Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

message: I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at WP:NOQUORUM about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads , meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include WP:BLPPROD?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that  which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.
This was discussed at the previous 2016-2017 RFC that formalized Soft Deletion as a process, and support for allowing at admin discretion was unanimous but had very little participation and no formal close. The original implementation of soft deletion from 2011 until it was removed in 2013 allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.
I'd like to try to come up with an actual consensus on the issue, so we can give clear advice to closers. With that in mind, I'm presenting a few options below for discussion and feedback. Please note that this is not an RFC, just an attempt to hash out options and wordings that could be presented in an RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue  plus the thread on my talk page that led me to start this discussion  The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is well thought out and very neutrally worded. Excellent work by those involved. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

text: That's great input, thanks. To be clear, anyone here can propose new options. I'm just trying to finesse some wordings for a future RFC, and I can definitely see an interest in preventing abuse of process though this suggestion is fairly complex. As far as preventing "double jeapordy", one idea I mulled over but didn't write up here was adding a statute of limitations for how old a PROD could be to block soft deletion. The article that prompted this, Miss American Beauty 1963, was PRODded and deprodded within an hour of its creation in 2009, and has been entirely unsourced for the entire 15-year article history. I think allowing soft deletion on articles that haven't been PRODded within the last 1, 2, or 5 years might be a different path that could filter out articles that are likely to have anyone interested in them. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes 

message: ==== Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 1) ====
Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1: Revert to 2011 process 

message: Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 1) 

message: ==== Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 2) ====
Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2: Disallow soft deletion for previous PROD 

message: Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 2) 

message: ==== Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 3) ====
This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3: Allow at admin discretion (clarify wording) 

message: This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 3) 

message: My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true: 
*The following people/places were notified of the discussion at least 7 days ago:
**The editors placing, endorsing (if applicable) and removing the PROD template
**Editors (excluding bots, blocked editors and IP editors) who have commented on the talk page in the last ~year 
**Any relevant WikiProjects (presence on an article alerts list counts as a notification for this purpose)
*The nomination has been added to relevant deletion sorting list(s).
*The nomination was made for reasons that are unambiguously different and/or additional to the reasons for the PROD. 
*The previously declined PROD has been noted on the discussion page for at least 5 days 
Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that, it can likely be simplified), and I'm not sure where it fits in your options, but the intent is to avoid double jeopardy and give a reasonable chance for the people most likely to have an interest in the article to be aware it has been nominated for deletion. The final bullet is so it is alert casual viewers of the discussion that there is something that probably needs looking at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great input, thanks. To be clear, anyone here can propose new options. I'm just trying to finesse some wordings for a future RFC, and I can definitely see an interest in preventing abuse of process though this suggestion is fairly complex. As far as preventing "double jeapordy", one idea I mulled over but didn't write up here was adding a statute of limitations for how old a PROD could be to block soft deletion. The article that prompted this, Miss American Beauty 1963, was PRODded and deprodded within an hour of its creation in 2009, and has been entirely unsourced for the entire 15-year article history. I think allowing soft deletion on articles that haven't been PRODded within the last 1, 2, or 5 years might be a different path that could filter out articles that are likely to have anyone interested in them. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes)

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes  about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Bump XfD heading sizes|Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) §&nbsp;Bump XfD heading sizes]] 

message: The section "Non-administrators closing discussions" says:  In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?
Currently, it doesn't seem that disclosing one's non-admin status when relisting a deletion discussion is common practice, even though such a disclosure could be included within the relisting comment. I figure that if a non-admin parameter were added to  and used by scripts such as XFDcloser, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now. PleaseStand (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Would disclosure of non-admin status when relisting convey any benefit? Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think so; relisting just moves the tiles around on the board, so it doesn't really matter who does it. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-admin relisting disclosure 

message: Sorry for posting here, but after CfD and RfD is backlogged since my last revisit, and to prevent any more controversies and former actions, am I fitted to perform the non admin closures. I've involuntarily opted out from XfD closures a week ago but regained my experience. I will abide with WP:NACD and prevent any other WP:BADNAC. I wanted to grow my experience more. ToadetteEdit! 22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-admin closures are permitted. Given some of the concerns that have been raised recently, I suggest starting with the most obvious/clear cases for closure for now. If you're not sure about a close, I highly recommend asking an admin for their opinion on the matter (though make sure it's an admin that regularly works that area). Primefac (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I fit to perform non admin closures