Wikipedia talk:Deletion process
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion process page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This page was nominated for merging with Wikipedia:Deletion discussions on 5 September 2011. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from Wikipedia:Deletion discussions was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Deletion process. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
admins justifying actions per NACD and/or policy regarding reopening discussions listed under a section discussing closing them
editUser:OwenX 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?
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, 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. - jc37 14:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What section? CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right about stating my reasons. Thankfully, Gråbergs Gråa Sång 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. Owen× ☎ 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. 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. Owen× ☎ 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. 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 Primefac so it falls under the NACD section. But the header was then removed by Jc37. This is as good a place as any to discuss this. Owen× ☎ 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 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 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 bureacracy. As noted, we already have policy covering this, we shouldn't need to cover that here. - jc37 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 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 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. - jc37 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.
the majority of that info is already there
I don't doubt it. But is it easy to find? (No).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.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. 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 CapnZapp suggests, without crowding the ToC. I really don't see a valid reason to oppose this. Owen× ☎ 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. - jc37 04:02, 10 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 CapnZapp suggests, without crowding the ToC. I really don't see a valid reason to oppose this. Owen× ☎ 17:51, 9 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.
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. 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. - jc37 05:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Update from one who initially closed Reagan Revord: I didn't know that admins can overturn closures without a proper DRV. I guess I accidentally caused quite a bit of chaos especially when the page was swapped between my closure and when Owen overturned my close. I haven't been editing since then until June. And this article was the subject of another DRV when it was then procedurally closed by Liz due to the pageswap, who has seen this happen for the first time. Another AfD followed after. I can see why a redirect WP:REOPEN was created for this purpose.
- And I was the subject of another DRV directly below that from Nov2024 since I closed it as WP:SNOW just inside the 168 hour period, though its been endorsed.
- Because of this, I have learnt my lesson. I have decided to move on from closing discussions for now and have never made one since then. (see also my reply in June near the top of my talk page) JuniperChill (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOQUORUM and number of participants
edit- 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).
- Jclemens added
(that is, between two or more participants)
to WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I reverted his edit and started WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Multiple participants. - Jclemens commented again at the DRV:
My epiphany:
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:
In certain circumstances,[5] poorly-attended deletion discussion may be treated as proposed deletions (PRODs).
The [5] note also links to WP:Deletion process#No quorum. - The No quorum section does not mention the number of participants. It includes
few or no comments
twice,unopposed
, andminimal participation
. - The section also contains Soft deletion, which is generally applied to one or two participants including the nominator and excluding deletion sorting. Selected recent AfDs closed as soft delete by various closing admins:
- 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? Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I linked this at the previous discussion, WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Multiple participants. 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 @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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to comment. I neglected to ping, but I did post a link at Jclemens's and my previous discussion. 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
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. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)- Actually, I want to give credit where credit is due. My epiphany was due to Utopes comment here. I apologize for not consciously crediting that until I went back to review what had prompted that train of thought. 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. 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. Spartaz Humbug! 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. 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 24 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. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:DPROCESS" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Wikipedia:DPROCESS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14 § Wikipedia:DPROCESS until a consensus is reached. RaschenTechner (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue?
edit
Relevance of move-related processes
editIn the WP:XFD section, there are tabulated entries for requested moves and move reviews, which I don't think have enough meaningful benefit or relevance for anyone looking to learn about deletion processes which is the scope of this page. To me, it looks like a case of WP:CREEP and WP:NOTBURO to try to account for the extremely minuscule percentage of situations that are probably unique enough to be better served by other policies and/or WP:IAR instead. The summary from my recent edit is another rationale. Therefore, I propose to remove them. What do others think? Left guide (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)