Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: Results and a closing statement are at the bottom of the page


Due to several users' complaints about my AfD closes based on WP:NPASR, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion. The basic premises are: How many relists should be allowed for each discussion? When an AfD with insufficient participation reaches that limit, should the result be no consensus (WP:NPASR) or delete? We eventually found that it would be better to get the general public involved. It is hoped that this straw poll will allow us to see how people view this issue. (Note: A related discussion from a year ago can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods".)

Straw poll instructions[edit]

For each of the three questions, leave a !vote and a rationale under the subsection that best describes your views.



Relisting limit[edit]

How many times can an AfD be relisted? Currently WP:RELIST specifies a maximum of two.

None[edit]

The AfD will be closed after the one week time-span has elapsed.

  1. 7 days is more than plenty for compelling arugements for/against deletion. If no consensus is available after one week, close and default to keep. Lugnuts (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Absolutely not. It is very difficult to get word out to knowledgeable parties. Relistings serve a crucial role. Kingturtle (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it "very difficult"? Do these people not have a chance to access the internet more than once a week? Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We who do most of the debating here are, obviously, people who are at Wikipedia somewhere between once a day and continuously,and we are not representative of the total community. There are ten times more active users than highly active users, and perhaps a hundred times more occasional users. We need to get the ordinary user involved in discussions--most of what is wrong with AfD will be helped by a broader base of participants. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the "ordinary user" is even aware of AfD, let alone the rules on how the whole process works. Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One[edit]

The AfD will be relisted once if necessary, and closed after a maximum of two weeks.

  1. Three weeks is way too long. Don't leave articles in limbo like that. If resolution isn't reached in 2 weeks, it should either be deleted (ala a prod) or closed as no-consensus. Admins should have more hutspa to what is necessary---don't keep relisting, make a decision and stand behind it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would support this for most AFDs with a second relist for AFDs on BLPs or if the closer thinks there is a good reason for a second relist. (such as the AFD tag being removed from the article) This is basically what I was doing until recently. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Relisting should be deprecated except when productive discussions are occurring AND there's a doubt as to the outcome. One is plenty in most cases, beyond one should be IAR. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Two relists really starts to look desperate, and two weeks is plenty to determine what consensus (if any) exists, and then get on with things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second relists are rarely helpful in my experience and should be very limited. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    # I've seen the AfD process abused this way by single agenda-driven editors. They'd simply keep re-listing failed AfD after failed AfD until they get their way. There needs to be a stop to it. Kevin Baastalk 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a different issue. That's renominating an article for AFD. This is related to relisting an open AfD rather than closing it as keep/delete/no consensus.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. What's the renom rule then and where can i put in my opinion on it? In america we have a "double jeopardy" rule to protect from the kind of thing i mentioned. Though i wouldn't expect wikipdia's system to be as mature. Kevin Baastalk 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a short discussion down below related to your concern about renominating articles for AFD. Again, the question being asked here, is "If there hasn't been enough discussion to reach a consensus one way or another, how long do we keep a single AFD open?" Those advocating "None" are saying "after one week make up your mind." Those saying "one" are essentially saying, "Give the article 2 weeks tops at AFD before making a decision." And so forth, but this is for a single AFD.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two[edit]

The AfD will be relisted up to two times if necessary, and closed after a maximum of three weeks.

  1. If we haven't got a decision after three weeks, we're very unlikely to get one by stretching it out to four, five, six, or more weeks. However, I'd slightly loosen the existing rules to permit admins to use their best judgment if there are extraordinary circumstances ("normally no more than twice", rather than "never more than twice"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is essentially the current practice and I think it is a good one. Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I find even relisting twice quite a stretch, but an AfD certainly should never be relisted any further than that; close with WP:NPASR and hope the next AfD gets more participation. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As per currently; one relist should be enough to resolve matters with two an absolute maximum in unusual cases. It's not reasonable to have a deletion tag on for weeks on end. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also, per Iridescent (no limit, below), if an AfD gets no participation other than the nominator's after two relists, it should be closed as something along the lines of "Nobody cares," defaulting to delete. If even the article creators don't take part in the AfD after being properly notified that a discussion is taking place, then it shows that even they don't care, and the article amounts to nothing more than a tweet that is quickly forgotten. However, I would say that the admin who relists an article for the second time should (but should not be forced to) express his own opinion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Two relists seems sufficient to get anyone involved who wants to become involved. After that, people just start tuning the listing out. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Two relists should be the absolute maximum. I would disagree with Blanchardb, above, as to whether a lack of participation should default to delete. If someone nominates an article and it gets no response from any other AfD participant, that implies that the nominator didn't write a nomination compelling enough to even warrant a "per nom". In such a case, I think it should be a "no consensus keep", allowing a renomination at any time afterward. But that's a separate matter than the number of relists, which, as I said, should be limited to two. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is the optimal situation. And I agree with Metro regarding the default being a no consensus keep. Kingturtle (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Two should be enough in the vast majority of cases.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Two is plenty for all but politically "hot" subjects. If no consensus to delete is made within 3 weeks, there isn't going to be a consensus. For many politically hot subjects, such as conservative vs liberal, or Israel vs Palestine, there will be no consensus in the next thousand years. Tangurena (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. In the case of not enough participation, a second relist is desirable and should not require some special reason to do so. A second relist is far preferable to "default to keep and make someone go through the nomination process all over again". --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I'm sorry, but I disagree with the "no limit" folk below. While it would be nice to have a robust discussion for each and every article, it simply isn't realistic. I'm more concerned with discouraging new writers (who after all are more likely to end up at AFD) or drive-by article improvers by leaving a deletion tag on the article indefinitely. Also, I can just see the arguments at DRV because a discussion was closed "no consensus" rather that relisting. All of our other consensus deletion processes (RfD, TfD, IfD) work just fine without relisting repeatedly, the same if true here. As long as admins make liberal use of userfication/incubation, I don't see the problem. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Three weeks is enough time for discussion.--  Forty two  10:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This would generally be more than enough time. However I oppose any formal restriction on this as unneeded WP:CREEP. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Although Wikipedia has no deadline, i think that three weeks should be enough to build consensus about, whether an article should be deleted or not. It is a reasonable time. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No limit is a horrendous idea. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Three weeks is plenty of time to reach discuss and reach consensus. More, with very few exceptions, is unnecessary. - EdoDodo talk 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Relisting twice is good enough- more than that is unnecessary. If someone hasn't commented on an AFD in 3 weeks, then chances are that there isn't too strong evidence that it should be deleted. --Slon02 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three[edit]

The AfD will be relisted up to three times if necessary, and closed after a maximum of four weeks.

More than three, but finite[edit]

If you feel more relists will be helpful, but don't want them to continue indefinitely, !vote here and specify the precise number of allowable relists.

  1. I'm !voting here because a theoretically infinite number of relists is absurd for obvious reasons, but equally because there are circumstances where the absolute maximum of two could be an issue. I think it's extremely rare that an AfD should be listed more than twice, but that it should be possible for an admin to relist a further two times (four relists in total, giving a theoretical but extremely unlikely maximum of five weeks). That said, each relist should be done by a different admin, to ensure that discussions aren't being dragged out unless they really need to be. The reason that I cannot go along with no limit is through the belief that if we give people scope to do the ridiculous, the ridiculous will probably happen. --WFC-- 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a straw poll. You don't need to !vote, just vote ;) —fetch·comms 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No limit[edit]

The AfD will be relisted indefinitely until sufficient discussion occurs.

  1. "Nobody cares" isn't the same as "no consensus". If there's not a single person who cares about an article enough to keep it, if anything it ought to default to "delete". – iridescent 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with iridescent. I've currently been closing twice-relisted AfDs with one or no !votes as no consensus, but I agree with the opinion that, if someone decided to nominate an article for deletion, and it was not procedural, then it should default to delete like an uncontested prod. If someone has voiced opposition to deletion, then the discussion should continue until a discussion has developed into either keep, delete, or a "real" no consensus, with actual participation. —fetch·comms 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Numerical limits suck, and this is hardly a common enough problem that we need a rule on it anyway: more than one relist is uncommon, and more than 2 is very rare. Admins are expected to close AFDs using reason and common sense, just like everything else they do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Articles can change for better or for worse so it could take many attempts to get a result.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why not? Both articles, and debates, can take time. TheGrappler (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad idea. Two relists and three weeks is more than enough time for a debate to occur if anyone cares about the article. It is really bad practice to keep an AfD open indefinitely or for too long. It would add to backlog and also could lead to abuse when endless relisting is used as an obfuscating tactic. AfD decisions are not necessarily perfect but the process does need to move along and not be allowed to stagnate. Nsk92 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC
    I can't see it being used as a "tactic" because as far as I can see the problem is AFDs that languish in obscurity. The author isn't in control of other editors, and isn't stopping them from commenting. I would fully support doing something that helps resolve the obscurity problem. How about e.g. adding a special cleanup tag to prevent stagnation: something like "This AFD has been relisted multiple times and the opinions of other editors are urgently needed" with addition of e.g. Category:Wikipedia AFD debates requiring urgent attention, prominently linked from the main AFD page? The best way to stop multiple relistings is to find a way to draw editors to them not to reduce AFD to a glorified prod, I reckon. TheGrappler (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't think that we should place a hard limit on the number of relists for a page; Instead i would argue that we would leave this to the users/admins who handle the AFD's and let them decide if it is sensible to relist it another time. Hence, a relist should only be done in cases where it is sensible to believe that this action will result in more, or more valuable input. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As per Excirial. I normally relist AfDs until sufficient discussion has taken place to determine either consensus or no consensus, or until it appears unlikely that another relisting will lead to more useful discussion. This is almost never more than twice, but I see no point in imposing an arbitrary limit.  Sandstein  21:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Largely agreed with Iridescent. Common sense is needed. If no one has cared enough to comment at all, and the nominator is arguing for deletion, silence has become consent and the article may be deleted. If there are arguments on both sides, leading to no clear consensus, but there's a reasonable chance that consensus could develop from additional discussion, the discussion should be relisted. If the discussion has obviously bogged down past the point of much hope of consensus, it should be closed as no consensus, to perhaps be revisited at a later date. Where that point is depends on the individual discussion, so like everything, we shouldn't set bureaucratic formalities, but should instead trust closing admins to exercise good sense. If you believe a closing admin made a bad call in a specific case, you can discuss it with them, and if you still disagree after that, take it to DRV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. agreed, consensus cant wait forever per Seraphimblade. Also, the spirit of the encyclopadia is that it is open to edit and change and improvement, if someone feels it is not worthy then they can discuss, just as an article can remove or add info and then be discussed if challenged.Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Sandstein and Seraphim. NW (Talk) 12:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A number of AfDs go on for a while and sometimes they are closed early with minimal consensus. Allowing indefinite relistings until there is a clear consensus would solve the problem (failing getting more participants). Christopher Connor (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sometimes an AFD may get re-listed a ridiculous number of times, and that can look quite weird, but its ok. Debate happens eventually. extransit (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. There's no reason to shelve someone's concern just because it hasn't yet received conclusive attention. Let's keep a clear barometer for consensus and not force artificial constraints on a process that's sometimes difficult already. — Chromancertalk/cont 23:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't think a hard numerical limit is the key here, but if something has been relisted twice and there has already been a lot of discussion with no clear outcome, I would think twice before relisting a third time. "No clear outcome" usually means "no consensus", but there are many exceptions to that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Reaching an appropriate consensus decision seems to make more sense than closing a discussion before a decision has been reached simply because an arbitrary time limit is up. There will be a point at which someone will make a decision to close based on the circumstances - imposing a blind rule forcing a decision to either keep or delete without knowing what the discussion will be about is not something I feel comfortable with. If consensus cannot be achieved in a reasonable time after a reasonable amount of discussion, then close as no consensus, but we can't push a square peg into a round hole. SilkTork *YES! 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I can't see the problem here myself. Most AFDs get closed or relisted as necessary and I rarely see ones sitting around where I think that has been listed too many times. It really depends on the depth and quality of discussion and whether the closing admin can see whether all the necessary arguments have been aired. Spartaz Humbug! 14:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I rarely relist and, even when a discussion has few comments, I will often close it; but I don't think there is any good reason to say "it shouldn't be more then x times . . . ever". Probably a very bad idea for the same editor to relist over and over again, but experienced closers should be allowed to use their experience and decide not to close sometimes. Besides, making such a rule sounds like WP:BEANS.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. We should go with this (as in, keep relisting until sufficient feedback is obtained) if getting sufficient discussion is what's important. 60.50.228.195 (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. There is no deadline and if consensus takes a while I do not see what the problem. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. meshach (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Should be up to admin discretion. No real problem has been presented here that this would solve. Mr.Z-man 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I have to largely agree with Seraphimblade. Though it is usually a more attractive solution setting up arbitrary limits on the amount of time isn't the best way to fix the problem. If an AFD debate would genuinely benefit from additional discussion then the debate should be kept open until that is no longer the case, however we should know when to stop flogging a dead horse. Requiring an AFD relist past two times to be endorsed by another (ideally neutral) admin might be a better route to go than just placing a hard limit. --nn123645 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I must admit I don't see the point of an arbitrary limit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I have never even seen more than two relists. I agree with User:Beeblebrox (above in the "two weeks" section) that a formal restriction is WP:CREEP. If there has been insufficient participation after three weeks, closing as "no consensus" is probably best. Abductive (reasoning) 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. It seems to me that you should not look at a fixed number but at progress. Did the last relisting not bring an answer, but was there progress (i.e. new participation)? Then relist. Otherwise close due to lack of consensus. -- BenTels (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Treatment of AfDs with no discussion[edit]

If there is no limit to relisting, then this section is moot. Otherwise, AfDs must be closed at some point: either as "no consensus" (no prejudice against speedy renomination) or "delete." Within "delete," there are two options: "soft deletion" and "hard deletion." "Soft deletion" is like WP:PROD; recreations will not be deleted per WP:CSD#G4, and undeletion will be granted upon request. "Hard deletion" is like other AfD debates.

No consensus[edit]

If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and still has no !votes other than the nominator, close as "no consensus," but anyone is free to renominate the article.

  1. I agree with this. An AfD should not result in a deletion based on only one person calling for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree. There should be no deletes if the only no vote is the nominator. Tangurena (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If the article was ineligible for PROD, I support this. In case it was PROD eligible, treat no objections as a PROD deletion (including restoration upon any request) Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. that is the case, and as are the facts so must be the resolution. Kevin Baastalk 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin discretion[edit]

  1. The admin is free to use his/her discretion. The admin is free to treat the AfD as a Prod and can choose to A) Keep the article, B) delete the article, C) relist the article. Dictating the results based upon !votes is contrary to what Wikipedia's consensusology is all about.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Of course. The inappropriate nomination of an obscure article should not lead to its deletion because nobody paid attention to it. When closing, the closer does not simply tally up !votes, but looks at policy and guidelines and uses common sense. Silence may be neither consent or dissent, but simply silence. Lack of interest or understanding of a topic is not grounds for deletion. SilkTork *YES! 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yep. This is why we have admins in the first place, so that we don't have to have an explicit rule for every conceivable situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree but the delete should be a soft delete. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. Admins should exercise their good judgment when closing the AFD. - EdoDodo talk 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. A blanket rule to either delete or not delete will not always make sense. The admin can look at the article and use his own judgment. In general, admins do not delete uncontested prods simply on the basis of their being uncontested--or at least I think we should not. We should normally take a look to see if the rationale seems reasonable--most of the time, of course, it will be. (to show i've looked, I generally remember to add the word "confirmed" to the deletion reason.) DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft deletion[edit]

If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and still has no !votes other than the nominator, close as "delete," but anyone is free to recreate the article (i.e. treat it as an uncontested PROD).

  1. Assuming "no limit" isn't accepted, per my comments above. – iridescent 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment above as well. If there ends up being a limit, treat it like an uncontested prod. —fetch·comms 21:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Article could be recreated and be good.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Assuming (a) that a deadline is in play, and (b) the closing admin believes that the provided deletion rationale is at valid a valid argument. I'm not sure what to do if the rationale is obviously poor, but the article is poor (yet unspeedyable) too, which is one reason for preferring no time limit. TheGrappler (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sounds good to me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seems logical. This case seems fairly rare anyway. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, this seems perfectly sensible. It's conceptually a bit weird that someone who sends it to AFD should explicitly need agreement to delete, whilst had they just left a prod tag in place, it'd have gone easily. We shouldn't have significantly different outcomes depending on the process used. Shimgray | talk | 13:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seems like a good result. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a "soft delete" with the closing admin using his best judgment WRT the nomination rationale and/or the state of the article. As well as being recreatable, articles deleted under this provision should also be refundable unless there are WP:BLP or serious WP:V issues. In such cases the article may be userfied or incubated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. An article that is forgotten even by its creator should default to delete with no prejudice against recreation. If a closing admin objects to such a deletion, he should refrain from closing the AfD and cast a !vote instead. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This seems a reasonable outcome. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. If the closing admin feels that this outcome would be wrong, (s)he could always make an argument, which would prevent the discussion from being uncontested anyway (just as an admin who is evaluating an expired prod and believes it to be wrong can contest the prod). Otherwise, at some point, silence becomes consent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Would cut down on the number of unnotable articles staying because nobody cares. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This does not reflect current practice, but I think it is a good way of resolving the issue of deletion debates nobody cares about (which is what PROD is largely about). Note that if the closer doesn't agree with deletion, he or she should be free to enter a "keep" vote and explain why. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Assuming it was eligible for PROD in the first place, sure. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. As long as its a reasonable decision why not trust admins to use their common-sense. Obviously there is no consensus so it should be overturned on request and relisted if necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 14:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Provided that discussion is long enough the discussion has been allowed to run for a reasonable period of time, this should be the default position. If an admin came across this type of discussion and didn't feel it should be deleted, they could prevent a deletion by arguing the case for keep as an ordinary editor, as indeed could any other editor. --WFC-- 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This seems to be a good solution. If no one can be bothered to comment on an AFD that has overstayed its welcome in that process, treat it like a PROD and just zap it. Then if someone asks nicely, we can restore it later. Sometimes people don't realize the value of something until it's gone, after all, and seeing a certain title missing will kick-start work on improving it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RayTalk 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I haven't seen this done much, but have always felt that it made sense. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. If the reason by the nominator really is crap, someone will almost certainly raise an objection; we have an entire project basically devoted to it or as Seraphimblade notes, the admin can object. There's no real reason we shouldn't treat it like a PROD; the only real difference is the template used on the article. Mr.Z-man 02:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. While as noted above I don't support a hard relisting limit I think this is the best outcome if the discussion is truly no contest. I do disagree with Jclemens however, the article should be soft deleted regardless of it's eligibility under the PROD criteria. --nn123645 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Obviously. This is functionally identical to a prod. Yilloslime TC 23:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Makes sense to me. If a deletion isn't controversial enough to attract discussion, it's probably not a bad idea. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I agree with this; delete without prejudice. Matt Deres (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. The administrator should also be willing to restore the article on a reasonable request. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Assuming, of course, that the deletion rationale is prima facie reasonable. T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard deletion[edit]

If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and still has no !votes other than the nominator, close as "delete," and recreations will be deleted under G4.

  1. If there is no !vote outside the nominator, than the article should be hard deleted. I think no !vote means, that nobody raised an argument against deletion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of argument is determinative[edit]

AfDs are not a vote and administrators are required to weigh the strength of arguments when closing AfDs (WP:DGFA). Therefore, in the unlikely event that an AfD has attracted no comments and must still be closed, the article should be deleted if the argument for deletion is compelling as a matter of policy (e.g., copyright violation or unverifiable content). If the argument is not compelling, is a matter of guidelines or requires community judgment calls (e.g., notability issues), the AfD should be closed as no consensus by default.

  1. As proposer,  Sandstein  21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, although I think that's inferred in the above section. Any admin who would close an AfD without votes as delete, but nominated because of something like "this is a stupid page", is likely a stupid admin. —fetch·comms 03:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this suggestion. If no-one opposes the deletion, and the argument for deletion is good, it should be deleted. Otherwise, it's certainly best to close the discussion as no consensus and allow a speedy renomination as required. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werewolf in a Winter Wonderland is an example where this happened (although there were two participants in the original debate). The second nom resulted in Delete/Redirect. Claritas § 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It seems unlikely that an ill-judged AFD nom won't be picked up by someone during the term of the discussion, but it's a possibility, and if the rationale for deletion is not compelling, the article shouldn't be deleted based one one opinion only. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This should be added only because it's a summary of what is, or should be, already done. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with this. Let's give the closing administrator some credit for being able to tell whether the nomination argument is weak or compelling. (It's even possible that the nominating argument is so thorough, and so convincing, that it bring about a lack of discussion simply because there is nothing left to say.) Bottom line, the closing administrator should be able to close as "delete" if the deletion argument is strong enough, even if no one has chimed in to concur. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think this is a good option. Better than "hard deletion". Also might help get more things done. 60.50.228.195 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Completely agree.--  Forty two  10:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. Admins should study the argument provided and close the AFD in whatever way the see fit.
  10. After all discussions are about who has the better supported, hence more convincing point. This is how consensus is reached. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing[edit]

There is no such thing as an AfD without Discussion. The nomination is discussion. Each case is different and it is up to the closer to determine if there are the types of well reasoned policy based points that would be indicative of community consensus.

  1. I've added this point because it is not the same as the "strength of the arguments", above. A strong argument based in a guideline or experience, unrebutted, is still a strong argument and it must be considered by the closing editor whether the arguments represent consensus particularly in light of the lack of rebuttal. This is a highly unlikely extreme case; but making hard rules on how to read consensus becomes a slippery slope of counting: If one argument (the nomination) is not enough, why should two be; and how then can one strong argument overcome a dozen week ones? which it most certainly can. Additionally, I take issue with the premise that if there is no limit to relistings, this is moot, though I think the creator of this straw poll probably meant that if there is no limit to relistings then it is not imperative to resolve this issue.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indeed. An AfD that draws no comment beyond that of the nominator is essentially a very-well-advertised PROD. The closing admin isn't some magical, ephemeral, Platonic Judge Of Consensus; he's another Wikipedia editor, who has his own opinions on the article and the validity of the arguments presented. He may choose to delete the article, in which case he declares his opinion to be aligned with the nominator (at least in effect, and possibly in substance) — two unopposed votes to delete, including at least one endorsement from a previously-uninvolved administrator, are a sufficient basis for a decision. He may choose to close the AfD as 'no consensus', in which case he effectively declares that the nominator's arguments were either incorrect or unpersuasive — one vote for and one vote against deletion is something that needs further review. The third choice – the admin does nothing – is moot, as it's what everyone else did for the whole week the AfD was listed. As a procedural matter, non-admins shouldn't be blindly closing these nomination-only deletion discussions as 'no consensus'; if they wish to participate then they ought to evaluate the article for themselves and comment in the deletion discussion. (Don't worry, little admin wannabes, this still counts towards your process-wonkery credit at RfA, and insightful commentary makes your candidacy easier to evaluate than rote application of closure templates.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of AfDs with little discussion[edit]

Same as above, but in this case, one user other than the nominator has !voted "delete," and no one has !voted "keep."

No consensus[edit]

If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and has exactly one "delete" !vote other than the nominator (and no "keep" !votes), close as "no consensus," but anyone is free to renominate the article.

In (most?) circumstances. This is assuming (a) there is a relisting limit; (b) the comments are from people who can't quite bring themselves to agree to the the nominator, but the article clearly isn't a stand-out keep either. In debates with few participants, rather than count those contributors as "neutral" and thus remove them from the reckoning, we should really be concerned with the strength of the arguments and how many people they've convinced. If there are people left undecided, it suggests that neither set of arguments was convincing - in a sense, it's "no consensus inside the heads of the participants" rather than "no consensus within the hive mind". I'd particularly prefer it deemed no consensus if the other commentators are pointing out flaws in the rationale of the nominator. This seems the most likely scenario in which people comment but don't !vote: a lot of stuff at AFD is of poor quality, hard to put a defence together for without substantially reworking the article, and often it's tricky even to determine how such reworking should be done, but sometimes the rationales are weak too. In such circumstances it's common for a commentator to point out this weakness but neither be prepared to defend the article on its own (limited) merits, nor put forward an alternative rationale to delete. If the grounds for deletion are contested in this way, I feel it's best to treat it as no consensus. TheGrappler (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, above, you supported a soft delete for no !votes. I don't quite understand why you are supporting a no consensus if there is actually a delete vote and no opposition. Seems like it would make more sense the other way around. Although I do understand, it depends on the arguments presented and such. —fetch·comms 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. you're correct - I misread this as only the nominator being behind the one !delete vote and the other comment being just a non-!vote. My mistake. TheGrappler (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft deletion[edit]

If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and has exactly one "delete" !vote other than the nominator (and no "keep" !votes), close as "delete," but anyone is free to recreate the article (i.e. treat it as an uncontested PROD).

  1. Again, per my comments above. Someone recreating the article is effectively a delayed "keep" vote, and thus one delete + one keep = no consensus. – iridescent 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above, again. Treat as uncontested prod, but the new article can be re-prodded or speedied as well as sent back to AfD, as if it were about a completely new topic. —fetch·comms 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Same as above.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 100% agreement of the three editors who cared enough to voice an opinion (the nom, the !voter, and the closing admin) is consensus in my books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If it is just one !delete voter in addition to the nominator, and nobody has left a "comment" which criticizes the rationale (even though it doesn't end in a "keep"), then this provides more evidence of consensus than an unopposed prod does. TheGrappler (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think more flexibility needs to be given to the closing admin in such cases. Sometimes, it may be OK to close an AfD as a hard delete if there was a single delete !vote (and no relistings) if that delete !vote is solid and well-argued. In other cases closing as a soft delete close may be more appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree on flexibility (it depends on reasons given) but clearly some form of deletion is called for in order that AFD and PROD get vaguely comparable results, and a presumption in favour of soft deletion is sensible. Shimgray | talk | 13:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ditto per my comment above. Should also be allowed for more then one delete !vote if the closer thinks they are weak. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. An article that is forgotten even by its creator should default to delete with no prejudice against recreation. If a closing admin objects to such a deletion, he should refrain from closing the AfD and cast a !vote instead. However, in this case, if the arguments for deletion are compelling enough, the AfD should be closed as a hard delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Two deletes and no keeps should be rendered as a soft delete, unless it's an obvious hoax or copyright violation or BLP violation, etc., situation. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I can go with this. The article might be better written the next time. Tangurena (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This is the same as #Admin_discretion above. The person closing has to make a judgement if there is no discussion, little discussion or lots of discussion. We can't make a judgement here and now on if an article should be kept or deleted on the "amount" of discussion! That's a decision to be made based on the quality of the discussion and nomination, and how the nomination and discussion matches policy and guidelines. SilkTork *YES! 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Treat it like a PROD and zap it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. There is no hard and fast rule, of course, but this seems reasonable. T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard deletion[edit]

If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and has exactly one "delete" !vote other than the nominator (and no "keep" !votes), close as "delete," and recreations will be deleted under G4.

  1. Hard deletion, as nobody made an argument against deletion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case by case treatment[edit]

  1. I think AfDs with only one delete !vote and no other opinions (except for the nominator) really should be considered on a case- by-case basis. There are situations where a sole delete !vote offers quite a solid rationale and I think a hard delete is justified in such cases as an AfD outcome. I don't really see it as necessary to institute a rigid rule for handling such situations. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per WhatamIdoing. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think this arises enough to make a hard rule about it. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An AFD is an AFD, just because it only has one !vote doesn't mean others hadnt looked at it. If it's gone through AFD, it shouldn't be treted as a prod for recreation purposes.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As above: AfDs are not a vote and administrators are required to weigh the strength of arguments when closing AfDs (WP:DGFA). Therefore, if an AfD has attracted no or few comments and must still be closed, the article should be deleted if the argument for deletion is compelling as a matter of policy (e.g., copyright violation or unverifiable content). If the argument is not compelling, is a matter of guidelines or requires community judgment calls (e.g., notability issues), the AfD should be closed as no consensus by default.  Sandstein  21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It should be handled case by case, but AfD, being a public forum, isn't prod. Generally speaking, if the deletion rationale is reasonably sound, the article's been on AfD for at least seven days, at least one person has agreed with the nominator, and absolutely no one has bothered to object, we're at the point of hard deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The closer should decide based on the soundness of the arguments presented. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sometimes hard deletion is appropriate, sometimes soft deletion would be. Should be dealt with case-by-case. NW (Talk) 13:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Varies between relisting and deletion, with the intermediate "restore at will" another possibility. If both the nomination and the single delete vote are well reasoned, I might close accordingly (with a delete). If the rationales are superficial, relisting may be more appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I prefer this option as AFD !votes can sometimes be fairly unconstructive and against policy. If the nom and subsequent !vote are valid, policy-based opinions, then deletion is fine, but I've come across cases where the first three !votes have failed to demonstrate any attempt to research the subject or take policy and guidelines on board.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Since participation guidelines and that essay that I don't entirely agree with recommend adding a further reason to your !vote, it seems to follow that the more convincing a nomination is, the less likely it is that someone will trouble themselves to add a "Delete per nominator" comment. Closing admins should use their judgment, and of course look at the article as well. If valid issues that suggest deletion are documented well in an original nomination, and it doesn't look like anyone has tried to fix them, they should feel free to delete them even if no further !votes have been added. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I agree with this. Nomination plus one delete !vote, with no one !voting "keep" or demurring in comments, could be either a "soft delete" or a "relist," at the option of the closing administrator. As someone said at the related discussion, admins are admins - they are not robots. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reasons for lack of attention differ. If it's a field few people are interested in, it's not altogether safe to conclude that the nominator is right. After a second relisting with no additional comments, an admin should decide if there is any hope in getting others to join the discussion, or whether it's just so obvious that there's no harm in treating it like a prod. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yousou (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. All AfDs should be considered on a case by case basis, whether there is one vote or 100.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It's difficult to set a generic rule if some discussion has taken place, because there are so many permutations. But at the end of the day, if admins want to be involved at AfD, they should have enough WP:CLUE to handle this type of situation appropriately. What I would add is that outspoken inclusionists or deletionists should avoid these sorts of closes. If a small percentage of admins are not doing so, and instead keep/delete based on personal preferences before hiding behind discretion, the problem lies with the individuals rather than the system. --WFC-- 21:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. AfD is not vote and strength of argument be relied upon, the default being keep.--  Forty two  10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per all of the above. We already have a perfectly workable set of procedures for handling AFD. If they aren't being followed in a few cases take it up with those specific admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sheesh, we can't legislate for consensus, the closing admin is supposed to use judgement not count snouts. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. While a relist or a no consensus close is often appropriate after such limited discussion, sometimes a compelling case for deletion has been made. There is no quorum at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Both 'soft-' and 'hard delete' cases above seem to ignore taking into account strengths or weaknesses of arguments made, hence should not take precedence over (say) an AfD with a well-thought out single delete comment vs three questionable delete votes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Seems to work ok so far. I don't think we need some crazy new rule for deletion debates which are inconsequential (just judging by the participation). Protonk (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. But the deletion should probably be a soft delete. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes, let the closing admin choose based on the arguments provided, but if deleted should be a soft delete. - EdoDodo talk 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Always judge each case by the merits; the support or lack thereof in an AfD debate should not be construed as a de facto !vote for or against the issue. When only the nominator !votes, compare his !vote with policy and rule accordingly. -- RoninBK T C 05:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion[edit]

Use this space for meta-discussion and suggestions not listed above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the rationales stated here seem to assume the admin has no discretion or isn't going to read the AFD nomination and check it on merit. I'm not sure if the distinct "admin discretion" or "case by case" options are adding much value, or whether the format of the poll needs to be changed. I think everyone assumes that admin discretion will apply, and most people who post in other sections are merely giving opinion about the "default" position. TheGrappler (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-administrative closures should be eliminated. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Realistically, this isn't going to happen, per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Basically, if the only basis for contesting the action is that it wasn't an administrator closing, and a reasonable administrator would have taken the same action, it's valid. Historically, we've only restricted an action to administrators when that restriction is necessary and present in software, because administrator is regarded as a technical role, rather than as a higher bureaucratic status in the hierarchy. Triona (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unspoken problem here is lack of participation in AfD. I think we need to address that, as well. The ideal scenario is that we rarely or never have any need to deal with AfDs with little or no comment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought it would be inferred that one should always use common sense, and rarely some IAR, on the issue of soft deleting uncontested AfDs that have horrible reasoning behind the delete vote/nomination. If there's a nom that is obviously not policy-based and no one comments, I'm fairly sure an admin would have the sense to not delete the article. The "case-by-case" thing will inevitably be built into any proposal like this, because not all AfDs are created equal and common sense should always be used. —fetch·comms 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing from this debate is the amount of time between an article's AfDs. I sometimes see an article survive an AfD, and then have to endure another AfD a few weeks or months later. I think if an article survives an AfD, it should be allowed a full year to develop before going through the ringer again. Kingturtle (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yowch, way too long and way too set in stone. Generally, the "unspoken rule" is 3 months after a keep result and a month after no consensus. If you argue to "keep and clean up" or "keep, sources are likely to exist", and are successful in convincing people, you, not someone else a year later, needs to be the one doing exactly that work you convinced us would be done. If it passes a notability subguideline but substantial sources really don't exist, at some point, it's got to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree... a year is about 9 months too long.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah... no. A year is much too long. A couple months should certainly suffice. —fetch·comms 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly not. As with a lot of things, hard limits are unnecessary for this; AFDs can be and are frequently speedily-closed because of a perceived lack of time since the last listing. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hard limits are necessary as a backup to discretion, but a year is probably too long for a hard limit. I would suggest 6 months minimum after a keep, doubling after successive keeps. For non-consensus, it would depend on the reason; usually if the disagreement seems likely to persist, there's no point in going any faster, but if it's insufficient interest, 3 months is reasonable. Going faster than that is likely to just get another non-consensus. If there's an agreed real need to remove something sooner, a redirect will usually serve the purpose DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precise limits are unnecessary IMO; however, it should be specified that if a non-original AfD (i.e. a previous AfD has occurred and resulted in something other than "delete") gets insufficient participation, it should be closed as "no consensus" rather than "soft delete" (since technically such an article cannot undergo PROD, having survived an AfD). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern is this. With no safeguard in place, an editor can simply re-submit an article for AfD until the desired deletion occurs. I've seen it happen before. Kingturtle (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One way that we can deal with this problem on an individual basis, is to run through the AfD list a day or two before it expires, looking specifically for nominations that have gotten little or no response, and (if we feel competent in that area) adding our own !vote. That is my pattern; I usually choose the one-or-two-days-before-expiring list, scan it for nominations without much response, and try to chime in if I feel I can do so constructively. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, the second and third questions have reached consensus: for both situations close as "soft delete" in general, allowing discretion in special cases. (Here I'm mixing parts of different arguments to produce a solution I think most people will agree with.) But there is absolutely no consensus on whether we should have a relisting limit; we can't "mix" them to say "put a limit of 5 relists on an AfD," which no one will like. Any ideas on how to proceed? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say, King of Hearts, that I appreciate the way you honchoed this discussion, and stuck with it until you got some consensus on the "lack of participation" issue. If #2 and #3 do become policy based on the apparent consensus here, does that get written down somewhere? If #1 does not reach a consensus, does that mean that it defaults to existing relist limits? --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the first point is very much an endorsement of the status quo, with nearly everyone acknowledging that relisting more than twice should be uncommon but that there can be situations in which it is proper to do so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; while the second and third are pretty clear on what should be changed, the first is really just what we are doing now. —fetch·comms 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To build on MelanieN's point above (which I strongly endorse), perhaps it would be good to encourage people to comment when they relist. Even if it's a neutral comment, it may spark discussion (and if you really find the nominator's arguments so uncompelling that you can only come up with a neutral !vote, then perhaps it should be ultimately closed as no-consensus). This would mean that by the end of the second relisting period, there would be at least two more comments to weigh. If people think that adding a simple neutral comment is too much work (and is it really harder than weighing arguments in a moderate-sized debate?), then we could simply judge a re-listing as a neutral !vote. Xtifr tälk 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision[edit]

The following is my suggestion for the new relisting section on Wikipedia:Deletion process. Changes are highlighted.

The intent of the deletion process is to attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted.
However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only one or two commenters (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to get further discussion to determine consensus. It may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.
That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no consensus close may be preferable.
Relisting debates over and over in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, the general rule is that debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient.
Note that relisting is rare at the stub types for deletion page; there are not many discussions, so they are usually simply left open at the bottom of the page for further comment.
When an articles for deletion discussion still has no "keep" !votes and at most one "delete" !vote other than the nominator after two relists, the closer should in most cases close as soft delete. In other words, the article is deleted and treated as if it were an uncontested PROD; anyone may ask for its restoration at requests for undeletion or at an administrator's talk page, and recreations are not subject to speedy deletion under G4. However, the closer may, at his/her discretion, close the discussion as a hard delete (i.e. same as a normal "delete" result, where automatic undeletion and recreation are not permitted) or as a no consensus. When a no consensus result is due to lack of participation, the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination. In such cases, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so.
(removed section that said "some discussions ... can be closed in favour of the nominator's stated proposal ... if nobody other than the nominator comments)" because this is now true for every XfD
When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. Scripts such as User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD automate the process.

Please comment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone there? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the change, but you just removed a passage that was general to deletion of multiple types of pages (categories, files, etc.) and replaced it with language that is specific to article deletions. --RL0919 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I modified the passage to incorporate the new ideas and reinserted it at the beginning of the AfD paragraph. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's opinion on strength of argument cannot count more than the voters'[edit]

Regarding "strength of argument is determinate": true, but i don't imagine the administrator would be any better at determining the strength of any given argument that the voters, who clearly disagree. that is why they have agreed to have a vote to determine the outcome. having an administrator's single determination of strength of argument, i.e. vote, decide would completely nullify that solution. "it's a democratic process, but only the dictator's vote gets counted." retarded. Kevin Baastalk 15:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not correct at all. That is exactly what Administrators do and why getting the bit has become the monstrous hell week that RfA has become. We select people to be Admins explicitly so that they can shift through the bullshit and determine what is A) Consensus and B) do so based upon policy. This is not a democratic process, but rather a consensusology built upon guiding principles. It is also why we generally do not use the term "Vote" but rather !vote. The person who is an administrator's voice does not county anymore than a non-admin's voice, but when it comes to determining consensus, the RFA process says, "This person is trusted to view the debates objectively and to weigh the merits of the arguments based upon policies and current expectations on WP." Now that doesn't mean that a non-admin doesn't have the mental capability or expertise or understanding to do the same, it just means that they have not (yet) been vetted to do so. Non-admins have not run the gauntlet wherein the community says, "I trust this person to determing the strength of any given arguement" and to use the additional tools appropriately.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that in the name of "progress" some areas of wikipedia are or are in danger of regressing politically, sort of becoming "a nation of men and not of laws". one can not be certain, and one cannot simply rely on the community to gauge, whether others can consistently operate in stage 5/6 of moral development (Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#Post-Conventional). (and in fact, studies, show that most people don't operate at that level.) that is why there must be additional constraints imposed and checks in place, rather than simply faith, to ensure a fair and equitable process. Kevin Baastalk 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
????---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "regressing politically" a concern? We're not a bureaucracy or a democracy, so it is not possible for us to progress or regress politically; it just doesn't exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is black-and-white fallacy if there ever was one. If we are not solely one of two particular organizations of government we are not political? Well then that means that here in America we live in anarchy. The conclusions that can be drawn from your logic are outright ridiculous. please look up the words political, govern, etc. and note that we have "policies", procedures, "bueracrats", "arbitrators", "administrators", etc. etc. etc. etc. clearly you didn't think that comment through very much. (or actually think about what i had to say, for that matter.) Kevin Baastalk 13:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, to put it bluntly and grammatically incorrectly, I mean we are not a political. I said we were neither a bureacracy nor a democracy because those are "cracy"s that can be named; there is no equivalent noun form of "political" ("politics" is completely separate). Policy is not an end in of itself; it is used to improve Wikipedia in some way. And that's why we have consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that answers or obviates my concerns at all. It doesn't even seem relevant. First of, there is no "cracy" that can name the american government. (it's a hodge-podge of different policies, procedures, ideas, institutions, etc.) That alone shows you didn't answer my first part. As to my second part, well you seem to have completely ignored it. It doesn't seem like you understood/comprehended what i said. Kevin Baastalk 14:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a nation, but it is. in fact, "of men and not of laws". WP:IAR is policy and it means that editors (any editor and not just administrators though sometimes it is abused) can and should use their best judgement even if it conflicts with written policy. If you make a change in contradiction to policy, you had better be able to articulate a good reason, but judgement prevails over written rules and even (if necessary) majority votes, see WP:CLUE. This, of course, leaves the all important question of how good judgement is determined unanswered. This has never been settled conclusively on Wikipedia, but in spite of this seemingly crucial failure, we are still doing well. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a good answer! :) Kevin Baastalk 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assumption is that the voters will reach a reasonable judgment, and if the admins decides on the basis of counting the policy based arguments they will reach exactly the same conclusion as if they made the decision on they own, taking the arguments as mere advice. I don;t think this is Utopian--I think 90% of AfDs are decided in exactly this manner. Myself, I will never over-rule a clear consensus of reasonable arguments by good-faith editors because I think differently. some admins will. I have always thought that very wrong, and it continues to dismay me that it's accepted here. If they think the consensus is wrong, they should either join the argument o0r accept the consensus. I've closed frequently against my own opinion--in fact I look for such AfDs--because I feel reasonably sure that if I do this I will at any rate not be imposing my own bias. Any system based on rules will depend upon the decisions of who interprets the rules--it can hardly be otherwise. The distinctive thing about Wikipedia is that it is not based on individual people interpreting the rules, but on the community. I don't know if the community is more likely to be right than an ideal individual judge--but we have no such people. There is one thing about arbs I can say for certain: not a single one of them is perfect. The only arbs (or editors) who never make errors are the ones who do nothing at all. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mandatory sentencing[edit]

While the option to close an AfD discussion as "considered to be an expired PROD" should be in the closer's toolbox of options, there should be no mandatory sentencing requirements in policy. Especially not based upon the number of participants in a discussion who may have !voted in a particular way. (WP:CON, WP:VOTE, etc.)

With only a few specific significant exceptions (WP:BLP, for example), to do so would be and should be contrary to existing common practice, and by correlation, contrary to Wikipedia policy. - jc37 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing statement[edit]

I attempted to find another admin to close this, but nobody came forward so I am closing it despite the fact that I participated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical results of polling[edit]

On the number of times a debate should be relisted:

No hard limit/closer discretion = 25

Twice = 19

Once = 5

Never = 1

A finite number higher than three = 1

Thrice = 0

On the subject of closing AFDs with no discussion:

"Soft" deletion = 29

Strength of argument = 10

Admin discretion = 6

No Consensus = 4

No such thing = 2

"Hard" deletion = 1

On the subject of closing AFDs with little discussion

Case by case = 26

"Soft" deletion = 15

"Hard deletion = 1

No consensus = 0

Interpreting these results[edit]

There was strong support for not having a defined limit on relisting, while a significant minority felt that two should be the limit. Generally two relists should be sufficient but there may be exceptions therefore there is no hard limit.

There was very strong support for treating a debate where the nominator was the only participant the same as an uncontested proposed deletion, although a minority favored case-by-case treatment. As there is no technical means of preforming a "soft" deletion, admins should simply delete such articles unless the nominator has not provided a reason or their reasoning is spurious or wildly inaccurate, but should be willing to undelete or userfy if requested. As with any other deletion, a re-created version that has addressed the problems that led to the deletion should not be speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted material. In some cases the problems with the article may be so blatant that it can be treated as a "hard" deletion.

There was very strong support for treating debates with very little debate on a case-by-case basis, while a minority supported "soft" deletion. In most cases where there is only one vote other than the nominator and that vote is to delete the article, it should be deleted and treated as any other deleted article would be, but admins should at least consider undelteing or userfying if it requested. At their discretion, closers may close with a result of no consensus if there was very little debate. This should not be seen as an endorsement of the article's continued existence and it may be re-nominated for deletion at any time.

Policy has already been edited to reflect these results.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Relisting_straw_poll&oldid=1142150179"