Wikipedia talk:Deletion process
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion process page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | This page was nominated for merging with Wikipedia:Deletion discussions on 5 September 2011. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Text or other creative content from Wikipedia:Deletion discussions was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Deletion process. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Moving a page as a deletion process
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussion venues lists Wikipedia:Requested moves at the end of the table. It is the seventh out of the "the six places to formally nominate a page not eligible for speedy deletion for a discussion". This was not in the original but was added (without discussion) the next year.
It says that RM "may result in deletion (e.g. of a redirect or trivial content at the target page name) or merger."
I don't think this fits in the table. Yes, it's possible (though rare) that a page move (also a split, also a merge) can result in the remnants of an article becoming eligible for speedy deletion, or we may have a result that makes deletion be part of a reasonable outcome, and, consistent with WP:NOTBURO, we don't want to tell editors to make a perfunctory trip to (e.g.,) RFD to vote WP:RETURNTORED. But RM is not a "formal" place to "nominate" a page for deletion, so IMO it doesn't belong in this list. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § Rash of unhelpful XFD users
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § Rash of unhelpful XFD users. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Requested move 21 June 2026
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion process → Wikipedia:Deletion processes – The title "Deletion process" implies there is a single unified process for deletion, while we actually have several distinct processes that operate independently of one another. Most obviously, CSD, PROP, and XfDs are three entirely separate mechanisms with different criteria, timescales, participants or lack thereof, and outcomes. A page that qualifies for speedy deletion bypasses discussion entirely; a PROD resolves in seven days without discussion; an XfD runs a 7-day discussion and requires a closure to close. Within XfDs alone, there are six separate venues, each with their own scope and instructions.
These obviously aren't stages of one process, they're alternatives. The singular "process" might make sense if this page were just a step-by-step walkthrough of one procedure, or if the procedures were remotely similar. The plural reflects that in a clearer way. FaviFake (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Squawk7700 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose There is one deletion process per context. That still means that each of them can individually be called the "deletion process" for that context, and that the title can refer to whatever deletion process a user is looking for. I think this is a solution for a nonexistent problem unless there is evidence people are getting massively confused by this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There is one deletion process per context
There really isn't, unless you have a really odd definition of context. In the context of an article, for example, there are 3. And of course people aren'tgetting massively confused by this
. We don't need people to get massively confused about something to improve it slightly. FaviFake (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This would satisfy WP:PLURAL although this is not an article so we don't need to appeal to P&G specific to article titles. Common sense and a plain reading of the guideline supports this. —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - All deletion falls under the perview of the 'deletion process', of which all types are described on the page in question. Deletion outside of the 'deletion process' is innapropriate. Pluralizing this takes away from the meta-concept. This is not simply a list of deletion venues, but rather a landing page for our deletion system ethos. There is but one button to delete a page (metaphorically; nuking aside), and this describes the path to it being pressed. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support per nom. There are alternative processes of deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. At first thought I agreed that there are multiple processes for deletion, but after reviewing the comments I will have to agree with Godsy that this is the guide to the path to deletion. I guess if you see it as “the deletion process” it would make more sense. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 23:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. This proposal relies on a static unilinear understanding of the word "process", which in turn justifies the change to plural. I don't agree with the supposed implications of using the singular here. Katzrockso (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support. What the opposes here term "deletion process" is "deletion" (subject to policy -- see wp:Deletion policy ... yes, it refers to the topic of this guideline as "processes" -- see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes), and the "deletion process" singular in any given case is the applicable deletion process for the given material reason for deletion, subject to a policy covering that set of material reasons and the associated questions of how to get it done (see, for example, the wp:Speedy deletion, a policy prescribing the deletion process when deleting a page without any discussion is merited, including the criteria for determining that it is ... it starts with
Speedy deletion is a process
), and this guideline lists all those processes and their involved concepts (with little original normative content) and explains some practical implications along the way.—Alalch E. 23:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC) 
Comment: I note that there are 4 editors in favour and 4 against. Anyone else want to chime in? FaviFake (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Merge into Wikipedia:Deletion process § Determining consensus
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Merge into Wikipedia:Deletion process § Determining consensus. FaviFake (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Deletion nominations being closed as "merge"
For deletion nominations being closed as "merge", there seem to be no adequately docmented procedures either here or in WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators . The eventual merge target will not have been tagged during the discussion. This may have been the case for a long time but the problem arises more frequently with the new combined procedure. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- What problem? FaviFake (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
The eventual merge target will not have been tagged during the discussion
so people watching the merge target will not have been aware of the problem. Thincat (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)- You mean aware of the discussion? A discussion is not a problem. FaviFake (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Then why was it a required for merge proposals? Katzrockso (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Is it still required for merge proposals at AfD. FaviFake (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- That is the problem, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes but not deletion discussions that close as merge Katzrockso (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Is it still required for merge proposals at AfD. FaviFake (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Then why was it a required for merge proposals? Katzrockso (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- You mean aware of the discussion? A discussion is not a problem. FaviFake (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- I do see the problem but I'm not sure what the right solution is, or if there is a workable solution. Alternative solutions, like merging, frequently arise in deletion discussions. I think ideally there should be tagging or notification to the proposed target. But at what point should that occur, and who is responsible? Sometimes an editor tosses out a suggestion to merge but it gains no traction or is thoroughly rejected. Sometimes multiple merge targets are suggested. Should they all be tagged? —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Until the recent unfortunate PM-AFD merger, I was a big advocate for closers to not close AfDs as merge but rather redirect and allow editors to subsequently decide whether or not to merge content, but unless we undo the mistaken merger, that's not an option. Katzrockso (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's a complex problem. When there is clear consensus to merge, the close should reflect that. Merging is unlike other AFD outcomes in a number of ways such that an uninvolved closer capable of assessing consensus may be ill-equipped to implement it fully. Tagging the article and leaving it languishing in the queue is not ideal but creating a redirect when the target may not support it and the former page contains the relevant content is often worse. It also creates problems when a redirect is tagged as {{R from merge}} based on a stated AFD outcome but no merger was carried out. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
It also creates problems when a redirect is tagged as {{R from merge}} based on a stated AFD outcome but no merger was carried out
That should never happen, wdym? FaviFake (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's a complex problem. When there is clear consensus to merge, the close should reflect that. Merging is unlike other AFD outcomes in a number of ways such that an uninvolved closer capable of assessing consensus may be ill-equipped to implement it fully. Tagging the article and leaving it languishing in the queue is not ideal but creating a redirect when the target may not support it and the former page contains the relevant content is often worse. It also creates problems when a redirect is tagged as {{R from merge}} based on a stated AFD outcome but no merger was carried out. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- Until the recent unfortunate PM-AFD merger, I was a big advocate for closers to not close AfDs as merge but rather redirect and allow editors to subsequently decide whether or not to merge content, but unless we undo the mistaken merger, that's not an option. Katzrockso (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion for change to WP:RFD/AI regarding relisting discussions
I recently performed this edit at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions to revert some additions to the instructions which occurred in November 2025. In a nutshell, with the present way the template {{Redirect for discussion}} is set up, the "month=" and "year=" parameters serve two distinct purposes:
- To forward the reader to a page which contains the month which is in this parameter (plus the "
day=" parameter) - To place the nominated redirect in a month/year cleanup category (a subcategory of Category:Monthly clean-up category (Redirects for discussion) counter) to indicate the month in which the discussion was initiated
The fact that trying to update the template direct a reader/participant to the correct/newest listing can potential break the monthly category which the redirect is listed has been an issue for ... probably over a decade. However, until {{Redirect for discussion}} (and in effect Module:RfD) is updated in a way which separates the two different functions of the "month=" and "year=" parameters (possibly by adding additional parameter[s] for the month/year of the cleanup category to separate them from page-forwarding parameters), changing either one of these can break a category and should not be changed after the template has been placed/substituted onto the nominated redirect.
However, with that being said, if anyone can figure out how to update the module and Wikipedia:XFDcloser to accommodate such a change with the "month=" and "year=" parameters, I'd support it. Steel1943 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Steel1943, perhaps I'm being thick, but how does updating the date break the maintenance category?
Tangentially, could you please use wikilinks in the edit summary instead of urls? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)- Relist a discussion from a date in June 2026 to a date in July 2026, and if the template is updated, the category changes from Category:Redirects for discussion from June 2026 to Category:Redirects for discussion from July 2026. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Steel1943, that seems desirable to me. If a discussion is being relisted it is ongoing, and when a discussion was last active is more useful for maintenance purposes than when it started. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree since knowing when a discussion initiated helps understand the severity of closing discussion backlogs. For a recent similar discussion about this dispute about the discussion initiation date versus most recent discussion relist date, see Template talk:Initiated#Purpose of date, relists. In addition, knowing the date when a discussion was initiated (such as having a date that is six months in the past) can help detect if a redirect never had the RFD tag removed after a discussion was closed or canceled. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Steel1943, I don't see the problem. If a discussion is relisted it is not stale and so shouldn't be closed; if it is stale it should be closed as no consensus (or whatever), not relisted. If the RFD tag was never removed it will show up in the maintenance queue at some point regardless. For maintenance purposes I think the date of last relist is much more useful; after all, if a discussion is relisted it would hang around in the older categories if the categories were based on the start of the discussion, if though it would be inactionable due to just having been relisted, and so it would only server to clog up the categories, rendering them less useful. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree since knowing when a discussion initiated helps understand the severity of closing discussion backlogs. For a recent similar discussion about this dispute about the discussion initiation date versus most recent discussion relist date, see Template talk:Initiated#Purpose of date, relists. In addition, knowing the date when a discussion was initiated (such as having a date that is six months in the past) can help detect if a redirect never had the RFD tag removed after a discussion was closed or canceled. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Steel1943, that seems desirable to me. If a discussion is being relisted it is ongoing, and when a discussion was last active is more useful for maintenance purposes than when it started. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relist a discussion from a date in June 2026 to a date in July 2026, and if the template is updated, the category changes from Category:Redirects for discussion from June 2026 to Category:Redirects for discussion from July 2026. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- To update XFDcloser you should create a GitHub issue. FaviFake (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:VPPR § Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPPR § Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?. FaviFake (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
RfC on MfD relists
There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: MfD relists. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Articles for deletion discussions closed as "soft redirect" to another article
It looks like sometimes at articles for deletion, the result is to "soft redirect" an article. Some are redirects to Wiktionary, but there has been a trend of soft redirection to other articles. See these search results for examples. The pages St. Anthony's Boys' School, Cleveland Town (targeting Fraser Town, Bengaluru#Notable institutions and St. Mary's Convent School, Ujjain (targeting Ujjain#Education are two examples of such "soft redirects" that exist today.
The "soft redirect" result comes from an AFD discussion involving a proposal to redirect an article without objections and with minimal participation. Almost every time, though, the redirect uses the soft redirect template. This is considered improper according to WP:SOFTBLAR and the template's documentation page as soft redirects are not normally used in mainspace. Usually, someone removes the soft redirect soon after. The thing is that almost every AFD discussion closed as "soft redirect" to another article involves using {{Soft redirect}}; this is more than just an occasional thing that happens. In the past month, 9 articles for deletion discussions were closed by 5 different closers as "soft redirect", and all of the resulting redirects had used {{Soft redirect}} before that template was removed (as of now, the two redirects mentioned above still have the template). The fact that there were no proper "soft redirect" closes catches my attention.
Should something be done about this? I'm not sure if this will be a growing problem in the future. While people can watch Category:Wikipedia soft redirects, this isn't something that many people (especially participants of AFD) do, and it would also be great if less than 100% of soft redirect closes were implemented incorrectly. This issue still occurs despite the instructions at WP:SOFTBLAR (which were modified recently but before 8 of the 9 soft redirect closures in the past month; perhaps a further modification should be made). Mathguy2718 (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Procedural closure" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:Procedural closure has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 29 § Wikipedia:Procedural closure until a consensus is reached. George Ho (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)