions are irrelevant in the immediate context.  I'm being very black and white that the current proposal is not about softdelete after one week, and that the participants as a whole understand this, even if there are questions.  If you still want more RfCs, technically you could go for two weeks, but I think that would be missing the point of the first RfC.  The current understanding at AfD is now three weeks, and IMO that is the default interpretation of the current proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    That was my interpretation too, until I read the comments of people like Mz7, Lourdes, Fieari, Jkudlick, etc. which seemed to imply the original proposal was suggested soft deletion after just seven days (by supporting it for cutting down on the number of relists, opposing it for the same reason, or supporting conditional on the two-relist tradition being preserved). So no, I don't think the participants as a whole agree on what exactly is being proposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose reference to relists. Better to specify "listed and open for 21 days" than for two relists. Mindless relisting is already a curse, it should not be entrenched as required for routine deletions. In fact, a relist should count against auto-deletion, as by relisting the editor has implied that further discussion is needed. If it were such a simple case for deletion, the relister could have and should have !voted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree that relisters should necessarily participate. You need a different mindset when participating vs. closing AfDs, and most relists are done by closers who would be bogged down if they tried to participate in a few AfDs while going down a massive log trying to close debates. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    A relister should be qualified and prepared to close if it is ready to close. Relisting a discussion that is ready to close is the wrong thing. If an AfD nomination 7 days old, with no objections, is not convincing enough to close, then there must be something to it. Anyone can AfD anything, and sometimes it is done poorly or unwisely. By relisting, a relister attests that there is something to it. This means that it should not be deleted if no one agrees. If the relister doesn't want to explain why it is not ready for closing, then the relister should leave it untouched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    I assume you are just referring to a normal AfD that happens to get no comments at all after 7 days right? That is a quite unorthodox view and does not represent current practice (WP:RELIST clearly states "the discussion has only a few participants" as one of the valid reasons to relist), though you're free to propose it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    Current practice is pretty stupid. If an unparticipated AfD discussion is a clear delete, it should be closed as such. If it is not a clear delete, it should not default to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Questions I support the closure of no-quorum discussions as a soft delete after two relistings. I don't entirely understand the proposal here. Are you saying that a no-quorum discussion should (not may) be closed without any relistings if there was no previous PROD? I would oppose that change for multiple reasons. One, I think an AfD nomination should be given more than one week for people to see and comment on it; AfD is supposed to be a more community participatory process than simple PROD. Two, I don't favor "shoulds" in this situation; I think admin discretion needs to be maintained. To me the ideal progression of such an AfD is, relist twice, then close as soft-delete - or no-consensus NPASR if the admin feels the nomination statement is weak. I do think this kind of call should be made by an admin and not done as a non-admin closure (which biases the decision toward no consensus because the non-admin does not have the option of soft deletion). --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2017 (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.

Another proposal: restrict non-admin closures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that Spartaz's wording could use some tightening, and I have no problem with allowing administrators to choose between soft deletion and NPASR, depending on the nomination itself. But only an administrator should be making that judgment, since only an administrator can properly factor in the option of soft deletion (since they are the only ones that have the ability to close that way). It might be true that administrators can summarily overturn "no consensus" non-admin closures as "soft delete" per WP:NACD—and BU Rob13 did this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak above—but in practice this is rarely done, and nominators are left to decide between speedily renominating (starting the cycle all over) or giving up. At some point, we have to say, "just delete it." If you want it back, you only need to ask. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed by Mz7. If NAC are still allowed to make the other two closure options, per 'low-hanging fruit they probably will and it will be too late for an admin to make a more appropriate closure. There is often talk of allowing such decisions (and New Page Patrolling) to be made by new and/or inexperienced users who are drawn to maintenance tasks and get it wrong, but there still remains a huge gap between them and vetted admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as commonsensical, and not in competition with the above proposals (rather, the above proposal that has a lot of support).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Makes sense. If there's any possibility for an outcome that requires admin tools, an admin should be the one making the call. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'd add a clause to cut down on third relistings as well, if that's still a problem. ansh666 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not so sure as per WP:CREEP, assuming the above section passes. I was going to oppose, but in writing my rationale and reading the rationales of others, I'm not 100% sure anymore. I don't have any quarrel with the content of this suggestion, but think about the context here. In my proposal above, we're making the default admin action "delete". We already don't allow non-admins to close as "delete", and we strongly discourage non-admin closes at deletion processes that are likely controversial. The default of soft deletion makes clear that non-admins cannot close these types of discussions, so I don't feel any strong need to add text spelling that out. If a non-admin can't understand that they shouldn't take action on discussions where the outcome is "soft delete" by default, they likely don't have the competence to close discussions whatsoever. Note also that my proposed text in the above section states "closing administrator" when it comes to the alternative options, so this is already in there in a somewhat subtle manner. I guess I just need convincing on the necessity of this? ~ Rob13Talk 23:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • After thinking about this a bit more, I have to oppose due to the instruction creep issues. Additionally, I believe that enumerating many specific use cases where non-admins can't close discussions may have the unexpected side effect of giving the appearance that the list is exhaustive. It's better to keep things in more general terms like "controversial vs. uncontroversial" and correct the occasional mistaken editor as necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
      • This was something I came up with in the original discussion following Piotrus's proposal. If your proposal passes, and it looks like that's where it's heading, I'm totally fine with withdrawing this one to see where things go. Mz7 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary instruction creep. Shooing the occasional overenthusiastic helper into something else more suited to their skillset isn't so difficult. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support WP:CREEP should not be used to oppose beneficial instructions. Admins are the most qualified to close AfDs and the only editors able to soft delete articles. Laurdecl talk 11:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP - Adding to what BU Rob13 said in the second sentence of their oppose, I generally oppose specific restrictions or allowances (e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC) regarding non-administrator closures at individual deletion venues. Furthermore, though in most circumstances I'm not a fan of NPASR closures, a non-administrator may weigh soft deletion as an option and choose not to close a discussion if they believe that is a reasonable outcome. I agree with Opabinia regalis as well, though I'd have phrased it differently. Lastly, if the page in question has survived a previous deletion discussion, no consensus and relist would be the only reasonable outcomes. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support When the choices are "delete" or "no consensus", a non-admin is naturally going to choose "no consensus" because that is the only one they can implement. This decision needs to be made by an administrator, and the NAC instructions should clearly say so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


I don't think I'm getting the point of this. First, I'm not really concerned with applying the philosophy behind PROD tags to this proposal. This proposal states that no participation at an AfD should be treated like an expired PROD, not that it is an expired PROD. Second, an AfD with zero participation after relistings may have begun with an expectation of opposition, but no opposition developed. Soft deletion and this proposed X3 aren't meaningfully different, except one involves speedy deleting an article via AfD (?). I'm not really getting the point of a CSD criteria here. ~ Rob13Talk 11:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall discussion regarding the various proposals

  • Comment: In my opinion, the problem with these various proposals is that they make it too easy for an article to get deleted without anyone adequately doing WP:BEFORE. To counter this problem, I propose that it be required for all articles facing any sort of deletion to have the Template:Find sources or Template:Friendly search suggestions placed on its talk page. And require that any admin utilize those links before actually deleting. And I must say I'm concerned that so many admins do not even have their Google search results set to 100 results per page (here's how to do that), and so they only see a bunch of spammy garbage for their first several pages of results, and they don't ever even get the correct number of Google hits. These are all problems that result in many articles on notable subjects being deleted simply because of the increasing lack of participation at AfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If it goes to a soft delete you know that anyone can get the content restored at any time without argument? But I do agree that exactly as we do with prod the deleting admin needs be diligent in what they decide to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
At an AfD, {{Find sources AfD}} is transcluded at the top. As with expired PRODs, administrators are expected to evaluate the rationale and exercise their judgement to determine whether they should soft delete the article or choose to act as any other editor and remove the PROD (or, in this case, cast a keep !vote, relist, or any of the other suggestions that are retained in the proposed new text). At some point, we do have to trust our administrators to behave properly as already documented at WP:PROD. ~ Rob13Talk 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just remarking that I've seen admins going through cat:expired PROD and deleting them as fast as they can load the deletion interface. There doesn't seem to be very much 'BEFORE' being done, and FWIW, unless the PROD itself is obviously contentious, the value of deep in-depth BEFORE (for a PROD) is debatable (not that PROD deletion is an area where I work). Most of these problems arise upstream and are all problems that result in many articles on potentially notable subjects being deleted simply because of the increasing lack of participation at NPP, and the predilection for the low-hanging fruit in the feed by inexperienced patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I patrol prods. The process is supposed to be reserved for uncontroversial cases but one often finds it being used inappropriately in cases that seem to be mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As a fresh example, see food blogging. Notice that this is a fairly new topic and it has a long list of references which seem, at first glance, to be reasonable. Notice also that the nominator removed most of the prose and then prodded the article on the grounds that it didn't have much prose. WP:BEFORE was not followed in this case because there seems to have been no consideration of alternatives to deletion such as just marking the topic as a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The editor was using AWB which of course is wrong for NPP. I've left them a message. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A smooth transition between AfD and PROD I think is probably a good thing. PROD will still be relatively light weight, for supposedly easy cases, but can be stopped without any reason. AfDs that are unanimously deleted probably should be PRODded? PRODs that are challenged probably should have gone to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The only distinction I see is that it can be stopped for any reason, whereas at AfD the expectation is that you articulate a policy/guideline-based argument for keeping/deleting. It seems like if this passes it would be easier to just allow a specific kind of AfD participation along the lines of "deprod", avoiding a noquorum close being treated like a prod by taking same action (symbolically) as would be necessary to remove the prod. Effectively just combines the two processes in a way that's not just more efficient but more sensible (in that it allows one to be "converted" into the other rather than starting and closing one process, then starting and closing another). I suppose this could be a subsequent discussion -- I just see prod as losing relevance with this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • An AfD with no other participation can be killed off with a mere "Keep, worthy topic, nominator's rationale is unpersuasive". Assuming no other comments, and that no bad faith assumptions can be made, no closer could reasonable close as "delete" without supervoting.
Noting User:Jayron32's question above (11:52, 6 December 2016) on times, these two open-AfDs vs age snapshots (1 & 2) tell me that 7 days is NOT the standard run time for an AfD. Nearly all AfDs run for two weeks, and are closed in the third or fourth week. If instead of relisting unparticipated AfDs for a few weeks, the relisters converted week old trivial to PRODs, I think this would be a good thing.
A further wish would be that it is easier to review editor's track record in AfD and PROD nominations. I know there is tool for AFDstats, but it is a bit hard to find and slow to use, and Wikipedia:Twinkle creates a "PROD log" entry for editors using twinkle and not opting out of logging. I wish this sort of logging was mandatory, becuase most of the problems are caused by very few people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Prior PRODs and soft deletion

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

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

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

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

  • As for what I intended the post to mean, I intended it to mean that soft delete is simply one of the options for a closer, without regard to previous soft deletes and PRODs.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I for one support Unscintillating's change. It seems common sense to me and checking page histories for PRODs would waste admin time. Laurdecl talk 08:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support admin discretion on this matter (so don't care about prior PRODs). — JFG talk 22:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The rationale for a soft deletion is similar to the rationale for a PROD, but the process is not the same and does not have to follow the same rules. The rationale is, delete because the article has been tagged for possible deletion for at least a week (commonly a week for PROD, three weeks for an AfD with two relists) and no one has objected. Basically, if this is an article that had a valid deletion rationale from the nominator, and no one objected during a period one to three weeks, it can be soft deleted without further ado - subject to later restoration upon request by any administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process/Archive_11&oldid=1075681068"