Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

{{Deletionlist}}, which is transcluded by all deletion sorting categories says You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to [topic].. However, this is rarely done, mostly because editors don't know about it. So, we should add instructions to do it to the other venues. Here's potential wording, based on AfD's instructions:

Deletion sorting

Once listed, a link to the deletion discussion can, optionally, also be added to an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries. Since many people watch deletion sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent [X]fD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the complete list of categories.

(you can transclude all venues with WP:SELTRANS. No need for special instructions. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)) MfD should instead copy AfD's instructions exactly, since transcluding individual nominations is possible for that venue. I see no reason not to do this, especially since this was clearly always intended. Some sorting pages even have separate sections for each venue. Nickps (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Nickps (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the words category/categories in that paragraph at Afd to list/lists, as it was confusing to refer to categories.

The paragraph below it "Notifying WikiProjects" explains the modern system of Article Alerts, which are automated. Deletion sorting is an older mechanism which I view as largely superseded by Alerts. – Fayenatic London 06:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

While you may view deletion sorting as superseded, that doesn't change the fact that it's still widely used in AfD. Looking at today's AfD submissions almost all of them are listed in at least one deletion sorting list. So, other editors seem to disagree with your view that deletion sorting is superseded by Alerts and prefer to use both. Since that is the case, I think that the other venues should follow the example AfD sets and use deletion sorting more widely as well. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess my question is... DOES this work on other XfD pages? I spend my time mostly on the RfD page, and unlike on AfD (where EVERY submission gets tagged for deletion sorting), I haven't seen anyone use it in RfD in my time as an editor. If it does, indeed, work, then yes indeed instructions to do so SHOULD be added to RfD and other XfD pages-- I don't see why, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#LGBT rights in Zealand shouldn't be sorted under the "Denmark", "Politics", and "Sexuality and Gender" topics. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lunamann Well, WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark has a dedicated section for redirects, so it works. The other two don't at the moment but I don't think there is a technical reason for that. It's more that no one has added them yet. Nickps (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Here goes nothing. Nickps (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm immediately noticing that, while there's a link to the RfD page on all three, it's not actually transcluded on the page the way the AfD discussions are. Is that simply a technical limitation, or something else at play? (And further-- the page notes that a bot will automatically remove AfD discussions from the lists once they're closed. I'm... guessing it won't do that for other XfD discussions, like this RfD discussion...) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lunamann: No, I just forgot that WP:SELTRANS exists. All three are transclusions now. You're probably right about the bot though. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

no need for special instructions

...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and WP:SELTRANS flies over my head lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lunamann: (Let me know if I don't need to ping you) Yes, you're right. Turns out it's actually really complicated to get it working (mostly because every venue does things slightly differently). So, I made a template for it at {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder}}. I don't really know how to write templates so it's really jank but it works. If you want to test it, you might need to purgerefresh the page after saving your edit to see the transclusion. That happens even if you use #section-h directly, it's not something my template causes.

So, the instructions can look like (bolded part is my addition, the rest is from WP:AFDHOWTO):

If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=[page name]|3=[date of nomination]}}. Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

changed how the template works Nickps (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Replace "rfd" as appropriate. Obviously the template will have to be moved to Template space first, which I will do as soon as someone comes up with a good name for it. I'd also really appreciate a code review. Nickps (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Will give it a test run later on, will be doing a couple things IRL, but this looks good! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nickps: Gave it a test run, seems to work flawlessly at least for RfD. Not sure about its functionality on other venues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So, I moved the template to {{Transclude Xfd}}. If no one objects, I'll start adding instructions to the XfD venue pages in, say, a week from now. Nickps (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You definitely have my vote. Thank you so much! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So, there is a small problem with the template (more accurately, with section transclusion in general) for RfD. The [ Closure: keep/retarget ] links that appear next to the nominated page are not disabled at deletion sorting. If someone attempts to use these links to close an RfD from the deletion sorting page, it not work correctly. I'll have to ask for a change at Template talk:rfd2 first. Nickps (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Odd. RfD shouldn't have too many issues with transclusion in and of itself-- after all, the RfD page itself is one giant transclusion zone for literally all active RfDs (which are actually hosted, as far as I can tell, on the daily log pages). Wonder what's going on here...

I will note that I have no clue how transclusion works under the hood so I'm partially talking out my ass x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So, the code responsible for those links checks if the page name is equal to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and if it is, it displays the text "@subpage". Otherwise, it displays the links like normal. This worked before since no one transcluded RfD pages except for the transclusion zone in RfD itself. Since I've broken this assumption by transcluding the RfDs to the deletion sorting pages, the code has to be updated to take that into account. Nickps (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ohhhh, now I get it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This has now been fixed and as a bonus, @subpage is gone. That means there should be no more things that need fixing (famous last words). I'll start editing the XfD pages later because it's 2am where I am and there's no rush anyway. Nickps (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly done. I didn't add instructions to CfD because I didn't quite know where they would fit and I didn't touch FfD and DRV either because I've never edited there and I don't want my first edit to be telling the experienced editors how to do things. If someone else wants to, you can finish the job. Nickps (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Categoryify/Catify lists

I come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doctors working in the British media, where I noticed that turning a list into a category isn't a common outcome. I !voted with an ad hoc 'category-ify' option, and the other editor !voted in a similar way. I haven't found anything like this in the archives. Listify is used to turn categories into lists, but there isn't an option to do the opposite. Is 'categoryify' or 'catify' a common enough outcome to be included in the common outcomes table? I was going to be bold and add it to the table, but it felt a bit too bold to edit a guideline page. Svampesky (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky I don't think it is a common outcome at all, nor would I expect it to be because of the relationship between categories and lists.

As Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains, lists and categories are not inherently in conflict with each other. But at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, the explanation of categories reveals that they have a narrower scope by definition: A category groups articles by defining characteristics, not mere intersection. It's often the case that CfD discussions result in an outcome of "Listify", because if a category is created that isn't a defining characteristic of the member articles, then that isn't an appropriate categorization, and the grouping should just be a list.

But it's hard to imagine the list that isn't appropriate to be a list, but should be a category. If something isn't important/notable enough to be a list, it's hard to see how it could possibly qualify to be a category. A list topic may become a category also, but it's unlikely it would become a category instead. So, deleting a list only to create a category with the same parameters would almost certainly just be creating a category that's going to end up at CfD in short order. FeRDNYC (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

User: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)

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)

RfC on contested BLARs

There is an RfC on the proper venue for BLARed articles at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Amending ATD-R. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias towards inclusionism

The burden to deletion seems to far exceed creation, which encourages promotional and public relations editing. For example, Hometown Anthem was declined more than once at AfC, then creator went forward with simply putting it into article space. It was successfully delete by AfD, but it was created again, by the same user and it is now needing to go through AfD again. Same with Red Cord Records. The same editor has re-re-re created a handful of articles successfully deleted by AfD with more fluff, such that they were unable to be deleted with CSD G4. Each iteration of AfD takes community resources and when there's significantly more hurdle to deletion than recreation, it only encourages promotional and fan page creations. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Also, Emerald Moon Records... Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

While I am in no way defending the editors of the articles you mention, I want to say I consider this "bias towards inclusionism" to be a generally good thing. It should be easy to add material and difficult to delete it, or we wouldn't see people trying :-). Also, with all due respect to the frustration you're likely experiencing right now, I do need to question if this really is a bias at all. After all, deleting something is ultimately as easy as pressing a button, while creating something can be a painstaking process (at least if humans are involved). Consider the times where you put a lot of effort into making an edit... only for someone to revert you. What's the bias here? Someone can undo hours of your work in seconds! (I'm simply assuming you share this experience with 99.99% of us editors here). What I'm fishing for is this - could it be that other tools would be more appropriate here? (Like warning the user; banning the user; tools to handle sockpuppets; bans on IP ranges, and the like)? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A hurdle that requires more community resources for deletion than creation is not a good thing when it comes to companies/organizations, people and products as that area is highly susceptible to promotional editing which becomes like graffiti which takes substantially more work to remove than apply. Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

When I saw the title in my watchlist, I'll admit I didn't expect this to be where the conversation headed - this is more an issue of someone recreating articles which will never be notable, which we can easily salt if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, all of my G4 requests were denied. On a policy level, perhaps we might need a CfD (creation for discussion) for the re-creation of anything that's been through AfD. What happened here shows how they can easily re-create, but if they've added more fluff to it since the last version, a team needs to come together and expend time to establish consensus while the re-creation is allowed to occur without consensus. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how often this happens, though. Just send it back to AfD and note that it may need to be salted. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how often, but each time it happens, it is a prodigious waste of community time. Something could be done better to prevent it from happening. Is automatical referral to Creation for Discussion on a previously AfD'd article unreasonable? Here's another example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) (2nd nomination) Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Inclusionism is a historical school of thought concerning the scope of Wikipedia according to which notability should not exist as a standard for eligibility or should be much more permissive, and also many WP:NOT-type pages are seen as fine (directory pages etc.), and deletion is an extreme action that should only be taken in the direst of situations. Inclusionism lost the war of ideas and deletionism won. Real inclusionism seems ridiculous today. It turned out that the community does not want inclusionism and has adopted and uplifted deletionism through extant policies, notability guidelines, and deletion processes. But this does not mean that there is not a bias toward creation. Even with deletionism as the victorious and governing ideology, there is still a systemic bias toward allowing new content in without bureaucratic hurdles. That is not a "bias toward inclusionism", it is a bias toward new content. To delete, we still need to put in the work to prove that it's the correct action. To keep the engine running, we need to pour the juice. That is the price of keeping deletionism in power and running. —Alalch E. 20:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

All those articles on record labels, hole in the wall LOCAL taverns and restaurant pages are a good indication of excessive inclusionism. Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The cost of WP:AfD is well justified. AfD is not just a process to delete what should be deleted, it is a learning process for all involved. The difficulty in a successful nomination to delete does not encourage promotion and fan page creations, these will be deleted, and the deletions are precedent-setting, and if any editor repeatedly creates articles that get deleted, various things will correct them. You can help by calling them out.

Guidelines, especially Wikipedia-notability guidelines can only be reliably written, reviewed and refined by data from the outcomes of AfDs.

Don’t resent the number of AfDs. Value them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)