Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion

It would be helpful with a: "This page in a nutshell" on Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

It would be helpful with a: "This page in a nutshell" or maybe a: "This page in a nutshell (for beginners)", at the top of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Because many first time article creators will be quite bewildered and feel quite frustrated, when they get hit by a PROD on their head.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Page renames during AfD?

Do we have any policy on page renames during AfD? The page tag box "For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion." suggests that we do, but I can't find anything on that page.

Should page renames be avoided during AfD? I've only seen this a few times, but it was almost always disruptive simply to the process of getting through AfD. An innocuous page rename (typo fixing) is bad enough, as it breaks links, but it's also a way to change the implied purpose and scope of a page, which could be highly POV. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Please do not modify it."

Greetings, all. After a reasonable search I could not find in this guide an explicit reference to the ever persent closing statement not to modify any content after the AfD's closing. Shouldn't there be one somewhere? Am I looking at the wrong place? Thanks for any input. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Your !vote should be made in bold"

Okay, so many of us are programmers, I understand, but seriously, we can't use jargon like "non vote" in an official guide like this.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you disagree with the consensus... but if I disagree with the closing admin's summary?

We have a section named

If you disagree with the consensus

and that's good and all... but we also need a section for the cases when you don't object to the consensus but to the conclusions drawn by the closing admin. The text says:

"review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached"

It is entirely possible that you drew a completely different conclusion than the closing admin. In a few cases, you're the one that's actually right!

CapnZapp (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Experienced User vs. Closing Admin

Hi everyone! The first mention of "close" occurs in the sentence: "Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." Throughout the rest of the article the term "closing admin" is used and it seems in practice (as I found recently!) an administrator is required to close the discussion. I think the quoted sentence should be updated to reflect this both for consistency and to prevent future misunderstandings. Kinerd518 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Drive by AfD closes

Editors often "decide" AfD closes two, three, or even four a minute, usually caused by having access to tools and a one-size-fits-all summary. Have seen this way too many times over the years by many different closers, so will not name anyone or provide links. From the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion page, emphasis mine: "A volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented...." Even the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page says: "The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented." Must read the arguments presented. Often detailed back-and-forth well thought out and argued discussions. Most editors probably assume that a closer has carefully studied the discussion and read and weighed the arguments, and never look at the timing of edits on the closers contributions page. I often have, and wish I hadn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have seen and not brought this up, then it is a mistake on your part, that will cost the community. There must be consequences at ANI for such users misusing the tools. Venkat TL (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd hope that I'm not the only one who has ever checked contribution times in relationship to closings. No, there is no need for an ANI for anybody, it has been too widespread. Just asking that the closing community actually carefully read discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of, for doing such speedy closes is to inflate their edit count/ Afd close count. There are clear benefits associated with increased count and there is no cost for doing it. This is a win win situation for the offending user and sad situation for the community and Wikipedia, I see no incentive for such users to stop this bad practice. It will continue like that, until someone who noticed the behavior, brings it to notice on user talk, ANI, this page or wherever appropriate. If you see a problem raise it, dont wait for others. This is how a small mess becomes large mess (like this, an unrelated huge CopyVio Mess example) Venkat TL (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Has been brought to this page to ask that closers be more considerate of discussion, and not to ANI, so please don't put too much of an emphasis on past actions. Volunteers move forward, and too many use ANI as a way of changing the equation (thinking of the recent focus on the rescue squad) towards "punishment" instead of assuring a level field. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I admit, I have no knowledge of past discussions on this page. I am concerned as such inappropriate closures will affect my AfD nominations. Your second sentence is too convoluted for me to understand. Venkat TL (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe improve the pages you find and not AfD them, unless the page is almost 100% afd-worthy (you can tell I'm not a fan of close calls at AfD, if a page falls even within the shadow of Keep then it probably should be kept). Aside from that, my comment about ANI stands, as this long-time and common practice could be improved by just asking all closers to really study each nom that has even a nominal argument, especially those which have undergone improvement during the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Page deletion

Why are politicians allowed to delete their Wikipedia pages? This should not be allowed. I am looking for C.A. Skip Smyser. A former politician, a current politician, and Idaho’s most powerful lobbyist. 69.9.57.193 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Did this Wikipedia article ever exist? The only mention of C.A. Skip Smyser is at Melinda Smyser#Personal life. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably never existed. Was a Republican state senator in Idaho, and lost a US House race in 1990, and was also a presidential elector in 1996 and 2016. Dekimasuよ! 02:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Merging or copying during live discussion

Jclemens edited the last item of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (shortcut WP:EDITATAFD), and I reverted. It had been rewritten as the result of a RfC in 2009 with the only material update in April 2013, so I would like a new consensus to be demonstrated first. A proposal at WT:Articles for deletion is more likely to be seen, as this page has only 237 watchers. Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion includes a recommendation to consider discussion elsewhere.

History:

• RfC rewrite, December 2009
  • Discussion and RfC: WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD; closing and drafting: WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Review of my close of the WP:RFC on live merges, User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 15#Draft WT:AFD closing opinion on live merges, #Closed the RfC on live merges, opened at WT:AFD on 16 October
• Item unchanged from December 2009 to April 2013
• Dcoetzee's edits, April 2013: There was significant trimming, but the first two sentences were not changed materially.
• Item unchanged from April 2013 to January 2022
• My edit, January 2022: I changed "article" to "page" and linked WP:Copying within Wikipedia, which had been removed in the 2013 edits.
• Jclemens's edit, March 2022

I don't agree with softening the tone and diluting the message. The link to WP:ATD-M seems unnecessary, as merging is covered below in WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes.

As a side note, I would have opposed the 2013 removal of the WP:CWW link if I had noticed, as it is why merging/copying is special. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed reversion rationale, I really appreciate it. I don't know that we need an RfC, because my intent is absolutely not to dilute the message, but I did want to soften the tone somewhat: I would prefer to say firm things as politely as possible. I also agree that a CWW link is a good idea. I would invite you to propose here, or BOLDLY edit, an improvement to tighten up the same portion. As it is, I don't think I heard you disagree that it's a bit wordy. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Following up to myself, some specific concerns that prompted my edits:

• "should not circumvent consensus" has multiple problems. 1) Consensus is still being formed; we close AfDs when it's established, so an apparent emerging consensus, which I think this clause is discussing, is still not a consensus yet. 2) consensus that an article should be deleted is not consensus that none of the content belongs anywhere in Wikipedia. In fact, I've been trying to educate admins how to best use more of the ATD options, like ATD-R and ATD-M. To be sure, some content SHOULD NOT be copied or reused elsewhere, but that's an exception, rather than the rule, in the AfDs I most often review and participate in.
• "cause contention" blames the editor. "Could be perceived as..." is a more neutral term that doesn't assign blame but just explains a problem.
• I think we can and should talk about advocating mergers here as well. A merge outcome is the policy-based alternative to copying material from a deleted article elsewhere within Wikipedia. It functionally removes the offending article, preserves attribution, and allows non-admins to see the article history that might be used to create a new, better, keepable article in the future. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  My current thought is a drastic trim to bring it in line with the other items, which feels substantial enough to require a new RfC. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The redirect item (3) is a good template: it states the discouraged action and explains why succinctly.

  • "You should not merge or copy material to another page." is direct and avoids your wording concerns. The CWW link should be moved to a later sentence or left out to prevent distraction.
  • One to two sentences should be sufficient explanation.
  • Encouraging merging is off-topic for this section.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Explicit instructions for merge closure, when implementation to be left for others

I just semi-boldly revised this page's "Closure" section to put in explicit guidance. The text replaced was:

If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the article merger process by tagging the article.

and the new text is:

If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the proposed article merger process by use of appropriate templates (if consensus is not clear on merger target, use {{Afd-merge required}}; if merger target is clear, use both {{Afd-merge to}} on source page and {{Afd-merge from}} on destination talk page).

Note the link labeled "article merger process" is replaced by a different link labeled "proposed article merger process". I believe explicit instructions to use the templates this way are needed, and I don't see where, if anywhere, these are currently provided. It looks good to me to provide the instructions here. --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding votes

In the article, it says:

If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed (unless you specify that you are neutral, and nominating for other reasons). Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD.

What about the creator of the page that was nominated? Emdosis (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Emdosis The creator is not counted as an implicit keep !vote. The creator needs to participate in the process for their input to be gathered. Input is an argument that the page is not unsuitable for retention. Not mere participation or inferred "stakeholding" from the fact that they created a page and almost certainly want it to remain live. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Consensus isn't about individual wants such that they may translate into votes, there are no reserved seats in the deciding body, and no privileged voices whose advocacies are given extra weight, it is about the merits of the argument. It doesn't matter who states the argument. The mere act of creating a page does not equate to an argument. Creators are routinely notified however. —Alalch E. 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)