Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove Category:Wikipedia deletion from this page. It already has Category:Wikipedia deletion guidelines, which is a subcat of the former category. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Declining a speedy deletion"

I have added a brief paragraph of guidance on how to decline a speedy deletion. As a new admin I searched for a guideline but found nothing, so after asking my RFA nominator, I've reformulated the advice he gave me to add it here. Please feel free to improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policies versus guidelines

At a recent DRV, a participant argued that the wording of WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus – which mentions "policy" but not "guideline" – forbids the closer from evaluating or assigning a weight to any argument based on a guideline. I believe that this interpretation and its sharp boundary do not reflect consensus. WP:Policies and guidelines (policy) distinguishes between them, but it often refers to them collectively as "policies and guidelines" (Ctrl-F returns 33 matches) or "guidelines and policies" (3 matches). WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays – an "explanatory essay" tagged with {{supplement}} and linked prominently in a {{See}} at the top of WP:Policies and guidelines#Role – states: There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay" or an "information page".

The paragraph in question was rewritten in 2007 and has remained mostly unchanged to today. There were edits and reverts in 2008 and 2009 (1, 2) with an accompanying discussion, WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#Wikipedia:non-negotiable does not exist. The edits also removed or replaced the next paragraph regarding the core content policies, which I am leaving alone.

I propose this change to address the immediate issue: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying ~~policy~~ policies and guidelines (if any). Alternatively, a wording like "cited established consensus" – albeit repetitive – would also cover widely-accepted essays and discussions like WP:Requests for comment. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flatscan: All you really need to do is move the "Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus ..." paragraph to the same one you quoted, because their being so far apart encourages the cherrypicking that was done in that DRV. I support your change too, though. Avilich (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. That paragraph was re-added after a revert in July 2009. The edit summary mentions a discussion that I did not find. In November 2009, an edit was made and reverted per WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#use or IAR. Considering these disputes, it is easiest for me to avoid it. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no opposition in a week, I implemented my first proposal. I intend to refine my alternate proposal and revisit it in the future. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about "established" and "documented", as they could inspire invented requirements. I am leaning toward "recorded", which is inherent in on-wiki discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rough consensus section, including my recent change, was cited at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop, specifically Policies and guidelines are distinct and Essays are not to be weighted in deletion decisions. I missed that "policies and guidelines" creates an explicit distinction between them and everything else, which was an unintended side effect. I implemented my alternate proposal to remedy that. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and I've just noted your recent LOCALCONSENSUS changes and reverted to the stable version, seeing as how the changes directly affect a case under discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flatscan: mixing 'widely-accepted essays' with the rest is perhaps too much. Essays are already cited and taken seriously in proportion to how they reflect consensus-based rules anyway. Avilich (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger during AFD discussion

Hey, all,

I'm fairly new to closing AFD discussions (since January) and I've found a few editors prematurely taking action before AFD discussions are closed. The more common example is editors turning an article into a redirect while the discussion is ongoing but that can easily be undone. But I have also come across an editor who went ahead and merged content from the article under discussion to a target article mentioned as a suggestion by a discussion participant. By the time I came across it, the discussion had run over 7 days so do I just close the discussion with a Merge decision or do I undo the merger edits and close the AFD as I have interpreted it?

The AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church and the merger was done by the AFD nominator. I find Alternatives to Deletion very useful but I don't know whether or not I would have closed this particulate AFD with a Merge closure as some participants said that the article under discusion was unrelated to the merge target...but once an editor has taken this on, should that work be undone for procedure's sake? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant participant guidance is the fifth/last point of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). I commented at the AfD, pointing out that WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline) applies there. Stated differently, Pbritti's edits do not interfere with any outcome, so you are free to evaluate the consensus. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, everyone,

I don't close many CFD discussions but I've run into a misunderstanding on the part of some editors and admins that if they move a category manually to a new category/page title, all of the category contents will be magically moved over to the new category. This is not my understanding of how the system works. As far as I know, for category moves/renames, User:JJMC89 bot III handles all of the recategorizations of articles and pages unless the category is small and the closer decides to handle this recategorization manually.

The reason I bring it up is that according to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#How to rename categories, the instructions given imply that the category contents will just automatically be moved over by "a daemon" and that these moves should be done manually which is not typically how categories, especially large categories or bundled nominations, are handled. As far as I've seen, JJMC89 bot III handles this process about 95% of the time unless, as I said, it's a very small category involved and the closer decides to handle it themselves. Should these instructions be written, at least to explain Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and the actions of the bot? Because I can see where a well-intentioned editor or admin just working with the advice given here, could get themselves into a mess. Maybe this section on categories should be revised with the help of some regular CFD closers who understand that unique process better than the rest of us. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]