Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1

message: Before an admin deletes a page, he or she is prompted with this message:
:You are about to permanently delete a page or image along with all of its history from the database. Please confirm that you intend to do this, that you understand the consequences, and that you are doing this in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy.
I think the following should be added: 
:If this is a speedy deletion, please review the criteria for speedy deletions.
Kingturtle 19:55, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we get the new MediaWiki namespace, sysops will be able to change that text, but there are bugs in it at the moment, so the namespace was removed a couple of days ago. Angela 20:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy deletion reminder 

message: I restored "fluff", because I think it's fair to give attribution to the document we're quoting, and I think the aside, while non-essential, is a helpful one. I care modeately more about the former, though I don't have a terribly strong opinion on either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 December 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  re fluff 

message: After reading Eric B. Rakim's email to WikiEN-l about some articles he wrote that were quickly deleted, I took a look at this page to get a sense just how long a candidate should sit on VfD before it is deleted -- & found that was an undefined variable.
I have no problem about a majority of a quorum voting to delete an article, nor about articles being deleted. But I do have a problem with decisions being made quickly -- especially if it is faster than the average interested Wikipedian can learn about the issue. (Not all of us visit VfD every day, nor even once every week or three.) I'd like to see some kind of Window for voting on deleting a given article: 3-5 days would be good, a week would be best, but I can live with 48-72 hours.
I hope someone else has something to add; I wrote this to start a discussion on this point, & find a suitably wide window of time for all. -- llywrch 01:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are guidelines at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Lag times. Articles that are candidates for speedy deletion can be deleted instantly. Anything else waits at least 5 days (on the main VfD) or 7 days (on the VfD subpages, like redirects, images). There is currently some disagreement on what should be done with articles that are both candidates for speedy deletion and listed on VfD. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion and some examples on votes for undeletion. Angela. 02:31, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
Now that you pointed the section out, Angela, I see what I was looking for. It'd be helpful to find a term that is a little more obvious to describe the period for discussing the deletion of an article. (And yes, I admit "window" isn't it.) -- llywrch 02:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Window for votes, Comments 

message: I aplogize if this has already been discussed to death(I see that it was talked about some last year).  I suggest that we change the line "then consider listing it on wikipedia:requested articles" to " then consider listing it on wikipedia:requested articles or adding a link to it on a sensible page" or something like that.  I think having a red link(or more than one) is a better way to get an article created than listing it on wikipedia:requested articles.  I doubt if most admins have time to do that, so it might not be worth it, but I thought I'd mention it.  Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia. JesseW 08:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  making links to good titles instead of putting them on Requested articles 

message: I simply not sure I grok Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#On deleting pages #11, because it appears to have one step (the move) duplicated. Or maybe I'm missing something? If not, would it be better put as:
: If an article title needs to be deleted, but some of the content could be used in a different (existing) article, proceed as follows: move the article from really silly article title to a better title, in order to preserve the history (as this may be required for the GFDL). Next, copy the content to the existing article, with an edit comment like (moved content from really silly article title - see the page history of better title for author attribution). The Really silly article title will then be a redirect with no page history which can be deleted.
If I correctly understood what was meant, I'll do the fix. If not, came someone please explain what was meant, because I sure can't figure it out! :-) Noel (talk) 14:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented your fix.  dbenbenn | talk 04:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing instructions? 

message: Also, there's another option for preserving the edit history on a duplicate article, when content from it is merged into the other article, and it's one which I much prefer, as opposed to merging the edit histories (which usually creates an incomprehensible mess in the history). I would like to add it here, and in other places where it is appropriate. (I think WP:RfD and WP:RfM already have it.)
If I have FooBar1 and FooBar2, I simply move FooBar2 to Talk:FooBar1/FooBar2, and put note at the top of Talk:FooBar1 to the effect that some of the content in FooBar1 is from the duplicate article now archived at Talk:FooBar1/FooBar2. (One can also put the same message in the edit summary for the edit of FooBar1 where the content of FooBar2 is merged in, but it's easy to miss that, which s why I prefer the belt-and-suspenders method of doing it both places.)
Comments? Noel (talk) 14:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another option for edit preservation 

message: A comment on the recent addition of version deletion guidelines (thanks, Isomorphic; didn't realize there weren't any). As for GFDL compliance: I recently deleted several revisions of an article due to libelous content in the history; during the time the libelous content had been in the article several good revisions were made as well. In the edit summary for the edit in which I removed the problematic text I mentioned that the current revision contained changes by the intervening authors (which I listed: fortunately not many), then deleted the intervening revisions. It's not an ideal solution but it does at least retain it on the history page. Thoughts/improvements? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version deletion 

message: Your opinion please in Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. Mukadderat 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redirect" option 

message: There is a text:
:"Do not delete a page containing a personal essay or other content from the main article namespace without first posting a copy..blabla". 
I am wondering who invented this? Why I I shall bother with someone's musings? This is wikipedia, not Hyde Park. there is plenty of blogs around. If the author does not care, why should we? I suggest to delete this item. mikka (t) 06:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal essay" 

message: I put the following on the article; User:Cryptic reverted it.
===Consensus bypass===
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion bypasses consensus. If no person removes the proposed-deletion tag, administrators are encouraged to delete the article after 5 days are elapsed. No forum for discussion of the proposed deletion is made available. No guidelines are specified as to what criteria admins should use in deciding whether to delete an article with this process.
Since "proposed deletion" is live and operating, some mention of it is appropriate here.  User:Cryptic has not responded to me; does anyone else have any input?  -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard way of showing consensus for changes is by failure to object.  Proposed deletion does not bypass consensus, it uses the standard way of showing consensus.  If nobody objects for five days, the article is deleted, and it remains deleted until somebody objects.  Your suggested text is sufficiently wrong that it needed to be removed.  The guideline is straightforward, and is located at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators; the most we would need here is a pointer there (not a copy, as otherwise they will become different over time).  But it doesn't need to be here at all, because this is really about closing XfD discussions.  GRBerry 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD and consensus bypass 

message: The more I get involved in article deletion cases the more I see admins failing to follow guideline #9 on deleting pages - to delete leftover links to the deleted page. This makes it confusing when one comes across a redlink as to whether an article needs to be created or a redlink removed; I make an effort to clean up these links as I find them, but it would be much more efficient if it was done when the deletion took place. I don't know what I can do about this except make a fuss here. Please do try, admins! Perhaps if it's too much work when articles need to be efficiently speedied then a list could be made of deleted articles that need links removing, for non-admins to clear. BigBlueFish 22:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is a good idea to create such a list. Remember, admins are often quite busy in other aspects of Wikipedia and that could be one of the reasons why some articles are left undeleted. This could idea could greatly decrease the burden of admins, considering how few admins Wikipedia has. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose it would be possible to make an automated list of deleted articles with links (or even just a list of deleted articles) would it? Deletion logs don't seem to come with the database dumps. This would make it possible to identify the backlog being created and allow non-admins to more efficiently help maintain it. BigBlueFish 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links 

message: The Deletion process states "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they have been involved."  I think this should apply to administrators as well.  I propose adding a statemetn to this guideline that says "Do not close AfD's if you were involved in the AfD discussion, unless the AfD has run the full five days and reached unanimous agreement." Johntex\talk 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is too prescriptive. Administrators, by their very nature, are experienced and responsible - if not, they can be casdministrated. Also, administrators have a chance to point out why the article is being deleted in the discussion, which could improve future articles. This should not prevent them from closing the discussion. I am happy to accept that some mistakes will be made, but these can be fixed later. Stephen B Streater 06:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Some tightasses will probably go nuts over this, but WP:SNOW (despite its non-policy status) clearly applies. A wrong close can always be reviewed by DRV, and I think it's assuming bad faith to assume an admin who was involved in a debate can't close it appropriately. Personally, I avoid closing AfDs where the result is close, but otherwise -- where WP:SNOW clearly applies -- why bother leaving a backlog? Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing an AfD when you have been involved in its discussion 

message: This page is missing a note about blanking AfD discussions if they requested by their subjects. I haven't found it in the other deletion discussions as well; I'm sure there is also a template, but cannot find it any longer. Any objection to updating this page. - Liberatore(T) 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of AfD discussions 

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages.  Rossami (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: The Category_deletion subsection seems badly out of place.  If no one screams I'm going to move it. brenneman {L} 11:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it where? - EurekaLott 00:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category instructions 

message: Not all anonymous edits are bad faith, and ignoring them could ignore very good faith positions (PS. This here is a good faith "edit".) 70.101.147.74 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bad faith". 

message: I'm trying to lock :Category:Northern Irish women from being recreated per the latest deletion vote (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 18#Category:Northern Irish women) but can't find the process for locking it on the guidelines page. Timrollpickering 14:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions are at :Category:Protected deleted categories.  More details are at Wikipedia:Protection policy. - EurekaLott 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers - now locked. Timrollpickering 15:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanently locking consistent recreations 

message: The guidelines page currently reads: "Note also that the three key policies..." and goes on to list WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.  But there are five key policies as per WP:POLICY 9which combines WP:V and WP:OR and has WP:COPYRIGHT as another key policy.. I'm wondering why are WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL ignored here? They are both relevant to deletion considerations. Also WP:COPYRIGHT is mentioned in an almost secondary fashion.  Bwithh 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Key Policies 

message: An extremely dubious guideline is sitting here:
"Do not delete a page containing a personal essay or other content from the main article namespace without first posting a copy elsewhere" 
Now what? Wikipedia becomes a repository of each and every babble a teenager does for his school project or a kook elaborating his petty General Theory of Everything?
I suggest to delete this item with prejudice. It is an encyclopedia, not a multiblog. `'mikka 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this was just brought to my attention... personal essays are decidedly not appropriate content in the main article namespace, and protecting them like they were some holy writ is just all kinds of stupid; I think we can safely strike that one from the list... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must just be that time of the year.  I didn't take a look at the talk page before asking User:EVula about it, but this was brought up in February 2005 and again in February 2006 with nobody suggesting that it be kept (though there was only one person who responded either time, and that was to remove anyway).  I agree it should just be removed, so I'm going to go ahead and be bold.  ShadowHalo 06:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not delete essays??? 

message: A question about the following paragraph:
Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.
Does this mean that an admin can override legitimate consensus not to delete if the article as it now stands violates any one of the three? Or can he/she only override consensus if the article cannot conceivably fulfill any one of the three in the future?  What about if there's a verifiable source but it's behind a paywall? Esn 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still an active question on may 27. But one of the above questions is clear: Sites behind a paywall are appropriate references if free equivalents are not acailable. The best references should always be used, whether free online, pay online, or print. DGG 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overriding consensus 

message: This needs clarified.  The title of the page, and the banner is misleading depending on how this discussion goes, however, are we considering this a guideline? Navou 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: Wasn't there at one time a page (perhaps this one) that provided actual practical guidance on closing (i.e., templates to use, what other things one should not forget to do)?  For folks like me, who only help out on AfD very occasionally, this would be very helpful. -- Visviva 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practicalities 

message: I recently had an image I uploaded - Image:Baldbritney.JPG - speedy deleted by User:Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me, and the procedure for the reason given (i4) was NOT followed.. I not only provided the source of the image, but also a detailed rationale as to why no free use image was available.  It took 20 minutes to find the appropriate templates and type up a rationale and I'm NOT in the mood to do that again right now.
Not only that, but according to Speedy_deletion#Images_and_media the image should have been tagged as unsourced and then, if no action was taken, could be speedy deleted after seven days. Considering I uploaded the image on August 23, that seems a bit impossible. I see absolutely NO justification for this image having been deleted, since the reason for deleting the image was given as "i4" but the procedure outlined in that category was not even CLOSE to properly followed.
I have a feeling the person in question simply didn't like the image, and decided to ignore the policy. Is there anything that can be done about that? I don't see the point in investing time to make sure everything is kosher if someone can just come along and delete it all on a whim, not even following policy, and giving me no opportunity to contest the issue, fix the problem, or even revert the (what I consider to be) vandalism.  Xoxixox 00:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you are violating copyright it can be deleted immediately, so procedure was followed yuckfoo 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if policy is not followed? 

message: :"A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions."
The problem with this sentence is it seems to imply that if an administrator has formed his own opinion that an article violates policy (or that it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy"), then the discussion can be completely ignored and the administrator can close to delete without any consensus at all. I would think that policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus (or in certain cases the edicts of Jimbo or the Foundation) which backs it, and thus the individual opinions of whether an article violates policy, reasonably formed in light of that consensus (or those edicts) should be taken into consideration (as opposed to individual opinions which ignore or are cleary contrary to policy, which can rightly be ignored). Does anyone have any suggestions on how this could be re-worded to be more in line with our policies on deletion, consensus, and how policy is formed? DHowell 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add "these" between "violates" and "policy" to make it more clear that the policies in question are those specifically named in the prior sentence: not violating copyright, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.  As these are foundational policies, local consensus to ignore them is always irrelevant.  Are we really having problems with this?  Any competent administrator will read the discussion and have an opinion formed in light of the discussion, not form an opinion elsewhere and then come close a discussion without reading it.  GRBerry 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I do frequently see closings which dismiss or ignore without any comment keep arguments of the form "this is not original research because ..." without any evidence that any prior consensus has addressed the specific argument being made. Controversial closings often boil down to "I agree with one side and disagree with the other, therefore I'm closing this way", without addressing reasoned objections made by the opposite side, and without recognizing that sometimes no consensus really should be just closed as "no consensus". Wouldn't you agree that interpretation of policy should not solely be determined by administrative closings of AfDs and DRVs, and that policy should not "override" consensus when there is no wider consensus to support a specific controversial application or interpretation of policy, at least without a clear edict from on high? Just because it has been determined that a particular policy is "non-negotiable" does not mean that every possible interpretation or application of it by an administrator is "non-negotiable", does it? DHowell 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, interpretations are no more "non-negotiable" than claims are self-proving.  But how to balance?  GRBerry 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, based on arguments made in the discussion, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions which ignore policy concerns or are clearly contrary to established policy. However, where it is disputed that a violation of policy occurred, administrators should take into account the consensus established, either by the immediate discussion, or by wider a consensus elsewhere." DHowell (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious wording ought to be changed 

message: I have only just noticed that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus does not specifically mention canvassing or votestacking.  This seems odd: it seems only proper that a closing admin should take account of any evidence that has been presented of votestacking, and that's what seems to have happened in many closures that I have seen.
There are many possible permutations of votestacking, which have different impacts on the outcome, so I don't think that any guidance here should be prescriptive. But wouldn't it be a good idea for admins to be explicitly given advice of the principle? Perhaps along the lines of:
:"where evidence has been presented of partisan canvassing or votestacking, the closing admin should take account of this in weighing consensus. If it does not appear straightforward to determine what the conclusion of the debate would have been without the canvassing, it may be preferable to relist the discussion."
Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rough consenus and votestacking 

message: I believe there is a general consensus that someone who has rendered an opinion in an AFD should not also close that AFD.  If there is agreement here that this is general consensus, it would be useful to include that on the Guidelines page in some fashion.
I do not think there is a similar consensus regarding someone who has nominated an article for deletion also being the person who closes the AFD.  In other words, I do not know if there is a consensus around the AFD-nominator also being the AFD-closer.  For PROD, I think the general consensus is that it is OK to both nominate and close, but for AFD, I'm not sure.  Is there a general consensus on this?
Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an AfD, the users who nominate or discuss an opinion should never close an AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who nominate or discuss the opinion should not close an AFD.  (A few IAR cases have been fine in exceptional circumstances, such as cutting off enmass abusive sockpuppetry combined with BLP violating opinion statements.)  For PROD there is also clear consensus that the nominator should not delete.  Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators "Note: To ensure independent judgment, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the tag on it."  GRBerry 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominator or Commenter also acting as Closer 

message: This question is somewhat related to the last I put here.  I often (and perhaps to the chagrin of some) relist AFD discussions that I feel need more input to lead to consensus.  I subsequently monitor those discussions and do not wait for the passage of another 5-day period before closing them if I feel that a consensus has been reached, but rather close them myself (recent examples: 1, 2, 3).  Is this a generally accepted practice - closing a relisted AFD as soon as rough consensus appears to have been reached?  I think that this practice is consistent with the spirit of the AFD process, but if the general consensus is that I should stop this type of closure, I will cease and desist.  Thanks for your input, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting and AFD closure 

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deletion_restrictions_for_pages_with_long_histories
The software has just now been changed so that it won't let non-developers delete anything that has over 5000 revisions. If there's a page with a BLP violation or some other emergency (like the virus put in the sandbox that caused this latest incident) that needs deleting, then until developers can be contacted and they handle it, someone with oversight needs to be contacted and the page oversighted. Deletion of such a page stalls the system, while oversighting doesn't. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New process for pages with over 5000 revisions 

message: The section on Protecting deleted pages tells you to go see either Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages or Wikipedia:Protected titles, both of which have big red Xs on them. This suggests that a new page of explanation *without* a big red X ought to be created. My surmise is that the new MediaWiki feature is now the preferred method. I assume, never having done this, that an admin should go through the dialog to create a new page, and then before creating it, hit the 'Protect' tab. Presumably this causes the result to show up in Special:Protectedtitles. Is it correct that this replaces the cascading protection method of doing protected titles?  I won't try to revise this section due to my obvious lack of knowledge. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Protecting deleted pages' needs an update 

message: Sorry to bug you guys, but I don't know where to start or how to talk to the Admin, like Nawliki or wiki.. I was wondering why my page was deleted, as it is a legit company (the IUWA) and not a backyard company, as is WAR Pro Wrestling and Stars And Stripes Wrestling, yet the Stan Pain page was deleted. As one of the promoters in Chicago, his shows have consistently drawn well in venues like the Windy City Fieldhouse, St. Sylvester's Gym, and Joe's Bar On Weed Street. There was much work to be done but due to personal issues at home and at work, the write-ups had been postponed. There is a new company that has opened up in Southern Wisconsin called The Lords Of The Ring, with shows regularly running at a small concert venue. Stan Pain is the promoter. We would like to ask that the Stan Pain page be re-instated. If the issue was the man's involvement in a backyard league when he was a child, then his childhood years will be omitted. Thank you.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.86.56 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Each user has a talk page, NawlinWiki's is at User talk:NawlinWiki, and you edit that page as you edited this page, to contact the user. Please do this and then you could also remove this message (the one here) as this isn't the place for this comment. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was "my page" deleted? 

message: this edit was reverted, prompting this discussion.
Administrators should be admonished to delete articles only 1) when deletion has been the consensus AND 2) no other alternative per WP:ATD is reasonable.  In most cases, this won't apply, but I've seen a large number of cases filled with "non notable--delete" !votes, and a suggestion or two to merge the article to somewhere reasonable and notable.  An admin comes along, counts noses, and nukes the article without ever commenting on the possibility of a merger.
Likewise, I see many reasonably-phrased articles deleted without a redirect left behind.  Merging, or redirecting poor merger candidates, is a preferred outcome: redirects are cheap, history is or can be preserved per GFDL, and the will of the consensus (this article doesn't belong in this place in this form) is enacted. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Point 2 only really applies if the alternatives have not been discussed during the deletion debate.  Even then, if there is a clear consensus to delete, but the consensus ignores a proposal of merging then it's better to refocus the debate rather than overriding the consensus.  Redirects can be created in place of the deleted article, so a plausible redirect is not a reason not to delete.  Taemyr (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  What I'm talking about is something where there are 9 delete !votes, a few uninspired keep !votes, and one late !vote to merge the article to somewhere sensible.  If none of the delete responses specifically said "nuke it, don't merge it to anywhere" is a merge outcome really a violation of consensus?  I'm thinking not.  Mind you, my proposal doesn't dictate outcomes to administrators, just remind them that WP:ATD applies to everyone, and that the admin should be the WP:ATD'er of last resort if the AfD !voters haven't adequately considered those alternatives. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: As the reverter, I think the place to propose this major change to current WP practice is on the Deletion Policy page, not here. Nowhere in that policy does it say that the WP:ATD alternatives MUST be done instead of deletion, which is how I read the addition proposed here.  The alternatives are only alternatives, the policy does not say they are preferred alternatives. I think admins. need to WP:AGF on the part of !voters, and not infer that someone suggesting Delete was unaware of, or failed to consider, WP:ATD.UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, it would help this discussion if you pointed to specific AfD discussions as examples of what you think the problem is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin should be aware the he is considering arguments, not counting votes.  So if none of the delete arguments address the possibility of a merge it's difficult to see how he can infer any consensus. Taemyr (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be very surprised to find even one admin. on all of Wikipedia who agreed with that last sentence. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about agreeing with it... actually, I'm not even sure I understand it.  Can you elaborate Taemyr? Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are supposed to consider the strength of the arguments.  And in general an argument of the type "delete, not notable since none of the sources provided are independent" will not be an argument against merging. Taemyr (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it will. All content on WP has to be cited to reliable sources; if none of the content on a page is so cited, then it can't be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not independent does not mean not reliable, which is why I chose this example. Taemyr (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think we can agree that content which meets WP:V but not WP:N is the ideal sort of content to be upmerged into an article of broader scope and more clearly established notability. THAT is the sort of content which I believe should be generally kept through a merge, even if the topic isn't notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's the clearest example of why articles that can be merged might not be capable of standing on their own.  However declaring this content as an ideal example for upmerge is a bit overinclusive.  Just because content can be sourced does not mean that it is appropriate, for that other concerns also come into play.  Such as WP:DUE, WP:NOT, WP:LENGTH and stylistic concerns.  Taemyr (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Since when did consensus mean majority?  Also see above  for my view on this concern.  Taemyr (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely right, Taemyr.  If 10 people argue for deletion without sound, policy-based reasons, and one for merge based on a policy, then consensus is to merge.  I'm not asking that we change consensus rules, simply to remind admins what they are. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguments not directly based in policy is important too.  Also, I don't think there is a clear policy on when to merge, it's always a content issue for the suggested target.  So you are over simplifying.  Taemyr (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, typing all of the conditions and circumstances we already discussed above would be a bit more work. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not talking about what should happen, I'm talking about what does happen. And yes, if most of the people at an AFD !vote for deletion, and the admin closes as merge, there will be a stampede to DRV, like it or not. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but why is this a problem? Taemyr (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it could really be a GOOD thing.  Pointless "dramah" is to be avoided, but if a ton of people were disssatisfied with a merge vs. a delete, either 1) they're right and the merge should be overturned at DRV, but more likely 2) they don't understand the point, goals, and effects of a merge and the DRV ratification of the close would be educational for them.  There are plenty of people, of whatever stripe, whom I've observed trying to use AfD as a de facto censorship court.  Making merges a more likely outcome should hopefully frustrate them in those efforts. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using wikipedia process to force others to adhere to your view in general indicates that there is something wrong with the process.  So I am not sure if what you describe is a good thing. Taemyr (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what?  Everyone on Wikipedia has their own view of what's good and proper; the policies are an outgrowth of pointed (and sometimes regrettably heated) discussion between people who have differing views of what the encyclopedia should encompass.  Eliminating conflict is impossible, and fanning the flames of it is indeed counterproductive, but disagreements on a topic are the only way that consensus can change.  My point, then, is that such conflict, since unavoidable, is a necessary part of both ratifying and communicating that consensus has indeed changed. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion is to be a last resort 

message: Please participate in a discussion about no consensus FfD results for non-free images at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus on non-free images; defaults to ... ? 

message: I added mention  of CC-BY-SA and specified the concrete reason why care should be applied, following the licensing update but also discussions at WT:REVDEL. MLauba (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Version Deletion section 

message: can admins who delete pages please check for WP links to that page and remove those too?  I am finding WP frustrating as I cant follow links from one page to another because the second page has been deleted (often because in and of itself it wasn't noteworthy, but did make a considerable contribution to the 'parent' page).  perhaps before deleting a page consider it in context as being part of another article.
115.64.111.252 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  on deleting pages 

message: I have reverted an undiscussed significant change to the guideline.. `    DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR should not be qualified in individual guidelines or policies.  Any changes or clarifications to IAR should be made at WP:IAR. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  use or IAR 

message: I thought of this issue again when I was read the newspaper a few days ago (on paper; I don't have a link).  They were reporting a psychological study on the cognitive bias that "what I tell you three times is true."  It turns out that there is some truth to this old line:  an opinion expressed three times by a single person is believed to be as widespread or popular a view as an opinion given once by three different people.
How this applies to AfD:  Most editors who comment at an AfD add their opinion or information and leave.  A few make it their business to argue with any editor that disagrees with them.  So you post a fairly normal comment like "Keep.  Four books published on this topic, including , plus two recent news stories", and they reply with a complaint that the subject isn't encyclopedic even if sources exist, or that they think the sources are biased, or some essentially irrelevant comment like that.  On the other side, you post "Delete.  The only sources I can find are the manufacturer's own website and a single sentence in a news article", and they reply with an unsupported assertion that thousands of unnamed sources surely exist.
Because of the cognitive bias, one editor that repeats the same argument a dozen times will loom larger in the human mind than it should.  It quits being "one editor" and starts being "a dozen separate comments".  Also, most editors don't watch AfD pages, so they don't respond to these comments.  The result is that the page may appear, at first glance, to favor the tendentious editor, or to be evenly divided.  Thus we occasionally get "wrong" decisions, or "no consensus" closes, when in fact the consensus exists, and is just improperly opposed by a single person.
I propose that we address the issue of single editors that argue with editors that disagree with them at WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus.  Perhaps something like this will work:
In contested discussions, it may be helpful to keep track of which editors are making which comments.  Occasionally, one editor will repeatedly argue with anyone who disagrees with him (or her).  Most editors don't watch AfD discussions and thus will not respond to these comments; their lack of response does not indicate that their views have changed.  Don't mistake a verbose repetition of a weak argument for either a popular or well-reasoned recommendation.
What do you think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating idea.  In my experience, however, one editor saying the same thing over and over again does not result in bad outcomes as often as a bunch of drive-by !voters who articulate an often marginal or inapplicable reason and never return to the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I tell you three times is true 

message: :If anyone at all does something negative which gets mentioned in the news media, can they ask for their article to be deleted and have it done then primarily for that reason?  If Roman Polanski objected to having an article, do it mentioning his sexual assault conviction, or the side article specifically related to that crime, would it be deleted?  Does how famous someone is determine whether their article is kept no matter what, while someone not so famous could have an article about them deleted?  If they were seen as notable enough to have an article for years, could someone have their article deleted by request simply because someone added a bit about a recent scandal they were in, and they didn't like the attention?  The scandal of course being something covered by major news organizations a week before.  Would it matter if they were a convicted criminal or elected official?  I'm thinking in those two cases, the public who they have harmed has a right to know about their actions, if they are seen as notable, regardless of their protest.  But if they are famous and notable for other reasons, then what? Dream Focus 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you don't like an article about you mentioning negative news coverage, can you have it deleted? 

message: I think that RevisionDelete should be mentioned in this section. It says the only way to remove it is to delete the article and restore. But since RD is enabled now and can remove edit summaries, it should be mentioned. --Bsadowski1 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention RevisionDelete 

message: From memory, this page used to contain a step by step guideline for the process involved with closing AfDs, including the templates to be used. Is this still available somewhere? It was very useful. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's happened to the step by step guide to closing AFDs? 

message: I tried to fix spelling with , but no pages were recategorized by bots in 5 days and the destination category was eventually deleted as CSD C1. What is wrong? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to rename categories 

message: I want to propose a  clarification to Rough consensus, for the case when an administrator uses underlying policy in addition to anything said at a discussion when closing it. 
There are cases where the instructions provided by policy are ambiguous or offer several possible courses of action for the situation at hand. In such cases, an Administrator who wants to apply a policy that was not mentioned in the discussion should refrain from closing the discussion, and should instead introduce the argument for that policy as a participant. This will allow the other participants to assess the weight of that policy as it applies (or not) to the situation. 
I think this addition is in the spirit of the consensus building  and dispute resolution policies, as it regards all participants as equals, and reduces the possibility that administrators will perform a supervote placing their opinion above everyone else's. Diego (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rough consensus 

message: Rough consensus currently says, , with the implication that an article that "violates" a policy must always be deleted.
I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but this isn't true, and it isn't reflective of our actual practices.  We don't use deletion as a means of cleaning up a POV article or one that needs to have more sources added.  We do delete pages that violate WP:Copyrights, but that isn't really a "core content policy" anyway:  it's a legal policy.  Should this be redrafted to more correctly reflect actual practice, or is this not-quite-exactly-right exaggeration here to solve a problem (e.g., to deal firmly with unfounded complaints by people who are upset about a well-deserved deletion)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the following sentence, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions" serves to make clear that the implication you mention is an unwarranted one.--Elvey (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion is not clean up 

message: For example, my recent edit makes it so that the guideline indicates that  a simple template that serves a community of editors (such as a wikiproject) well should not be deleted on the basis of redundancy unless some buy-in from that community has been achieved.  Less redundancy at the price of less usability, complexity or comprehensibility is generally a poor tradeoff.  --Elvey (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification