Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticky Fingers (band)

This particular AfD seems to have been formatted incorrectly, first being put onto Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 8. Currently, it shows (or was showing) the following code at the top:

[[{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}]] ([{{fullurl:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|action=edit}} edit] | [[Talk:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|action=watch}} watch]

Currently, it only shows {{la|{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}.

If anyone with technical knowledge could fix this, please do so. Thank you. JudgeRM 00:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done; the log talk page should be G6'd soon. ansh666 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Earlier today while looking through the old AfD discussions, I came across a non-admin closure that had been closed as 'delete'. This post is to remind non-admins that WP:NACD says, Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.; the exception is at TfD. As it happened, the non-admin also omitted the {{AfD bottom}} template when closing the discussion, which made something of a mess of the log. I reopened and re-closed the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions

When an article is proposed for deletion, the PROD tag sits on the article and the article gets deleted after 1 week of no opposition. However, any editor who later disagrees with the deletion may request for undeletion. When an AfD discussion receives no comments after a week of being open, it is generally relisted to gain higher participation. Usually AfD discussions are relisted a maximum of two times, after which the discussion is usually closed as WP:SOFTDELETE, meaning that any user may request for its undeletion without going through a deletion review. Discussion venues such as WP:RFD and WP:RM follow WP:NOQUORUM, in that nominations which have received no opposition after a week are deleted (in the case of RFD) or moved (in the case of RM). I cannot see why AfD should be treated differently from PROD. Generally speaking, AfD is monitored by more editors than PROD, meaning that an AfD uncontested after being opened for more than one week should have gotten more attention than an article which has been PRODed for a week. 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, provided that the article has never been proposed for deletion or soft deleted in the past. This means that the article is deleted but any user, for any reason, may request for its undeletion at WP:UND instead of gaining consensus at WP:DRV. SSTflyer 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. If someone argues for deleting an article at AfD, and no editor opposes the proposal, we should not be forced to wait for 3 weeks before the article is deleted. SSTflyer 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. If an article sits at AFD for a whole week without any keep votes, then it could just have been PRODed and the deletion would've been much easier and faster. Leaving such uncontroversial nominations at AFD for weeks, constantly relisting them until someone participates in the discussion is unnecessary and all it does is clog up the process. If it turns out deleting the page was a mistake, anyone can easily request undeletion and a proper discussion can take place if there are still problems with the article. Omni Flames (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. Rather than cluttering up AFD, relisting uncontested entries for the sake of process, WP:SOFTDELETE after one week. Makes perfect sense. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Support conditionally, with special emphasis that WP:BEFORE has been followed (mostly, for non-notable topics, the nominator must consider merge options), and that the nomination is thorough (says exactly why it should be deleted). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Heck, WP:PROD doesn't even require WP:BEFORE to be followed. SSTflyer 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Well that's an oversight, isn't it? It is not as if WP:BEFORE is onerous. These moves serve to give more ground to the nominator. The nominator should have this basic competency and responsibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Withdraw support. Too many sensible opposing points, especially Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum already allows the closer to delete on their discretion. This proposal appears to reign in that discretion, and I haven't seen a good reason to do that. It would be preferable for the AfD nominator to make a persuasive nomination, noting previous de-PRODding, and leaving it to the closer to apply discretion. The usual choice is for "no consensus" or "soft delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

4. Support as per everyone above - Relisting just for the sake of policy etc is pointless especially when it's had no comments, If it's had no comments after a week then delete it!, This place has become far too bureaucratic and we need less of it. –Davey2010^Talk 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - We don't need to keep relisting articles that no one wants to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support perfectly reasonable if nobody contests deletion, and would save the need for relisting Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Weak Support per WP:SILENCE. If there is a complete absence of disagreement, it is reasonable to assume a consensus to delete. However I would still prefer an article to be relisted possibly at least once before closing the discussion. 1 week might not be ample time to invoke adequate community participation. --Dps04 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Support, if no one saw fit to argue for keeping the article after a week, then consensus by silence applies. We already relist too many articles, and editors' time to participate in AfD discussions is finite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support agree it should be considered a "soft" delete ie recreation is not subject to CSD#G4 since there was no actual reasoned consensus to delete. Jbh^Talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Support All the XfDs have been suffering from a slow decline in participation. Better to allow the participants to focus their efforts on matters of actual interest than to clutter the pages with relisted, empty discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Also unclogging the system is appealing to me - streamline the bureaucracy per User Davey2010. And editors having the option for undeletion is a good fall back position. Additionally, to possibly see what is happening here on Wikipedia - take a look at the backlog at Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Support if it's considered a WP:SOFTDELETE. But this is exactly how things are handled at WP:RM, and I see no compelling reason why WP:AfD should be treated differently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Conditional support in removing the option to close as "no consensus" from WP:NOQUORUM. If an article has been relisted two times and still remains uncontested, the result should be a WP:SOFTDELETE every single time. Closing it as "no consensus" (which is, for all intents and purposes, a keep) makes no sense as the nominator's statement should count as a delete !vote. (Goes without saying that I object to the part of the proposal which advocates removing the option to relist entirely.) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

    What if the nominator's statement fails to articulate a WP:DEL#REASON? What if WP:BEFORE has not been followed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

14. Support For the reason which Omni Flames said. Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Support a PROD-style WP:SOFTDELETE after one week -FASTILY 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

    But PROD does not mandate the admin to delete. "PROD-style" means the admin uses their discretion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

    Agreed. And in any case, an admin is free to !vote keep on any AfD if they feel it should not be deleted, hence my usage of the term "PROD-style" -FASTILY 02:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

16. Support per Omni Flames. All the opposing arguments lead me to agree with the nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Conditional Support Only if there is no keep vote after two relisting, it should be softDeleted per the nominator's vote. Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. This is no different, really, from the challenge-response nature of WP:CSD and WP:PROD. If the content is challenged and there is no response in defense of it, it's the same WP:SILENCE situation. SmokeyJoe's "What if the nominator's statement fails to articulate a WP:DEL#REASON? What if WP:BEFORE has not been followed?" concerns are addressed by the fact that any admin (or any would be non-admin closer, or any random editor wandering by) can decide that some fault of this sort is present in the nomination and !vote keep, thereby invalidating the "uncontested" condition. It's a self-fixing issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    Hi User:SMcCandlish. What is the proposed change here? To my reading, it is to reduce the discretion given to the closer. PROD and CSD and WP:NOQUORUM require the deleting admin to exercise discretion, this proposal does not. If you take the proposal to assuming deleting admin discretion, then what is the usbtance of the proposal compared with WP:NOQUORUM? "any random editor wandering by" - misses the point that more and more AfDs are entirely unparticipated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    @SmokeyJoe: I think I basically already addressed this: The admin still has the discretion, because they can simply add an objection, completely mooting the "unparticipated" scenario. As I observed at the closely related RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?, this is essentially an editorial desire to register an opinion on the matter, anyway, not an administrative assessment of whether procedures have been followed correctly. If the same admin can prevent the same deletion-by-default result by adding a comment below the nomination saying to not delete, or adding a closure statement saying to not delete, what's the difference? I see two, and they both look good to me: The former scenario may encourage additional comments pro or con, resulting in a more accurate gauge of consensus than just an admin's judgement in a vacuum; and it will end up being closed by a second admin, resulting in two layers of admins' judgement, not just one (and since AfD is no longer a firehose of activity, this is not exactly an administrative burden). All that said, I don't feel terribly strongly about this one, I just lean toward "unbundling" of admin powers, increased good-faith assumption with regard to the competence of the remaining Wikipedians, and a reduction in bureaucracy. If there's strong evidence that low AfD turnout is resulting in the deletion of lots of articles that should be kept, I might back off from support, being slightly more inclusionist than deletionist, at least when it comes to potentially salvageable material (not that my one !vote is liable to make much difference here, especially since I mostly avoid AfD as a drama factory, and have a poor success rate at it [I always seem to pick crap pseudo-articles that have a devoted fan or two, who "WP:WIN" on the basis of improvement promises, and then vanish, with the same unencyclopedic junk still being in place 5 years later. Maybe I should re-AfD a bunch of stuff ...]).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    PS: I think @SSTflyer:'s response to the first oppose !vote below may better address your concerns, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. WP:NOQUORUM says that If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. and provides a list of common options including relisting, closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal, soft deletion and redirection. All of these are considered and used by closing administrators. I see no reason to remove the closing administrator discretion and best judgement nor to restrict their options to only soft delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   No, despite what the guideline says, closing AfDs with no or little participation after 1 week as soft delete is generally considered inappropriate. For example, User:Hahc21 was criticized for closing AfD discussions with zero participation (while he was still an admin) as delete. In practice, I don't think an admin would currently consider closing AfDs as soft delete after 1 week of no participation. I am not requiring admins to close these discussions as soft delete. I am merely trying to make it broadly accceptable within the community. Of course admins should always use their best judgment. SSTflyer 13:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   I would like to reiterate what User SSTflyer just said because in my experience Admins tend not to favor delete without a sure consensus. I think this if this proposal passes it will help to move things along. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose - if no one can defend the article, that means that it should be deleted outright. I could support this fro a no-comment AD, but not a no-keep AfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   @Od Mishehu: Can you clarify, please? Both scenarios boil down to a no-defense AfD. Unless I'm misreading something, this proposal is to make it acceptable to delete (not require deletion) in the event of a no-comment AfD. Meanwhile the result of a no-keep AfD (i.e., an AfD with comments, all of which are to delete) will already result in a deletion under the current procedures (absent extenuating circumstances, like a faulty nomination and all the delete !votes being WP:AADD nonsense). So, your oppose isn't making sense to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

   An AfD which no one responded to may be one which few users even looked at; one with supports but no opposes is more likely to be one where there is simply no reason to keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose If nobody else saw reason the article should be deleted, then that is a sure sign it shouldn't. Also per Malcolmxl5's argument. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose. We should make every effort to gain the broadest possible consensus before deleting even the worst article. If few editors are participating in AfD discussions, then the solution is to bring more editors to AfD discussions. I also want to point out that the comparisons in this thread between AfD discussions and PRODs are misplaced; they are entirely different processes that serve different (albeit related) functions. PRODS are for non-controversial deletions, and they are not discussed in a centralized forum because editors are supposed to send the articles to AfD if there is any debatable issue. The underlying premise of AfD is that debates occur because a colorable argument for keeping the article exists. If a deletion is truly uncontroversial, then editors should utilize PRODs or CSDs. In other cases, we should not rush to judgment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Od Mishehu, also noting that there are other options at AfD than just "delete" and "keep". ansh666 17:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose - unfortunately there is insufficient participation at AFD so extending discussion to three weeks for uncommented discussions is necessary, sometimes articles pick up three or four comments in their third week. If this proposal does go ahead, support the soft delete element. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Proposal is "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"... there's hella differecne between "AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week without any 'keep' votes and 20 'delete' votes" and "AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week without any 'keep' votes and 2 'delete' votes" and "AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week without any 'keep' votes and also no 'delete' votes". The proposal as written includes AfD's with no delete votes, possibly even advisory AfD's, and I can't favor deleting articles which no one wants to delete except a single proposer. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose per my comment in the discussion section below. It is not uncommon at all to see an AfD result in an alternative to deletion that wasn't considered in the first 7-day listing. It's not that no editors see fit to oppose the nomination in the first 7 days, it's usually that no editors have actually seen the nomination. On a typical day, at least 60-70 pages are nominated to AfD. AfD patrollers typically only look at today's log—generally, comments to AfDs are made on the day they are nominated and on the day of each subsequent relist. Because of the high volume of nominations, a nomination will sometimes slip through the cracks and get overlooked. The current approach of relisting twice is in line with our policy to require a consensus before deleting articles. It allows those who have comment but did not get a chance to voice it to do so. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose - AfDs that go a week without comment do so because they haven't been seriously looked at yet. I've currently taken up looking at some AfD's during slow times at work, and I can say for certain that if I have the time to look at an AfD, I will comment on it. If I think it should be deleted, I'll say so, if I don't, I'll say so. If I don't say something, it's not because it's uncontroversial... if I think it's uncontroversial, I'll say something like "this should have been prodded" or if the prod was already contested "speedy delete this despite authorial objection". If I don't say something, it's because I haven't looked at it, because my spare time at work to look through AfD's is limited! There are FAR too many AfDs to look at in a day, and if I may be so bold, it's my opinion that some users of Wikipedia are a little more delete-happy than is warranted. These AfDs really NEED to be looked at. Now, three relistings going to soft delete is fine. That's enough chance for eyeballs to get on it. But one week simply isn't enough time. There are far, far, far too many articles on AfD to give each one a fair shake within a mere week. Fieari (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose Warnock's dilemma applies here. As a long time AfD patroller, I typically only look through the daily logs and may only have time to research and comment on a small number of the dozens of open discussions. Because of real life, it is entirely possible that I miss the original posting or don't have time for it that day. Then the article goes forgotten or unobserved until there is a relisting. I will often try to comment on relisted articles first, as these are the ones that have fallen through the cracks. I suppose if this proposal goes through, we will need to treat AfD like PROD and register placeholder keep votes if we think deletion the slightest bit controversial, just to keep the discussion going until we have time to weigh in. --Mark viking (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I appreciate the sentiment behind this, and I almost went for support. Typically, I do close such discussions as soft deletes. However, I think that we need to leave some discretion for admins to act in unusual cases where despite the lack of a "Keep" opinion, soft deletion might not be the logical answer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
12. Oppose - Some editors may only watch certain WP:DELSORT lists and never look at the entire daily log. I know there have been times that I have relisted a no-comment AfD that had never been assigned to DELSORT categories and used WP:FWDS. What do you know, there were comments soon after! This proposal seems to take away some of an admin's discretion; I take it to mean that a no-comment AfD MUST be soft-deleted after 168 hours, rather than an admin deciding to relist and delsort or close as no consensus. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose - Uncommented AFDs should default to no consensus. The AFDs that I see going uncommented are the edge cases or the more niche topic area where more care is needed to find or interpret sources, not the slam dunk obvious deletes. I would rather err on the side of caution and have those close as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. shoy (reactions) 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Too many AfDs simply don't attract input, and in my experience this is usually because they are 'difficult' subjects rather than generally non-notable subjects. AfD has problems at the moment with lack of particpation and poor quality of participation, and this proposal would simply be unsafe. --Michig (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose. This suggestion seriously misstates the present position. It says "the PROD tag sits on the article and the article gets deleted after 1 week of no opposition". But that is wrong. An admin decides whether or not to delete after 1 week. Likewise for CSD, there is no requirement for the admin to delete. Judgement is allowed (and required). So a stipulation that the only permissible way to close an uncontested AFD is by deletion is , I think, highly unsuitable. If on the other hand the proposal means that after 1 week an admin is allowed to close as delete or softdelete following an uncontested AFD, that is already explicitly allowed under WP:NOQUORUM. It is argued above that such deletions have been objected to. Surely that is because the closer's judgement is being questioned, not whether the deletion was contrary to policy. If any conscientious admin wanted to close but was only allowed to close by deletion, they could simply !vote and let another admin apply a reasoned closure. Thincat (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose. The proposal is worse than the current documentation at WP:NOQUORUM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose Too many solid articles will get deleted due to lack of participation at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Oppose: Admins already have the discretion to enact the outcome that best fits the consensus and the best interest of the encyclopedia, and this includes this type of deletion ("soft deletion"). If this is enacted, then admins will lose this discretion. — Esquivalience (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Oppose  This proposal would make more sense if AfD nominations were typically sincere efforts to prepare the community for a deletion discussion.  Instead, AfD is a wild wild (American) west, where admins willing to protect the AfD volunteer community from improper nominations have been afraid to go for years. 

    We also have the contradiction here that arises because some editors have been pushing to load down AfD with non-deletion redirect discussions (see WT:SK).  We know for a fact that AfDs opened with the rationale of a non-deletion redirect discussion can result in a deletion.  So this proposal explicitly seeks to soft delete articles brought to AfD for non-deletion redirect discussions.  Relatedly, it would soft delete proper AfD nominations for "Delete and redirect". 

    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) 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

20. Oppose - any deletion may remove information people might find useful, creates a prejudice against ever recreating the article and may drive away people keen to contribute to Wikipedia but who don't understand the notability system. While puffery and articles on non-notable people are problems, they do not merit this. If an article is blatantly a hoax, advertising or whatever, it can always be speedied. Blythwood (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose: To delete something that should be kept is normally more harmful than to keep something that should be deleted. There are enough articles nominated where a general WP:BEFORE turns out to have either not been performed or not been performed properly. Apart from wider participation, what would help keep the queue down is fewer poor nominations (particularly by regular nominators and where the nomination is based on the current quality of the page rather than available sources). If the nom lasts for a couple of relists without comment, however, a supervote and soft delete from an admin who performs proper confirmation/research and lists this in their deletion rationale could be ok. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose: People who don't haunt the AfD noticeboards often don't pick up on these early on, also per Blythwood, deletion creates a "scarlet letter" of sorts, and frankly AfD often is overused with inadequate BEFORE and too much emphasis on article quality and not topic notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose Per Jkudlik, unscintillating, and Michig's arguments. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Shoy's argument above. I can understand the frustration of Admins patrolling AfD who want to close these kinds of issues promptly, but Wikipedia's coverage has passed the point where any reasonably-informed person who is not an expert in the specific field can read an article & decide if it fails our standards for inclusion. And I suspect this lack of confidence in judging unfamiliar topics is an unmentioned systemic problem. Specifically, who is eager to do a peer review (or GA review, or FA review) for an article in an area one knows little or nothing about, especially if one has limited time for Wikipedia? I suspect that's one reason for similar backlogs in those fora. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Warnock's dilemma and the fact that WP:SOFTDELETE is not as soft as it may appear since there's no directory of what's been deleted and no means of assessing content prior to WP:REFUND. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose any debate with no keep votes, like most WP:SNOW deletes would be forced as WP:SOFTDELETE - would we need the devil's advocate to validate our consensus and throw a single keep vote to not have to run the Afd ad infinitum? The onus is one someone recreating deleted material to show why it merits inclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose There are quite a lot of AfD discussions that don't attract enough participation, and for those where editors participate, I agree with Michig's point on the poor quality of participation. AfDs without any participation after two or three re-lists should just be closed as no consensus without prejudice to a further nomination. st170e^talk 15:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose This proposal assumes two things not in evidence: (1) That all article creators have figured out the maze that is Wikipedia, or even that they actually have a voice in the process if their creation gets slapped with AFD; (2) That the nominator of an AFD is correct by default. There are all kinds of motivations aside from adherence to Wikipedia policies. Not the least of these is "targeting", an editor, an idea, a subject matter, anything, and wording it well enough that the nomination doesn't look like targeting. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose - If there's not enough consensus to warrant a deletion, then it shouldn't be deleted. Even if these AFDs lack activity, that's not a reason to automatically deleted such articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
30. Oppose very strongly. Ditto Maile66 above. Also often not enough BEFORE. Ditto St170e above. Ditto Debresser above. And ditto pretty much most other oppose comments too. Aoziwe (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
31. Oppose PROD is for uncontroversial deletions not unlike speedy deletion. AfDs are for if the nominator believes there would be a reasonable case for keeping the article. I think we should keep our current policy here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Malcolmxl5. AfD has for quite some time been a virtual ghost-town in terms of participation in the actual !voting/discussions. Automatic deletion would set a very very dangerous precedent and result in the deletion of many many valuable articles just because no one had looked at that particular AfD. The solution to non-participation is to continue to re-list, and to garner participation by whatever means necessary -- neutral WikiProject posts, and/or any other way folks can think of to increase AfD participation. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
33. Oppose- As someone said above, AfDs that have no participation must be closed as "no consensus" because, well, not to be obvious about it, no consensus has been established. A single person's opinion is not a consensus, and deleting an article should be treated more seriously than throwing away a used tissue. BMK (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
34. Oppose The existing language gives the closer leeway to determine if uncontested deletion is appropriate or not on a case-by-case basis. It should not be an automatic delete if there's no response. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
35. Oppose Deletion of an article should require affirmative consensus. If no one agrees with the nominator -- zero, zilch, nada -- then there is no consensus. Alansohn (talk)

Comments

What happens if an article come up that has previously had a PROD is nominated and no one objects in the 7 days? Now we have an article that has been effectively Prodded twice. -- GB fan 10:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps add a condition that an article may only be soft deleted once? There are many possible solutions. SSTflyer 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have modified my proposal to reflect this suggestion. I suspect that closing admins should be able to use their judgment and check for previous deletions/PRODs prior to closing such uncontested AfDs. SSTflyer 13:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest ... Previous PRODs, like previous AfDs, must be disclosed, and listed (could this be automatic like previous AfDs?), and the de-PRODder pinged. This should, sufficiently, at least, alert the deleting admin to take a slightly closer look. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think it could be automated. There are to many ways Prods are added and removed. Many Prodded articles have a {{oldprodfull}} tag added to the talk page, but not all. Most Prods are added or removed with descriptive edit summaries but not all. -- GB fan 10:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I wrote a support comment, but on second thought I think this proposal might be overreaching; it's a bit complicated, and proposes to treat these discussions differently only under specific conditions. Why not just say that a seven-day AfD with zero participation is, for all intents and purposes, an expired PROD? I mean, essentially that's exactly what it is. Then it would be dealt with through the WP:PROD process, including being [soft] deleted, redirected, deprodded or whatever at the closing admin's discretion, just like an expired PROD. As for what happens if such an article has already been PRODded, who cares? WP:NOTBURO. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know about this. The volume of AfD discussions is large enough that if a discussion goes 7 days without comments, it's not that no one will object to the nomination, but that no one has seen the discussion. The current approach of relisting twice is to allow users who have a comment but didn't get a chance to voice it to do so. Many AfDs result in an alternative to deletion that wasn't considered in the first 7-day listing. Mz7 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• This is pointless: even if this were to pass people would start to patrol AfD and oppose on principle. Waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would like editors to take a look at the current backlog of articles tagged for notability, of which there seem to be 61,000. This is according to a bot count in the right hand column of this page-->[1]<-- after scrolling part way down. This page is organized by month and year - and goes back to 2008.

Why should we expend so much of our good will, energy, and volunteer hours when there are an ocean of articles where the notability criteria has been sidestepped? The point of having notability criteria is to build an encyclopedia, not a collection of whatever people's desires tell them post on this project.

I think, if the process can be made more efficient then that helps us - who are obviously dedicated editors who care about this project, as well as all the other however many other dedicated editors that are part of this project. Anyway, that's my two cents. Also, I just discovered WikiProject Notability if anyone is interested. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think closing administrators should be allowed to close voteless discussions as delete, but should not be required to. Consensus is based on strength of arguments, not a head count, and if a nominator makes a good case for deletion backed with ample evidence then a closing admin should be able to close the discussion accordingly. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think that's what usually happens. My non-scientific recollection of things that end up in the situations covered by this proposal are that the two characteristics that define a poor-participation AfD are 1) poor nom that doesn't make a compelling case, 2) on a topic no one really knows or cares much about. Well-argued AfD proposals tend to succeed, in my experience, unless rebutted with even better objections. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Redlink cleanup

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleorrota left a lot of redlinks, see Book:Paleorrota. Is there an automated way of removing them, please? They've all been inserted by same user: [2]. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Splash Proposed Deletion

Hello there, I still think this article should be deleted. Two of the links in the references are still dead. The dead Youtube link didn't really prove any notability anyway. Neither did the other one. What else do we have? They appeared on a Des O'Conner's Pot of Gold show once - that doesn't prove notability. They don't seem to have won it - not according to the reference provided. What else do we have - various low key business adverts which shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway and the band's own advert. According to user Atalantic306 they've appeared 'regularly on mainstream TV'. Well no proof has been given to show that they have. I request that someone carries forward the AFD process. Thank you.

Splash Talk Page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splash_%28Scottish_band%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.173.225 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have created the AFD. -- GB fan 10:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reformatting delsort notices

As Kvng originally suggested in this discussion on my talk page, the delsort notices (e.g. "Note: This debate has been included in the list of deletion discussion-related deletion discussions.") shouldn't be mixed in with the rest of the !votes, because they're distracting. Instead, they should be placed in their own box on the right, just like we already do with previous AfDs. You can see a mockup of the proposed changes in my sandbox. Pinging Sam Sailor and Odysseus1479, who also participated in the discussion on my talk page. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

They're not just distraction, but the current practice also creates an accessibility issue akin to WP:LISTGAP by breaking what should be one contiguous list into two separate lists. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a great point. I'd be in favor of either putting the delsort notices in their own box as above, or if we didn't want the visual distraction of a box, place all delsort notices between the nomination and the comments. --Mark viking (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Mark's second suggestion is best, and would need no development: simply establish a convention that all Delsort notices go below the nomination but above the first !vote, and anyone can move up Delsorts which are placed lower down. People will soon get the idea. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - either between the nomination and comments, or at the very bottom, maybe in its own separate section. ansh666 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that all the way at the bottom is the best place for these. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Above the !votes would be better, because many nominators put them there when they file the AfD, and because putting them at the bottom, even in a separates section, would confuse !votera and lead to !votes in the wrong place. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to always put the source code after the nomination and before !votes. Can we also format this into a separate box as proposed? ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I too would prefer the box; to my eye having the clutter (of small print, blue links & sigs) so contained would actually make it less of a “visual distraction” and interruption of the discussion, being kept to the right-hand side of the page.—Odysseus1479 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with putting the delsort notices at the very bottom is that (at the time the delsorts are added) it is no different from what we presently do, and all subsequent contributors to the AFD may not realise that they should post above the delsorts. We might periodically move the delsorts to the bottom again, but then along comes another who posts below them. And so on. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn’t thinking of putting the box at the bottom myself; my opinion above was based on the mockup in Enterprisey’s sandbox (see link below), where it‘s immediately below the nominator’s statement. JohnCD makes a good point as well.—Odysseus1479 01:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I was responding to the comment "all the way at the bottom is the best place for these" by Enterprisey. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Redrose64, I agree with your response to my comment, which is why I prefer the box - I was only presenting putting them at the bottom as an alternative. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the two options we have are putting it in a box on the right (like the sandbox) or below the nom statement/above the !votes. So far, people seem evenly split between the two - does anyone have a strong preference one way or another? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In the interim, can we at least put in a hidden text line, as is done with various other templates, that says, "Please add !votes and comments ABOVE this line?" There is so much inconsistency in this that I had no clue what the rules were! Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and, I like the box, easier to see and not get mixed up with the discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the DELSORT notices in among the !votes in chronological order, as it provides important information to the closer on WHEN topic-interested editors were notified, vs. just general AfD reviewers. Which of these proposals will preserve that information in as easy a format as we currently have? I'm all for good, readable formatting... but not at the expense of important information. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In the mockup the notices are all date-stamped, and they‘d presumably be added in order. Is that not generally the case? The physical positioning of the notices can’t be of that much help in reviewing a discussion chronologically, since replies (in rebuttal or reinforcement) usually get threaded out of order anyway.—Odysseus1479 05:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course they'd be in order within the separate section, but yes, having them in chronological order with the initial time the votes were cast was very helpful to me as a closer, in that I would give posts after the DELSORT more weight: people who !vote in every AfD tend to be deletionists or inclusionists, and pretty predictable in their reasoning and logic. The folks who came to the debate after their own little watchlist was ping'ed, which was often done as part of a relisting, generally had more mature, topic-specific insights and were therefore accorded appropriately more weight. They also did tend to be able to come up with sources if they argued for keep, vs. the perennial participants as well. So yes, I do prefer that DELSORT stay embedded. Not the end of the world if it's not, but I still think it would lose the ease of seeing how the inclusion in DELSORT lists change the flow and tone of debate. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jclemens, it's perfectly possible to make a user script to highlight !votes that come in after a certain time or notice - would this be an acceptable change to you in that case? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A user script to undo the effect of an elective change? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Better to leave well enough alone, although I like the idea of standardizing the DELSORT and relist notices so they're more similarly formatted. Also, if someone DELSORT's a discussion to multiple lists at once (2-4 are pretty common), it would be cool if there was a script that compacted all of the DELSORT notices without intervening non-DELSORT comments into a combined notification, like the multiple issues cleanup template. OK, so I've talked myself out of "leave well enough alone", but I'd still like DELSORT notices to stay in chronological order. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It makes enough sense to me - if the status quo is A, there's consensus for B, and one editor prefers A, why not make a script to make it A for that editor to use? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What about relists too. They split up lists, can be distracting, can be important in the time line, etc. Why not standardise the format of both and dot point list them too ? Whatever, if there are interruptions to the list of deletes/keeps/comments then make them the similar format. Perhaps relists could also be in a box to the side, even the same box as the delsorts ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to delete RJ_Tolson

RJ Tolson is not notable according to WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, most of the content on the page was added by either KickStartWrit or MetaphysicsSoul. These users have both claimed to own the pictures they posted of the article's subject. That suggests that they are either are RJ Tolson himself, his friends, or his publicist. As an unregistered user, I don't have the ability to create a deletion discussion page for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.109.254 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson. shoy (reactions) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)