1376:
discussion, hoping that some new participants will join the discussion in the intervening week and break the logjam. There are several regular closers who choose to never relist discussions so that just leaves a handful of us who see relisting as a solution to what are often low participation, evenly divided deletion discussions. So, you'll see my name, or 2 or 3 other admins, by relists often. I always thought the bar was 3 relists, not 2 relists so you'll often see my message of "Final relist" on a 3rd relist. I know I'm not the only closer who sees 3 as the maximum number of relists but if I've been wrong, I'll stop. I just want to say though that I've seen massive changes happen after a third relist, in several AFDs, there was a whole wave of new voices that came into a discussion after it has been relisted several times so there are situations where it has made a difference coming to a clearer consensus rather than just one person's opinion.
1193:
close as "no consensus". But if, for example, someone during the second relist period provided some novel information or angle, and that hasn't been seriously considered that yet, I would hate for a hard rule saying we have to not let that happen. So far as explanation, I think it's repetitive in most casesāthe relisting template already notes that the discussion is being put back for additional input in hopes of reaching consensus, and most of the time any further explanation would be essentially a copy-paste of that. If something in particular would be helpful, such as detailed analysis of proposed new sources, I do think it's good to specify that.
787:
1385:
arguing Keep but often those wanting to Keep the article want a more decisive decision for their point of view. Secondly, I think "No consensus" decisions are challenged more frequently at
Deletion review. And in my experience, an admin being called to Deletion review is similar to a regular editor getting a notice to go to ANI. It's an unpleasant experience, frequently involves personal comments, not about the closure but about the admin's competency and people who don't like you come out of the woodwork to light a bag of poop on fire on your doorstep. That's been my experience.
1389:
again. I can understand this burnout especially for the editors arguing Keep, they often spend hours searching for sources which are later dismissed as worthless and it's decided that the article will be deleted. That is frustrating and after repeating this effort multiple times with no success, I can imagine they think, why bother? So, my perception is that the majority of editors participating in AFDs typically favor deletion and those trying to Keep articles from deletion are in the minority right now.
959:, if only one or two editors are commenting. But the essay is meant for, and I should clarify it, thanks, spirited discussions with quite a few editors bringing points of view. If nobody comments after one or two relistings, and no or almost no participation has taken place, then yes, that sounds like a soft delete (something I've never heard of). Is that what this discussion is about, soft deletes? Or is it for any and all deletion discussions, some of those would be covered by the essay. Thanks.
2904:". Certainly additional comments can sometimes be helpful to emphasize outstanding points of disagreement in long or complex discussions (and most closers, including me, already provide them in those cases), but most of the time the reason for relisting is clear and further comments would simply restate the obvious (e.g. "I don't see a consensus yet on whether she's notable; giving it another week"). If a closer's relisting practices are subpar, the best thing to do is to discuss it with them.
31:
171:. On the other hand, if there was no change in policy affecting the AfD, and the previous AfD showed participation and the result was keep or no consensus, then one possibility would be to give the admin the option to consider the new nomination as a !vote in the previous debate. If that nomination was to change the keep or no consensus outcome to delete, then the admin could proceed with soft deletion, but given one !vote is highly unlikely to change the previous AfD, then
1753:
aware of the new discussion (the more recent the mass nomination the more important this is). Old discussions, a well-attended discussion with a strong consensus or which was clearly controversial should definitely prevent a soft delete but a poorly attended discussion with just a couple of weak comments from 10+ years ago not so much, particularly if there has been a significant change (real world or
Knowledge policy/guideline related) since the last discussion.
3592:'s third point, there is no exception that allows an article to be PROOed a second time just because the reason is different from the first. Personally I think it is easier to just keep the procedure as simple as possible. And since soft deletion allows anyone to request a REFUND for any reason whatsoever, the PROD removal can be assumed to be a standing REFUND request regardless of the reason. Now if we want to expand soft deletion based on some criteria as
1010:, where there don't seem to be as many regular patrollers and once in a while someone will come along and just relist everything to "cle::ar the daily log", and they often obviously don't read the discussions first. Maybe that also happens at other XFD venues but I don't go there often. I think the guideline should instruct that all relists have to be explained. A relist isn't a close but it
2015:
196:
article to reach a defined quality status (e.g. "Start class," or "C class"), as evaluated by an uninvolved editor? If the article improves it is kept. If not, the article can be speedy deleted by an administrator who decides whether the article has advanced significantly. I know there is no deadline, but we are also not here to maintain an indiscriminate collection of cruft. Thoughts?
1616:- A nominator can withdraw an XfD that they nominated for deletion, as long as it's not an attempt to short-circuit discussion. For example, if they nominated something for deletion, and the discussion looks like it's moving in a "Keep but rename" direction, and the nominator doesn't like that, they cannot suddenly withdraw. The discussion is active - it's too late to withdraw. -
1281:
it one more shot with subjects who are active in areas where
English is less used. Not just Global South, but eastern Europe where sources may well exist, we (majority English speaking editors) just can't access or read. Someone did flag this for me a while back, and I've been more alert to not doing a 3rd, and will be more stringent should consensus be clear here.
222:
in the discussion how long you need. If the reason is plausible and the time request not too long (personally I'd say up to a week is reasonable), then a reasonable reviewer will just relist the discussion to allow you that time. If you need longer than that then ask for it to be put in draftspace or your userspace, this should not be declined without good reason.
3549:), 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.
3569:, 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.
2181:
things out if they aren't going to get the results they want. There should be stricter rules for this. How about a rule that if you vote in the AFD you can not relist it? Or if an administrator goes in to close an AFD, and they determine not enough people participated, they can relist it. No reason to let anyone else do that.
207:
of research will be sufficient where seven days fails to be. I also want to push back against the conflation of notability and article quality. Although I think in practice
Wikipedians tend to treat articles which conform to our quality standards as more notable than those which do not, this strikes me as a bug not a feature.
2345:
several days it's not uncommon for the discussion to be relisted at that point and sometimes by someone who is involved, but except where something has unambiguously significantly changed about the facts of the discussion (not just new arguments) then relisting should generally be left to someone uninvolved.
1858:." Doesn't that mean that previously PRODded articles can indeed be soft-deleted? If that's how others read it, perhaps the guideline should be clarified to reflect common practice among admins, most of whom (including me) pretty much never soft-delete if the article was previously PRODded, AfD'd, etc.
1911:
I don't think it does. I think it just means soft delete is an option for an XfD with no participation apart from the nominator. I don't think soft deletion would apply if user 1 PRODs article A, user 2 removes, user 1 XfDs article A, and then there's no participation after say three relists. I don't
351:
discussion, it seems condign for the guideline to make some mention of best practices for extremely old nominations (i.e. ones that are never properly listed and therefore remain open for decades) -- nothing in great detail, but a couple sentences indicating what can be done in such situations (under
206:
I am sympathetic to the desire to provide more time for editors to update articles which can be updated--AFD deadlines can make new editors feel like they are under the gun--but in cases where the issue is notability, the actual utility of significantly more time is unclear. I'm not sure that 90 days
137:
only mentions previous PRODs on an article and doesn't state the previous AFDs have anything to do with the article's eligibility for a Soft
Deletion but I was told by a regular AFD closer that a previous AFD nomination disallows Soft Deletion. The uncertainty leads me here today to get more specific
3469:
is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request
3432:
is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request
3342:
is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request
2723:
a discussion are encouraged to provide a comment regarding the discussion, particularly with regards to any issues that need to be resolved before closing. This does not apply in cases where a relist would be considered obvious, such as discussions with very low participation that are ineligible for
2628:
I donāt think thatās necessarily the case. Itās not uncommon for a relisted discussion to be closed āearlyā, particularly if concerns raised in the relist are addressed. For example if the relisting admin asks if there is consensus for a proposed redirect target that most delete !voters havenāt seen
1736:
Where are the limitations on soft deletion described? I know that previously-nominated or PROD'd articles can't be soft-deleted, but shouldn't this be said somewhere? It would be good to know (if it has been written about) what the limits on those limits are (e.g., is a previous discussion from 2006
1703:
Is a !vote to redirect (or merge) a !vote to delete for this purpose? I support "no" but acknowledge that the community may wish to clarify this point. I don't think it would have made any difference in this case, but there may be other examples where it might. Regardless, absent some clarification,
1180:
I think part of the issue is that automated tools are making it easy-er to relist discussions. That said, I think 3 or even 4 relisting should be ok, if the re-lister thinks that there might be a possibility for a consensual result based upon a read of the current discussion. But if it's merely that
1149:
I think every relist should have a comment, but I also agree that, in some cases, that the default explanation can be enough for the first relist. After that, I think a bit of guidance from the relister would be a good idea. I've seen several relists where the commenters just restated what they said
221:
This seems like trying to fit somewhere between mainspace and draftspace, but I don't think there is room for another layer in between them. If you need just a few more days than is available in the AfD about a specific article (e.g. perhaps you're waiting for a book to arrive in the post) then note
195:
We sometimes have discussions where an article might have potential but there has not been enough work done to establish notability. In these cases, would it be helpful to have another discussion result available, such as "provisional keep," which would provide a finite window (e.g. 90 days) for the
2827:
Relists in cases of low participation are basically just a technical matter, whatās the damage? I donāt think an AfD being lost in the old logs increases its visibility (compared to relisting and entering it into the more recent log). The idea of something being considered āobviousā is not new; see
2251:
2. Donāt do comment-free relisting. It is pointless to disruptive. Relisting doesnāt generate more attention, but instead hides the discussion by shuffling it. Old discussions get more attention by being in the backlog. A need fr relisting is when the discussion needs refocusing, or if something
2092:
I think part of the reason for its rarity is that people don't understand the other wikis well, but I don't think the solution here is to deprecate the process wholesale. Valuable content that belongs on a sister project would (in general) be better off moved to a sister project rather than deleted
2055:
has not had any entries added to it since 2009. We already have as a guideline that "Other (non-standard) decisions, and "combinations", may sometimes be appropriate at the closer's discretion", which can cover the rare transwiki closes when they happen without the need for a separate section, so I
1402:
So, those are just some thoughts about relisting. I don't think the answer is to ban 3rd relistings but make "No consensus" decisions less contentious to make and some how bring more editors into AFD discussions and you'd see fewer relistings. I put out a message on the
Village Post asking for more
1384:
a) There is a reluctance on the part of closers to close discussions as "No consensus". I see two reasons why this might be. First, "No consensus" makes neither those advocating Keep nor those for Delete happy. You would think that since "No consensus" keeps the status quo, this would satisfy those
1280:
I think the issue from my POV is AFDs are still relatively poorly attended. I tend to lean toward an incremental relist if I think it will find consensus vs. kick the can down the road with a N/C close. That said, some are deadlocked and there just isn't going to be a consensus. I also tend to give
2943:
has made a large number of changes to the policy page (and I've made one small one) in the past ~12 hours that are a mix of copyedits, reorganisation of content and small updates reflecting current practice. While I do not have any issue with any of the changes, as this is a key policy I encourage
2848:
Have you ever seen a discussion ālostā in AfD logs? Only when not listed correctly. Unless thereās a technical problem, old discussions get multiple special advertisements, automatically. Often, you see something relisted multiple times with no new comments, showing that relisting (comment free
2732:
I think this is a fair expectation for editors who relist discussions (not a particularly large or unreasonable added workload), and it can be very helpful for participants who are unsure what the discussion needs. Even a brief comment like āWhat do others think about EditorXYZās source assessment
2344:
close or relist needs a comment, but there is never any harm in adding a comment where one isn't needed so I support encouraging them to be added. As for who can relist, there are occasions when INVOLVED relists are fine - for example at RfD when similar redirects are added to the discussion after
2180:
I just learned today that anyone, not just administrators, can decide to relist something. This includes those who vote delete then decide to relist it so it isn't closed as "no consensus", they wanting time to hopefully get more to show up and agree with them. It seems like anyone can just drag
1219:
Generally I think that if there has been no substantive discussion since the most recent relist then the discussion should, in almost all cases, not be relisted unless the person doing the relisting actively does something to increase the visibility of the discussion, e.g. posting on a wikiproject
1033:
Counting relists completely misses the point that consensus is not about counting. Further, XfD and other things are rife with pointless relisting. A relist should only be done by someone qualified and competent to close, on reading the discussion and concluding that it is not ready for closing,
1014:
an evaluation of the discussion, and so the relister should explain their rationale unless it's very obvious, just like how we generally expect closes to be explained. And you definitely shouldn't relist a discussion if you haven't read it, or for no reason, or just to clear a log page. Personally
3564:
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
2588:
Relisting is not purely administrative, it is disruptive. At AfD and MfD t shuffles the list order, which makes the discussion harder to find if you saw it and were still thinking about how to contribute. At TfD, RfD and CfD itās even worse, as relisting means the discussion gets copy-pasted to
252:
Maybe "draftify" is a good resolution. If the argument breaks down to "not enough sources to write more than a stub" versus "it could be better than a stub," then the outcome could be to move the article to draft space, and then bring it back if and when the latter assertion is proven. After six
2071:
I wouldn't mind if the transwiki text were deleted. The idea that enwiki folks should have to go on another wiki, not know their norms or notability guidelines, and create pages over there seems a bit risky and burdensome. Also, if this is only getting used once a year, that is another sign that
1752:
I think the details of the previous discussion matters. For mass nominations, a snow-clos with consensus to keep on the merits should (imo) prevent a soft delete, but a discussion closed as a train wreck shouldn't (again imo) as long as some effort has been made to make the previous participants
1236:
How often are third+ relists actually finding consensus? I think we already have too much of a relist bias (especially among non-admin closers). Back when I was active at AfD closing it seemed like most third+ relists were mistakes and didn't lead to consensus. Has that really changed? If it's a
1192:
I have never liked hard numbers on things like that. The question I ask, when I see that a discussion hasn't reached consensus, is always "Is there a reasonable chance that this discussion could come to a consensus, if more input is sought?". If I think that's "yes", I'll relist it; if not, I'll
1394:
Any way, this burnout means that frequently we have only 2 or 3 editors participating in an AFD discussion. A common situation is to have a nominator arguing for deletion and then one or two editors arguing Keep. What this discussion needs is a half dozen more editors weighing in so I'll relist
1388:
b) Over the past 18 months, I've seen a growing burnout of editors at AFD. Folks who used to be regular participants rarely show up now. This is especially true after the deluge of AFDs on athletes that we had a year ago which had the same recycled arguments on both sides over and over and over
3396:. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.
3301:. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.
2302:
I see what SmokeyJoe is saying and agree with it. Relisting with comments is much better, both for the participants and the next admin who touches it (close, next relist, etc.) to see where things were going as of last relist. Relisting is often used badly... but with comments, it's less bad.
882:
If no consensus seems apparent after one relisting then, in my opinion, the page should be automatically kept. If enough good points from a variety of editors exist, and 'Keep' has a reputable source and user support point-of-view, it very likely merits
Knowledge inclusion. My personal essay,
1375:
Sorry to be late to this discussion. Yes, unlike other admins who patrol AFD log pages, I do relist discussions, frequently. If I can't see an obvious consensus to close a deletion discussion, I see two choices: leave the discussion for another administrator or editor to close or relist the
3399:
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
2093:
outright and, even if it is a rare case, I don't see it being rare as a reason to delete all references to that possibility. Perhaps the section can be rephrased (or incorporated explicitly into the non-standard decisions area), but I don't think outright removal of it is warranted here. ā
1436:
Community input needed here. We may need to revert a deletion, and I don't know the proper procedure. I may have misunderstood in that I thought I recommended a deletion of a redirect page. Regardless of what I understood at the time, it looks like the deletion was in error. Please read
132:
There seems to be some confusion that exists about whether or not an AFD discussion can be closed as "Soft
Deletion" if there was a previous AFD on the article and also whether it matters if that previous AFD discussion was closed as "Keep", "Delete" or "No consensus". The guidance in
3498:
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.
1034:
and with a comment that refocuses the discussion, or calls back early participants to consider new evidence or arguments. Comment-free relisting should be banned. Relisting to clear a page, and to make hide backlogs from the backlogs is actually counterproductive, a net negative.
3368:
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.
1961:
for depopulation (orphaning) by a bot. Since the categories are not ready to be deleted and need to be listed at a page before being deleted (seeing the similarities to TfD?) NAC deletes should be allowed. Not even to mention common usage. If we go to a random recent log page, say
1737:
still a bar on soft-deletion now in 2023? if someone nominated 1000 articles for deletion in a bundled nomination and that nomination was snow-closed, are those 1000 articles now all inoculated against being soft-deleted? etc.) Or is this an area where there is no consensus yet?
3626:
That's a good point and removing that bullet does simplify matters (especially as it's the most subjective one). I think option 2 is closest to what I think should be happening in the absence of consensus to expand - and I'm not opposed to tying that in to expansion of PROD.
741:
I certainly use it where I feel speedy deletion would be inappropriate for some reason (usually something has just been fixed or its usefulness is very nearly but not quite over) but either someone has suggested speedying or snowing, or I'm predicting that might happen.
811:
For a long time we had a solid consensus that AfDs should be listed relisted at most twice, i.e. if no consensus was apparent after three weeks then the discussion should be closed as no consensus. Third relists were reserved for exceptional circumstances and per
1834:. Of course we should always treat these things with common sense and apply IAR where necessary, but the general principle of all the deletion policies is that deletion requires a positive consensus unless it's completely and unambiguously uncontroversial. ā
2642:
Not sure where to put this remark, but I personally would also be OK with with "suggesting" that a comment be provided with a relist. It'd probably take a while for people to start doing so; I don't know if many people who currently relist would turn to
2603:
Technically, yes. But I think "polite society" would hold that an admin or closer would wait the full 7 days from the point of a relist before they choose to make their closure. Whether or not that's actually true in practice, I'm not certain. Cheerio,
2479:
I definitely oppose requiring (or even encouraging) comments when relisting for the most obvious reason: there are an insufficient number of !votes. If there are already a decent number of !votes, then yes a relisting comment should be provided. --
696:-ism requesting that the discussion not be closed before the full seven days. It could be a "pre-opposition" to deletion via CSD, but he also could have been sensing a forecast of SNOW. As far as I can recall, no one else uses that terminology. --
1886:
I was actually just thinking about starting an RFC to remove that before I saw this discussion, and this discussion was tipping me towards just doing it boldly without the RFC but given there was a (somewhat lightly participated) discussion
2050:
I see you restored the transwiki section citing one example. While I had missed that example as I was searching for "transwiki", not "transwikify", I note that the process listed in the section you restored was not followed, and in fact
2390:). The only reasons I can think of to be adding more redirects to your own nomination is that you've just discovered they exist or comments in the discussion from others make them relevant in a way your original nomination didn't.
756:
Just logging in for the first time in forever. I've used it when I want deletion but don't think it qualifies for speedy, either because someone's already asked for a speedy, or because I suspect that someone will ask for it.
1506:, Robert J. McCann is a plenty notable figure within the financial and golf industries. The sources are accurate and the Knowledge notability rules regarding the subject are met. This article's deletion should be reverted.
141:
Clarity regarding the eligibility of a previously AFD nominated article for Soft
Deletion would be welcome, especially if this might necessitate adding a new line or two to this section of the policy guidelines. Thank you.
3091:
I've updated the paragraph to be more precise. Articles are only deleted after 7 days if they qualify for presumptive deletion. I was confused since merely being listed there doesn't qualify an article for deletion...
433:
236:
OPPOSE the NEWCSD aspect. If the page was cruft, it should have been deleted at AfD. If it was not deleted, then all participants were necessarily not supporting deletion, and this makes the later speedy not Ok.
87:
2292:
What do you suggest as an alternative for when an AfD discussion has lasted 7 days without a clear result? It sounds a little like youāre arguing against relisting in general, am I interpreting that correctly?
3446:
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.
1951:
Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.
1220:
and/or article talk page, adding to a relevant but previously un-notified deletion sorting list, etc. The greater number of relists since the last substantive comment the stronger this guidance should be.
820:
always has at least a dozen entries and that most of them are run-of-the-mill AfDs relisted a third (or even fourth) time without comment. Has the consensus changed? If so, should we update the guideline?
3196:
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
2873:
I don't think there's a problem which needs to be solved here, considering after something is relisted, a discussion can be closed at any time, so an incorrectly relisted discussion is not a problem.
1468:
was deleted as it pointed to a deleted article. Even if your delete !vote was mistaken, IMO there would still be a consensus to delete, as the only keep argument there misrepresents notability rules.
3588:. I have always had a close interpretation of soft deletion, i.e. we should literally pretend that the nominator, instead of starting an AfD, had instead tagged the article for PROD. In response to
2278:
Current practice has become stupid, with willy nilly pointless relisting all over the place. Itās a problem. It makes participating more difficult when the XfD list is being shuffled pointlessly.
3493:
167:. I can imagine a case though where it would appear it might not apply: a nomination might follow of a change in notability policy, so the basis of the result of a previous AfD may no longer stand
119:
3460:
1598:
There have been some issues with that process lately. Namely, a nominator withdrawing is seen as a instant keep, even if there are one or two editors in favor of deletion. Has the policy changed?
1767:
If the train-wreck discussion contains any "keep" !votes from non-sock users, then the article would not be eligible for PROD, and therefore it would not be eligible for soft deletion either. --
3441:
428:
I am not sure how to ask for remedy at this site, but a long standing biography of a very popular American Zen Buddhism teacher, Roshi Joan Sutherland, has been removed, for no apparent reason.
2813:
as such relists, when comment-free, are completely pointless, slightly disruptive, and not to be encouraged. Also oppose condescending passive language such as āwould be consideredā obvious. ā
3382:
1850:
The part that's always confused me is the paragraph after that, which says "If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or
437:
3208:
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.
1994:
Honestly, I would just add it BOLDly and see if you get any pushback. Non-admin delete closes at CfD have been the norm for years due to the dearth of active admins in that area, and even
3014:
672:...From what I'm seeing, it seems as though it may mean to close the discussion and delay the deletion by a certain period of time, but ... it's not something I see a term for anywhere.
660:
1665:
1062:
A relist after 7 days with no commentary other than the nominator and some deletion sorting is so self-explanatory that commentary is unnecessary. I could see this being a rule for
2683:
If we choose to make the need for comments with relisting stronger than currently (whether that's encouraged, mandatory or something else) then I suggest we add a note to the next
2576:
Thatās right, it doesnāt do much except move the entry to a different log. I do think that it would be good to encourage relisters to provide feedback if the relist isnāt obvious.
2506:
If there are insufficient !votes, why relist? Do you think relisting attracts new attention? I think it does the opposite, relisting hides the discussion from the backlog lists.
2269:
I think your second point significantly contradicts current practices. The vast majority of relists are without comment, the problem is that thereās not enough AfD participants.
1251:
I'm honestly not sure. If we could find an answer to that, it would be very informative here, but I can't right off the top of my head think of an easy query to figure that out.
3363:
2136:
would it work to add "or transwiki" to the sentence listing examples of nonstandard closures and delete the separate section containing instructions that nobody has wollowed?
1995:
1320:
My my experience at RfD is that relists are extremely annoying, copy-pasting the discussion to an another page that I am not watchlisting means I lose track of the discussion.
665:
348:
93:
3512:
486:
429:
650:
510:
3566:
2589:
another page, breaking watchlist of the discussion. The discussions are then biased to the XfD regulars, who regularly browse them all, at the expense of non-regulars.
1627:
The problem here is I've seen closers ignore the "no other users support deletion" part. Sure, it is usually only 1 delete !vote, but it is still incorrect to close it.
791:
3388:
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past,
3293:
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past,
2852:
If you want to write āwould be consideredā into policy, it needs more information. By whom. What things are considered? āObviousā is a bad word for any instruction.
2204:
1998:
refer explicitly to the "deletion of a category manually emptied for a merge/delete result by a non-admin". Guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
655:
460:
3193:
2953:
1974:
1888:
200:
164:
1129:
Does relisting give it more time than doing nothing? Old discussions get more attention from being in a backlog than from being shuffled back with new discussions.
995:
I tend to allow for 3 relists. So many discussions are log jammed these days and I would like things to come to a decision rather than doing no consensus closes --
2935:
2175:
1963:
902:
3507:
3455:
3377:
3476:
If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion in the past, soft deletion is typically the default closure. If there has been a previous proposed deletion,
1379:
I see two larger issues at play with this frequency of relistings. These are just my opinions from regular participation in the AFD world since January 2022.
3565:
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,
374:
Is this really needed? It seems to be that once you finish your task of churning through these there won't be any more so no formal guideline is necessary.
246:
231:
3239:
2788:
a discussion are encouraged to provide a comment regarding the discussion, particularly with regards to any issues that need to be resolved before closing.
1967:
444:
257:
3558:
3286:
1793:"keep" votes on the merits of the page(s)* concerned, yes. Procedural-only keeps/keeps explicitly without prejudice, maybe less so. *Someone saying "keep
801:
216:
2331:
Hmm, it may be useful to require some kind of comment for relists and non-obvious closes. That also doesnt seem like an undue burden. What do you think?
423:
190:
153:
491:
Could someone define what in the world "Delete slowly" or "Slowly delete" mean? These "votes" are used in XFD forums from time-to-time, particularly at
1457:
1574:
I believe I followed the correct procedure on this. But please feel free to use the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as mentioned in the post right above this one.
2007:
1931:
1465:
99:
3265:
2918:
Without a meaningful comment, Iāve noticed that "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" is false rhetoric. It doesnāt work.
2913:
1966:, there were 4 delete closes, all of which were NAC. I know we'll need a RfC to change the guideline, but I'm starting discussion here beforehand.
1461:
2647:
for a refresher on how the procedure should go. Nevertheless, I think it's a good practice and including an explanatory comment would help on the
2106:
2927:
2808:
This does not apply in cases where a relist would be considered obvious, such as discussions with very low participation that are ineligible for
1569:
1540:
1507:
1427:
687:
609:
529:
340:
3596:
states, I'm not inherently opposed as long as we do the same for PROD - basically, for me, the rules should be exactly the same for the two. --
3137:
1881:
3198:
2746:. Basically what is desired is a brief explanation of why it was relisted rather than closed, and/or what is standing in the way of a closure.
2223:
1988:
1867:
2892:
2580:
2571:
2030:
3636:
3617:
2515:
2501:
2052:
1806:
1788:
1294:
817:
184:
175:, ie no soft deletion. I guess my point is, admin discretion would appear to need to be retained, rather than a blanket exclusion. Regards,
124:
3577:
3026:
3000:
2822:
2598:
2236:
1257:
1229:
1115:"Perhaps with more time someone will have value to add to this discussion" feels reasonable after 7 days, but harder to say after 14. Best,
290:
I'm wondering what should be done, if you'd nominate hunders of pages. That's "a bit" too many to add deletion tag to all pages one by one.
3280:
2373:
As someone else pointed out, I don't think we should assume bad faith and look for ways a system could be exploited. If nothing else, it's
2163:
2145:
2124:
2861:
2836:
2799:
2755:
2623:
2541:
2439:
2430:
2381:
2354:
2297:
2287:
2273:
2264:
1199:
982:
968:
3111:
3086:
3068:
3031:
The point of that edit was to reflect reality - pages are in fact being deleted through that process, with the most recent example being
2462:
2453:
2335:
2312:
2087:
1093:
2678:
2633:
2399:
2368:
1271:
1141:
1124:
1110:
629:
404:
I just came across that section while researching an unrelated matter and thought that was weirdly specific guidance. Per the above and
279:
2772:
1904:
1717:
1698:
1562:
1356:
1332:
1212:
1026:
999:
938:
914:
896:
780:
478:
328:
314:
72:
67:
59:
3488:
that generated substantive participation and resulted in a closure that wasn't speedy or procedural, soft deletion should not be used.
3393:
3298:
2696:
1583:
1450:
1246:
1043:
766:
3044:
3032:
2326:
1515:
1314:
344:
299:
2629:
yet. Early closing of relisted discussions is not uncommon and perfectly appropriate if a consensus has developed since the relist.
1762:
1607:
1529:
1075:
877:
751:
729:
705:
397:
2704:
1676:
1659:
1636:
1622:
1493:
1477:
1159:
1057:
495:, and I've seen it used for years, but as far as I can tell, the definitions of these phrases are identified nowhere on Knowledge.
469:, but I suspect the deletion would be upheld is it's really more a question of whether you (the IP) want to waste everyone's time.
2359:
At RfD when the discussion is not going the way I like, may I added some similar redirects that better make my point, and relist?
1845:
368:
1187:
2585:
The allowed closing anytime, including immediately, after a relist is a partial acknowledgment that many relists were pointless.
2252:
new has been introduced that justifies calling back the early !voters to reconsider and giving them seven days minimum to do so.
1414:
383:
356:). Since it does not impinge or conflict with the rest of the guideline in any way, I will add them, and welcome comments here.
3484:, soft deletion is still a valid option at the discretion of the closing administrator. If there was a previous discussion at
1854:, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to...
417:
3312:, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
3184:, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to
3166:
about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads
2065:
3474:. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
3074:
2210:
Assuming bad faith isn't necessary to see why someone who's involved shouldn't relist. If we're going to allow for non-admin
1101:
If there relist reason is so obvious that no editor benefits from the reason being given, then why are you doing the relist?
3437:. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
3210:
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
2737:
3607:
3202:
2491:
2386:
You should never been adding pages to a deletion discussion "to better make your point" (in at least some cases that would
1778:
832:
353:
3359:
The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
3157:
3106:
3063:
2995:
2887:
2566:
1977:
1926:
1341:, for the first you could probably watchlist the category instead (assuming the link to discussion is updated correctly).
2832:. Itās not condescending to exempt cases where wide agreement can be expected from additional scrutiny or requirements.
1746:
798:
3471:
3434:
3344:
3119:
1403:
AFD participants, we need both more closers and more participants, we'll see over coming weeks if it has any effect.
1237:
matter of not enough participation should the original listing be longer than 7 days and relists after that 7 days?
3612:
3538:
The nomination was made for reasons that are unambiguously different and/or additional to the reasons for the PROD.
2496:
1783:
1021:
933:
647:
where this terminology has been used over the years where "speedy delete" was suggested nowhere in the discussion:
1262:
Many first relists should have been closed as ākeepā-or-āno consensusā, especially where the nomination was weak.
2537:
1900:
1153:
I think the act of relisting is an assessment, similar to a close, and should have similar rules/requirements. -
456:
47:
17:
2317:
Similarly, closes too often have no explanation. It's a culture across the board, like useful edit summaries. ā
1150:
further up in the discussion. And while that could potentially at least add clarity, that's not always the case.
3180:
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator,
1941:
3527:
Editors (excluding bots, blocked editors and IP editors) who have commented on the talk page in the last ~year
3307:
but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past
3517:
My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true:
1438:
2763:
This will also encourage relisters to answer that question in their own minds, which they may not be doing.
2978:
2909:
2214:, I see no reason to prohibit non-admin relistings, but it should certainly be someone who's uninvolved. ā
2072:
transwiki-ing could potentially be sunset to make the deletion process less complicated. Hope this helps. ā
2003:
1863:
1545:
This isn't the correct page for discussing a particular AFD result. This page is for discussion related to
1520:
We aren't discussing the merits of the AfD here, we're discussing whether the proper process was followed.
1015:
when I come across discussions that have been relisted when consensus is already clear, I just close them.
525:
110:
Feel free to leave any comments in the proposal itself, preferably in a different color than black or red.
2458:
Thatās what I would prefer as well, Iām trying to figure out what other people in the discussion thinkĀ :)
1420:
3530:
Any relevant WikiProjects (presence on an article alerts list counts as a notification for this purpose)
2684:
2528:
a little longer before relisting at least some of the time, though I'm not sure how to encourage that.
1546:
1288:
334:
105:
38:
3049:
That's not because of any seven day rule, though, is it? Anything at CP could be deleted at any time.
2157:
2100:
1084:
eligible, while we should be discouraging (or perhaps even creating a rule about it) for 2nd+. Best,
1549:. If either of you feel an error was made, the thing to do would be to follow the guidance given in
447:. Not sure how that is "unjustified". That person is not notable, there were no reliable sources. ā
3602:
2981:. No other clear issues but need to run changes side by side instead of using diffs at this point.
2975:
Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Knowledge:Copyright problems for over 7 days.
2486:
1773:
1550:
285:
2232:). Maybe that could be clarified there? āThese restrictions also apply to relisting discussions.ā
3132:
3098:
3055:
3010:
2987:
2905:
2879:
2558:
2082:
1999:
1918:
1891:
supporting its inclusion I'm thinking I should indeed start an RFC if I want to make the change.
1859:
1593:
861:
638:
521:
3168:
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion,
1983:
115:
3015:
Knowledge talk:Deletion process/Archive 13#Should Knowledge:Copyright problems be listed here?
1343:
For the second, that wasn't my experience when I closed discussions there for several months.
1283:
1132:
No matter which relist, comment-free relisting is pointless relisting and shouldnāt be done.
1080:
I agree with Courcelles that a comment free first relist makes sense when an article is not
919:
I like the spirit of your essay, but it's counter to the advice already in the guideline at
3222:
2652:
2444:
How about we go for "expected to when appropriate" before jumping straight to "mandatory"?
2245:
2151:
2131:
2115:. I see them as reflecting that the process has already been de-facto deprecated ages ago.
2094:
2045:
2038:
1081:
1071:
978:
964:
920:
892:
180:
3178:?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that
2418:
2. relist with a comment on what the result is looking like being and why it is not clear.
8:
3632:
3623:
3597:
3554:
3218:
3211:
3189:
which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.
3022:
2949:
2923:
2901:
2857:
2818:
2795:
2751:
2692:
2594:
2552:
relisting? Relisting is a purely administrative thing, it should never be controversial.
2533:
2511:
2481:
2426:
2395:
2364:
2350:
2283:
2260:
2228:
Personally, Iāve considered relisting to have the same criteria as closing a discussion (
2216:
1896:
1802:
1768:
1758:
1672:
1632:
1603:
1558:
1328:
1267:
1242:
1225:
1137:
1120:
1106:
1089:
1039:
747:
725:
683:
625:
605:
554:
506:
452:
295:
275:
242:
227:
3593:
3571:
3501:
3449:
3371:
3276:
3259:
3205:
allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.
3163:
3123:
3093:
3050:
2982:
2874:
2829:
2809:
2725:
2553:
2449:
2308:
2073:
1913:
1877:
1816:
1713:
1694:
1511:
1351:
1309:
1252:
1194:
853:
792:
Knowledge talk:Non-admin closure Ā§Ā Should Template:nac (and variations) be substituted?
736:
474:
393:
324:
310:
134:
3541:
The previously declined PROD has been noted on the discussion page for at least 5 days
3271:
This is well thought out and very neutrally worded. Excellent work by those involved.
2412:
Where a discussion has lasted 7 days without a clear result, good options can include:
3477:
3175:
2672:
2617:
2322:
1957:
emphasis mine. However, on CfD, the vast majority of "delete" closures are listed at
1840:
1681:
That's not exactly the same... technically Piotrus !voted to redirect, but there are
1579:
1489:
1446:
910:
872:
827:
795:
762:
212:
111:
2244:
1. To relist, you must be qualified and competent to close. This means you must be
3481:
3081:
3039:
2833:
2785:
2767:
2734:
2720:
2644:
2630:
2577:
2459:
2436:
2378:
2332:
2294:
2270:
2233:
2182:
2140:
2119:
2060:
2025:
1524:
1472:
884:
849:
813:
806:
581:
546:
378:
1181:
nobody commented after 3 times, I think that should be enough to call it a day. -
253:
months, it becomes G13: abandoned draft. Is this sort of thing already happening?
3521:
The following people/places were notified of the discussion at least 7 days ago:
2387:
2374:
1742:
1613:
1067:
1016:
996:
974:
960:
956:
928:
888:
857:
661:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 10#Cinderella (upcoming film)
405:
176:
1344:
1302:
270:
is perfect for such cases and it gives 180 days window for the user to improve.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3628:
3589:
3550:
3350:
3018:
2968:
2945:
2919:
2853:
2814:
2791:
2747:
2688:
2656:
2590:
2529:
2525:
2507:
2422:
2391:
2360:
2346:
2279:
2256:
2229:
1958:
1946:
1892:
1824:
1798:
1754:
1731:
1668:
1628:
1599:
1554:
1338:
1324:
1263:
1238:
1221:
1133:
1116:
1102:
1085:
1035:
924:
743:
715:
693:
673:
615:
598:
496:
448:
364:
291:
271:
264:
254:
238:
223:
197:
3172:, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
1441:
and tell me the proper procedure to correct this, if it needs to be. Thanks.
3545:
Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that,
3524:
The editors placing, endorsing (if applicable) and removing the PROD template
3485:
3354:
3272:
3245:
3234:
3226:
2648:
2445:
2304:
1873:
1709:
1690:
1686:
1664:
It's not the same user. I think some people just misread the rules. Example:
1431:
1346:
1304:
1007:
845:
644:
517:
492:
470:
466:
389:
320:
306:
3390:
the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
3295:
the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
1821:
the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD
1797:, no opinion about the rest" shouldn't have any impact on non-Foo articles.
319:
Nominating that many articles at once? That's probably an RfC not an AfD...
3410:
closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (
3322:
closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (
2661:
2606:
2318:
1835:
1650:
1575:
1536:
1485:
1442:
1369:
1323:
My experience is CfD is that relisting is rare, only done for good reason.
906:
867:
822:
758:
711:
567:
208:
3078:
3036:
3006:
2764:
2137:
2116:
2057:
2022:
1815:
Soft deletion is only an option when there is no quorum, and the crux of
1521:
1503:
1469:
375:
3017:, the titular question remained unresponded to for almost three months.
973:
p.s., thanks, have added "well attended" in the first summary sentence.
88:
Attempt to make instructions for closing CfD discussions better readable
2733:
table?ā or āIs there support for the proposed redirect?ā can be great.
1738:
923:. It would create a situation where the outcome is different between a
697:
666:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 7#File:IMG 1218.JPG
516:
I haven't heard that one before, but perhaps it means "delete, but not
409:
3170:
and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past
1649:
If you are seeing a pattern of that happening, bring it with diffs at
388:
Agreed; the task can be done without formally adding it to this page.
2961:
2940:
1655:
1618:
1301:
From experience, 3 is the limit at RfD, whilst 2 is the limit at CfD.
1208:
1183:
1155:
1053:
358:
3535:
The nomination has been added to relevant deletion sorting list(s).
3253:
3249:
3230:
2842:
2435:
So you'd support a proposal to make comments mandatory in relists?
1405:
841:
714:
stated that term as well, but they haven't been active in a while.
651:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 25#File:2yr.png
160:
144:
1666:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Unseen University (4th nomination)
927:
and an AFD with no participation, and I don't think we want that.
3215:. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue
1823:. So the policy governing soft deletion (perhaps confusingly) is
1066:, but the first one at AFD is usually pretty trivial to explain.
816:
should always be explained. Recently, however, I've noticed that
656:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Unnamed Tour
2651:
side of things by reducing the possibility that someone would
2548:
Can't a discussion technically be closed at any point in time
1689:-type withdrawal is perfectly acceptable there in my opinion.
94:
Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions
3174:, meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include
3162:
I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at
2849:
due to low participation) does not serve this stated purpose.
2902:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus
2712:
To move the discussion forward, hereās a concrete proposal:
1098:
What makes sense about the first relist being comment-free?
1872:
That's a good point; I hadn't seen that before and agree.
1708:!vote is eligible for closure after nominator withdrawal.
100:
Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Backlog_reduction
1954:
Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan.
1794:
3394:
Knowledge:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators
3299:
Knowledge:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators
1964:
Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 12
3305:
If the nomination has received very few or no comments
866:
who seem to be the most active admins at AfD lately. ā
3182:
or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past
1685:
keep votes and otherwise no advocates for deletion. A
3461:
Option 3: Allow at admin discretion (clarify wording)
3417:
closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
3329:
closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
2936:
Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates
2176:
Should anyone be allowed to relist something anytime?
2056:
still think the transwiki section should be deleted.
1852:
has been declined for proposed deletion in the past
3383:Option 2: Disallow soft deletion for previous PROD
2524:TBH I'd rather people occasionally left things in
903:WP:Articles for deletion/Scottish Waterways Trust
1462:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Robert J. McCann
424:Unjustified deletion of a long standing bio post
138:advice about this outcome of an AFD discussion.
354:Knowledge:Deletion policy#Relisting discussions
3075:Knowledge:Copyright problems#Older than 7 days
2709:Thanks to everyone who participated so far!
2655:a good-faith relist as being lazy, biased or
2053:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki
818:Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times
592:Check if there was something that you missed.
537:Wait a week, then relist. Repeat three times.
2900:. Relists already come with a explanation: "
3494:Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 3)
3442:Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 2)
3364:Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 1)
905:is a case where two relists was excessive.
191:Possible solution for difficult discussions
3513:General discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes)
1827:, which is quite clear that any objection
1049:"Comment-free relisting should be banned."
790:You are invited to join the discussion at
165:earlier discussion touched on this in 2017
3033:Knowledge:Copyright problems/2023 July 29
1912:think this ever really happens, though?
534:Here's how to slowly delete a redirect:
781:Discussion on substituting Template:nac
614:...Got a good chuckle out of that one!
430:2600:1014:B134:444E:A957:8CA8:42F6:BFB0
14:
3392:and follow the instructions listed at
3297:and follow the instructions listed at
1704:a discussion without an extant bolded
643:Here's a few examples I could find on
487:"Delete slowly", "Slowly delete", etc.
169:(cough, presumed notability in sports)
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3242:that led me to start this discussion
2977:come from? I can't find that text on
2841:āJust a technical matterā? You mean
3357:and not inhibited by previous PRODs.
2388:disrupting Knowledge to make a point
887:, summarizes some thoughts on this.
25:
3349:This achieves an effect similar to
3192:This was discussed at the previous
3005:Wikiblame shows that was added by @
1006:I've also noticed this tendency at
23:
3077:, there is a de-facto 7 day rule.
1456:I see no procedural errors here -
443:The article was deleted following
163:Not sure if you are aware, but an
24:
3650:
3120:Knowledge talk:Copyright problems
408:, I went ahead and removed it. --
3287:Option 1: Revert to 2011 process
3158:Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes
2013:
785:
465:The only real "remedy" would be
29:
2944:others to do their own review.
18:Knowledge talk:Deletion process
3404:
3316:
2845:? Thatās a reason to stop it.
2113:deprecat the process wholesale
13:
1:
3618:23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3578:23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3559:22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3508:20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3456:20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3378:20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3281:20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3266:20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
1832:cancels the proposed deletion
1146:I agree with you both/allĀ : )
767:12:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
479:11:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
461:19:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
438:19:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
3637:15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
2979:Knowledge:Copyright problems
2241:There should be clear rules.
752:21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
730:21:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
706:20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
688:20:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
630:20:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
610:18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
589:Pick up the kids from school
530:17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
511:17:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
7:
3547:it can likely be simplified
3138:03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
3112:21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3087:19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3069:19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3045:19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3027:19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3001:18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
2954:08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2928:21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2914:21:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2893:21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2862:21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2837:21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2823:21:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2800:21:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2773:16:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2756:16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2738:15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2697:14:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2679:13:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2634:14:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2624:13:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2599:10:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2581:06:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2572:21:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2542:13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2516:10:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2502:05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2463:20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2454:20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2440:14:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2431:14:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2400:19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2382:14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2369:14:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2355:08:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2336:07:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2327:04:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2313:04:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
2298:21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2288:21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2274:13:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2265:13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2237:07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2224:01:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2205:01:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
1942:Allowing NAC deletes at CfD
710:I saw a few examples where
418:23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
305:I would suggest using AWB.
125:Query about "Soft Deletion"
10:
3655:
2687:to help get the word out.
1547:Knowledge:Deletion process
1051:- Excellent suggestion. -
329:07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
315:09:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
300:02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
106:User:Marcocapelle/sandbox2
3567:Miss American Beauty 1963
3186:soft deleting the article
3013:. The edit summary cites
2164:15:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
2146:15:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
2125:01:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
2107:01:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
2088:00:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
2066:23:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
2031:17:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
1460:was properly deleted per
1415:05:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
1206:Yes, I agree, exactly. -
802:03:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
398:15:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
384:13:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
369:03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
280:15:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
258:03:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
185:14:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2111:I don't see my edits as
2008:22:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
1989:22:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
1932:18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1905:04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
1882:03:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
1868:20:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1846:09:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1807:18:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
1789:18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1763:17:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
1747:08:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
1718:11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
1699:07:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
1677:19:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1660:18:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1637:16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1623:15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1608:13:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1584:23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1563:23:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1530:22:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
1516:21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
1494:21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
1478:20:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
1451:20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
1421:Robert J McCann deletion
1357:17:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
586:to the redir's talk page
247:23:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
232:22:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
217:16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
201:16:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
154:18:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
120:08:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
3482:speedy deletion request
3472:Requests for undeletion
3435:Requests for undeletion
3353:, but is a function of
3345:Requests for undeletion
3011:this edit in March 2022
1439:Robert J McCann Article
1333:21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1315:21:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1295:15:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1272:09:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1258:06:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1247:03:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1230:01:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1213:21:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
1200:21:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
1188:16:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
1160:16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
1142:22:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1125:22:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1111:21:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1094:15:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1076:14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1058:08:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1044:08:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
1027:15:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
1000:14:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
983:22:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
969:22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
939:15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
915:12:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
897:12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
878:12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
833:12:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
335:Preposterously old AfDs
3491:
3439:
3361:
1996:the admin instructions
3486:Articles for deletion
3464:
3386:
3310:besides the nominator
3290:
3201:until it was removed
2248:, among other things.
1653:, to be addressed. -
286:Too many pages to tag
42:of past discussions.
1594:Nominator withdrawal
3238:plus the thread on
2421:3. leave it alone.
1502:I totally disagree
1464:, and the redirect
561:Go make some coffee
3470:it be restored at
3433:it be restored at
3343:it be restored at
2906:Extraordinary Writ
2000:Extraordinary Writ
1860:Extraordinary Writ
862:Extraordinary Writ
639:Extraordinary Writ
540:Wait another week.
522:Extraordinary Writ
3584:I am in favor of
3140:
3136:
2676:
2621:
2086:
2039:Transwiki section
1987:
1971:
1844:
1551:WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
1256:
1198:
876:
831:
740:
170:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3646:
3576:
3506:
3454:
3376:
3264:
3257:
3237:
3130:
3128:
3117:
3109:
3101:
3066:
3058:
2998:
2990:
2972:
2965:
2890:
2882:
2685:admin newsletter
2670:
2665:
2615:
2610:
2569:
2561:
2221:
2219:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2192:
2189:
2186:
2160:
2154:
2135:
2103:
2097:
2080:
2078:
2049:
2021:
2017:
2016:
1973:
1969:
1929:
1921:
1838:
1573:
1544:
1458:Robert J. McCann
1435:
1413:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1293:
1291:
1286:
1255:
1197:
870:
865:
825:
789:
788:
734:
722:
703:
680:
642:
622:
601:
585:
571:
558:
555:subst:rfd bottom
550:
503:
415:
168:
152:
98:Background: see
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3654:
3653:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3645:
3644:
3643:
3570:
3515:
3500:
3496:
3463:
3448:
3444:
3407:the discussion.
3385:
3370:
3366:
3319:the discussion.
3289:
3258:
3243:
3223:Unscintillating
3216:
3160:
3141:
3124:
3105:
3097:
3084:
3083:it has begun...
3062:
3054:
3042:
3041:it has begun...
2994:
2986:
2966:
2959:
2938:
2886:
2878:
2770:
2769:it has begun...
2719:
2707:
2663:
2608:
2565:
2557:
2217:
2215:
2199:
2196:
2193:
2190:
2187:
2184:
2178:
2162:
2158:
2153:Red-tailedĀ hawk
2152:
2150:That's fine. ā
2143:
2142:it has begun...
2132:Red-tailed hawk
2129:
2122:
2121:it has begun...
2105:
2101:
2096:Red-tailedĀ hawk
2095:
2074:
2063:
2062:it has begun...
2046:Red-tailed hawk
2043:
2041:
2028:
2027:it has begun...
2014:
2012:
1980:
1944:
1925:
1917:
1734:
1596:
1567:
1534:
1527:
1526:it has begun...
1475:
1474:it has begun...
1466:Robert J McCann
1425:
1423:
1404:
1352:
1347:
1310:
1305:
1289:
1284:
1282:
1024:
936:
839:
809:
786:
783:
716:
698:
674:
636:
616:
599:
579:
565:
552:
544:
497:
489:
426:
410:
381:
380:it has begun...
337:
288:
193:
173:status quo ante
143:
127:
92:This is about:
90:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3652:
3642:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3624:King of Hearts
3581:
3580:
3543:
3542:
3539:
3536:
3533:
3532:
3531:
3528:
3525:
3514:
3511:
3495:
3492:
3480:, or declined
3462:
3459:
3443:
3440:
3427:
3426:
3418:
3415:
3408:
3384:
3381:
3365:
3362:
3337:
3336:
3330:
3327:
3320:
3288:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3219:King of Hearts
3159:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3116:
3082:
3040:
2937:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2895:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2850:
2846:
2802:
2775:
2768:
2758:
2717:
2706:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2601:
2586:
2583:
2545:
2544:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2419:
2416:
2415:1. add a !vote
2413:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2384:
2340:I don't think
2329:
2253:
2249:
2242:
2239:
2226:
2218:Rhododendrites
2177:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2156:
2141:
2127:
2120:
2099:
2061:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2026:
1978:
1943:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1701:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1532:
1525:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1473:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1377:
1373:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1342:
1321:
1298:
1297:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1260:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1190:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1151:
1147:
1130:
1099:
1030:
1029:
1020:
1003:
1002:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
932:
880:
808:
805:
782:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
732:
670:
669:
668:
663:
658:
653:
634:
633:
632:
595:
594:
593:
590:
587:
576:
573:
562:
559:
541:
538:
488:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
425:
422:
421:
420:
402:
401:
400:
379:
336:
333:
332:
331:
317:
287:
284:
283:
282:
250:
249:
234:
219:
192:
189:
188:
187:
126:
123:
104:Proposal: see
89:
86:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3651:
3638:
3634:
3630:
3625:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3616:
3615:
3611:
3610:
3606:
3605:
3601:
3600:
3595:
3594:The Wordsmith
3591:
3587:
3583:
3582:
3579:
3575:
3574:
3573:The Wordsmith
3568:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3540:
3537:
3534:
3529:
3526:
3523:
3522:
3520:
3519:
3518:
3510:
3509:
3505:
3504:
3503:The Wordsmith
3490:
3489:
3487:
3483:
3479:
3473:
3468:
3467:Soft deletion
3458:
3457:
3453:
3452:
3451:The Wordsmith
3438:
3436:
3431:
3430:Soft deletion
3425:
3423:
3422:soft deleting
3419:
3416:
3413:
3409:
3406:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3397:
3395:
3391:
3380:
3379:
3375:
3374:
3373:The Wordsmith
3360:
3358:
3356:
3352:
3346:
3341:
3340:Soft deletion
3334:
3333:soft deleting
3331:
3328:
3325:
3321:
3318:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3311:
3308:
3303:
3302:
3300:
3296:
3282:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3263:
3262:
3261:The Wordsmith
3255:
3251:
3247:
3241:
3236:
3232:
3228:
3224:
3220:
3214:
3213:
3206:
3204:
3200:
3195:
3194:2016-2017 RFC
3190:
3188:
3187:
3183:
3177:
3173:
3171:
3165:
3139:
3134:
3129:
3127:
3126:Novem Linguae
3121:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3110:
3108:
3102:
3100:
3095:
3094:SportingFlyer
3090:
3089:
3088:
3085:
3080:
3076:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3067:
3065:
3059:
3057:
3052:
3051:SportingFlyer
3048:
3047:
3046:
3043:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3029:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2999:
2997:
2991:
2989:
2984:
2983:SportingFlyer
2980:
2976:
2970:
2963:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2942:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2911:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2896:
2894:
2891:
2889:
2883:
2881:
2876:
2875:SportingFlyer
2872:
2869:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2847:
2844:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2835:
2831:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2811:
2810:soft deletion
2806:
2803:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2787:
2784:
2779:
2776:
2774:
2771:
2766:
2762:
2759:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2736:
2730:
2729:
2727:
2726:soft deletion
2722:
2713:
2710:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2677:
2674:
2667:
2666:
2658:
2657:agenda-driven
2654:
2650:
2646:
2641:
2635:
2632:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2622:
2619:
2612:
2611:
2602:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2587:
2584:
2582:
2579:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2570:
2568:
2562:
2560:
2555:
2554:SportingFlyer
2551:
2547:
2546:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2500:
2499:
2495:
2494:
2490:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2478:
2464:
2461:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2438:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2417:
2414:
2411:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2383:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2343:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2334:
2330:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2272:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2247:
2246:WP:UNINVOLVED
2243:
2240:
2238:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2225:
2220:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2203:
2202:
2165:
2161:
2155:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2139:
2133:
2128:
2126:
2123:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2098:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2077:
2076:Novem Linguae
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2064:
2059:
2054:
2047:
2032:
2029:
2024:
2020:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1985:
1981:
1975:
1972:
1965:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1948:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1922:
1920:
1915:
1914:SportingFlyer
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1856:soft deletion
1853:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1842:
1837:
1833:
1831:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1771:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1571:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1542:
1538:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1433:
1429:
1416:
1412:
1410:
1409:
1401:
1393:
1392:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1358:
1355:
1350:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1308:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1259:
1254:
1253:Seraphimblade
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1195:Seraphimblade
1191:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1178:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:WP:SOFTDELETE
1079:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1001:
998:
994:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
940:
935:
930:
926:
922:
921:WP:SOFTDELETE
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
881:
879:
874:
869:
863:
859:
855:
854:Seraphimblade
851:
847:
843:
837:
836:
835:
834:
829:
824:
819:
815:
807:Third relists
804:
803:
800:
797:
793:
768:
764:
760:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
738:
737:edit conflict
733:
731:
727:
723:
721:
720:
713:
709:
708:
707:
704:
701:
695:
691:
690:
689:
685:
681:
679:
678:
671:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
648:
646:
640:
635:
631:
627:
623:
621:
620:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
596:
591:
588:
583:
577:
574:
569:
563:
560:
556:
548:
547:subst:rfd top
542:
539:
536:
535:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
502:
501:
494:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
419:
416:
413:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
382:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
366:
361:
360:
355:
350:
346:
342:
330:
326:
322:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
248:
244:
240:
235:
233:
229:
225:
220:
218:
214:
210:
205:
204:
203:
202:
199:
186:
182:
178:
174:
166:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
149:
148:
139:
136:
130:
122:
121:
117:
113:
108:
107:
102:
101:
96:
95:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3613:
3608:
3603:
3598:
3585:
3572:
3546:
3544:
3516:
3502:
3497:
3475:
3466:
3465:
3450:
3445:
3429:
3428:
3424:the article.
3421:
3420:
3411:
3398:
3389:
3387:
3372:
3367:
3348:
3339:
3338:
3335:the article.
3332:
3323:
3309:
3306:
3304:
3294:
3292:
3291:
3260:
3240:my talk page
3212:WP:RFCBEFORE
3209:
3207:
3191:
3185:
3181:
3179:
3169:
3167:
3161:
3125:
3104:
3096:
3061:
3053:
2993:
2985:
2974:
2939:
2897:
2885:
2877:
2870:
2807:
2804:
2782:
2781:Editors who
2780:
2777:
2760:
2743:
2731:
2716:Editors who
2715:
2714:
2711:
2708:
2669:
2660:
2614:
2605:
2564:
2556:
2549:
2497:
2492:
2487:
2482:
2341:
2211:
2183:
2179:
2112:
2075:
2042:
2018:
1986:me on reply)
1953:
1950:
1945:
1924:
1916:
1889:back in 2017
1855:
1851:
1829:
1828:
1820:
1784:
1779:
1774:
1769:
1735:
1705:
1682:
1654:
1617:
1597:
1424:
1407:
1406:
1207:
1182:
1154:
1063:
1052:
1048:
1011:
810:
784:
718:
717:
699:
692:It's just a
676:
675:
618:
617:
575:Walk the dog
499:
498:
490:
445:a discussion
427:
411:
363:
357:
338:
289:
267:
251:
194:
172:
146:
145:
140:
131:
129:Hello, all,
128:
112:Marcocapelle
109:
103:
97:
91:
78:
43:
37:
3164:WP:NOQUORUM
2834:Actualcpscm
2830:WP:INVOLVED
2735:Actualcpscm
2664:WaltClipper
2659:. Cheerio,
2631:Actualcpscm
2609:WaltClipper
2578:Actualcpscm
2460:Actualcpscm
2437:Actualcpscm
2379:Actualcpscm
2333:Actualcpscm
2295:Actualcpscm
2271:Actualcpscm
2234:Actualcpscm
1830:permanently
1817:WP:NOQUORUM
1732:Soft delete
1484:Thank you.
1290:Mississippi
1064:2nd relists
850:Less Unless
564:Remove the
135:WP:NOQUORUM
36:This is an
3478:WP:BLPPROD
3176:WP:BLPPROD
3118:Notified:
3079:* Pppery *
3037:* Pppery *
2973:Where did
2765:* Pppery *
2705:Proposal 1
2138:* Pppery *
2117:* Pppery *
2058:* Pppery *
2023:* Pppery *
1979:STUFF DONE
1522:* Pppery *
1504:* Pppery *
1470:* Pppery *
1068:Courcelles
1017:Ivanvector
997:Guerillero
975:Randy Kryn
961:Randy Kryn
957:Ivanvector
929:Ivanvector
889:Randy Kryn
858:Guerillero
376:* Pppery *
177:Goldsztajn
79:ArchiveĀ 14
73:ArchiveĀ 13
68:ArchiveĀ 12
60:ArchiveĀ 10
3629:Thryduulf
3599:King of ā„
3590:Thryduulf
3551:Thryduulf
3405:relisting
3317:relisting
3199:from 2011
3019:Thryduulf
2969:Thryduulf
2946:Thryduulf
2920:SmokeyJoe
2854:SmokeyJoe
2815:SmokeyJoe
2792:SmokeyJoe
2783:decide to
2748:Thryduulf
2718:decide to
2689:Thryduulf
2645:WP:RELIST
2591:SmokeyJoe
2530:Alpha3031
2508:SmokeyJoe
2483:King of ā„
2423:SmokeyJoe
2392:Thryduulf
2361:SmokeyJoe
2347:Thryduulf
2280:SmokeyJoe
2257:SmokeyJoe
1893:Alpha3031
1799:Thryduulf
1770:King of ā„
1755:Thryduulf
1669:QuicoleJR
1629:QuicoleJR
1600:QuicoleJR
1555:Marchjuly
1339:SmokeyJoe
1325:SmokeyJoe
1264:SmokeyJoe
1239:Barkeep49
1222:Thryduulf
1134:SmokeyJoe
1117:Barkeep49
1103:SmokeyJoe
1086:Barkeep49
1036:SmokeyJoe
885:WP:SHADOW
814:WP:RELIST
744:Thryduulf
719:Steel1943
694:Thryduulf
677:Steel1943
619:Steel1943
500:Steel1943
449:Ingenuity
292:Pelmeen10
272:Venkat TL
265:Jehochman
255:Jehochman
239:SmokeyJoe
224:Thryduulf
198:Jehochman
3586:Option 2
3273:Jclemens
3246:UtherSRG
3235:MelanieN
3227:Laurdecl
2843:busywork
2778:Support
2653:call out
2446:Jclemens
2375:WP:BEANS
2305:Jclemens
2212:closures
1982:(please
1874:Jclemens
1819:is that
1710:Jclemens
1691:Primefac
1614:WP:WDAFD
1576:ā Maile
1570:Tarcanes
1541:Tarcanes
1508:Tarcanes
1486:ā Maile
1443:ā Maile
1432:Explicit
1428:Tarcanes
1348:Qwerfjkl
1306:Qwerfjkl
846:Explicit
838:Pinging
518:speedily
471:Primefac
457:contribs
406:WP:CREEP
390:Primefac
321:Jclemens
307:Primefac
268:draftify
3351:WP:PROD
3252:, and
3233:, and
3203:in 2013
2761:Support
2744:Support
2526:WP:OAFD
2319:Bagumba
2230:WP:NACD
1984:mention
1959:WP:CFDW
1949:states
1947:WP:NACD
1825:WP:PROD
1537:Maile66
1370:Joe Roe
1368:Hello,
925:WP:PROD
907:Thincat
860:, and
799:Blaster
759:Nyttend
712:Nyttend
582:old rfd
209:Protonk
39:archive
3355:WP:AFD
3007:Pppery
2898:Oppose
2871:Oppose
2805:Oppose
2786:relist
2721:relist
2649:WP:AGF
2159:(nest)
2102:(nest)
1706:delete
1687:WP:HEY
1008:WP:RFD
645:WP:RFD
602:rose64
493:WP:RFD
467:WP:DRV
3412:NPASR
3324:NPASR
3009:with
2828:e.g.
2550:after
2342:every
2200:Focus
1739:FOARP
1651:WP:AN
1553:. --
1022:Edits
955:True
934:Edits
901:Yes,
796:House
16:<
3633:talk
3555:talk
3277:talk
3133:talk
3073:Per
3023:talk
2962:Jc37
2950:talk
2941:Jc37
2924:talk
2910:talk
2858:talk
2819:talk
2796:talk
2752:talk
2693:talk
2673:talk
2618:talk
2595:talk
2512:talk
2450:talk
2427:talk
2396:talk
2365:talk
2351:talk
2323:talk
2309:talk
2284:talk
2261:talk
2083:talk
2019:Done
2004:talk
1970:LYDE
1878:talk
1864:talk
1841:talk
1803:talk
1759:talk
1743:talk
1714:talk
1695:talk
1683:four
1673:talk
1656:jc37
1633:talk
1619:jc37
1604:talk
1580:talk
1559:talk
1539:and
1512:talk
1490:talk
1447:talk
1430:and
1353:talk
1329:talk
1311:talk
1285:Star
1268:talk
1243:talk
1226:talk
1209:jc37
1184:jc37
1156:jc37
1138:talk
1121:talk
1107:talk
1090:talk
1072:talk
1054:jc37
1040:talk
979:talk
965:talk
911:talk
893:talk
873:talk
828:talk
763:talk
748:talk
726:talk
702:avix
684:talk
626:talk
606:talk
604:š¹ (
578:Add
572:code
543:Add
526:talk
507:talk
475:talk
453:talk
434:talk
414:avix
394:talk
349:this
347:and
345:this
341:this
339:Per
325:talk
311:talk
296:talk
276:talk
243:talk
228:talk
213:talk
181:talk
116:talk
3254:Liz
3250:Jay
3231:JFG
3122:. ā
2790:. ā
2222:\\
1836:Joe
1795:Foo
1395:it.
868:Joe
842:Liz
823:Joe
794:.
600:Red
568:rfd
520:"?
161:Liz
3635:)
3557:)
3414:);
3347:.
3326:);
3279:)
3248:,
3229:,
3225:,
3221:,
3035:.
3025:)
2952:)
2926:)
2912:)
2860:)
2821:)
2798:)
2754:)
2695:)
2662:āµ
2607:āµ
2597:)
2540:)
2536:ā¢
2514:)
2452:)
2429:)
2398:)
2377:.
2367:)
2353:)
2325:)
2311:)
2286:)
2263:)
2006:)
1903:)
1899:ā¢
1880:)
1866:)
1805:)
1761:)
1745:)
1716:)
1697:)
1675:)
1635:)
1606:)
1582:)
1561:)
1514:)
1492:)
1449:)
1411:iz
1345:ā
1331:)
1303:ā
1270:)
1245:)
1228:)
1140:)
1123:)
1109:)
1092:)
1074:)
1042:)
1025:)
1019:(/
1012:is
981:)
967:)
937:)
931:(/
913:)
895:)
856:,
852:,
848:,
844:,
821:ā
765:)
750:)
728:)
686:)
628:)
608:)
597:--
584:}}
580:{{
570:}}
566:{{
557:}}
553:{{
549:}}
545:{{
528:)
509:)
477:)
459:)
455:ā¢
436:)
396:)
359:jp
343:,
327:)
313:)
298:)
278:)
245:)
230:)
215:)
183:)
150:iz
118:)
64:ā
3631:(
3622:@
3614:ā
3609:ā£
3604:ā¦
3553:(
3275:(
3256::
3244:@
3217:@
3135:)
3131:(
3107:C
3103:Ā·
3099:T
3064:C
3060:Ā·
3056:T
3021:(
2996:C
2992:Ā·
2988:T
2971::
2967:@
2964::
2960:@
2948:(
2922:(
2908:(
2888:C
2884:Ā·
2880:T
2856:(
2817:(
2794:(
2750:(
2728:.
2691:(
2675:)
2671:(
2668:-
2620:)
2616:(
2613:-
2593:(
2567:C
2563:Ā·
2559:T
2538:c
2534:t
2532:(
2510:(
2498:ā
2493:ā£
2488:ā¦
2448:(
2425:(
2394:(
2363:(
2349:(
2321:(
2307:(
2282:(
2259:(
2255:ā
2197:m
2194:a
2191:e
2188:r
2185:D
2134::
2130:@
2085:)
2081:(
2048::
2044:@
2002:(
1976:/
1968:C
1927:C
1923:Ā·
1919:T
1901:c
1897:t
1895:(
1876:(
1862:(
1843:)
1839:(
1801:(
1785:ā
1780:ā£
1775:ā¦
1757:(
1741:(
1712:(
1693:(
1671:(
1631:(
1602:(
1578:(
1572::
1568:@
1557:(
1543::
1535:@
1510:(
1488:(
1445:(
1434::
1426:@
1408:L
1372:,
1337:@
1327:(
1266:(
1241:(
1224:(
1136:(
1119:(
1105:(
1088:(
1070:(
1038:(
977:(
963:(
909:(
891:(
875:)
871:(
864::
840:@
830:)
826:(
761:(
746:(
739:)
735:(
724:(
700:T
682:(
641::
637:@
624:(
551:/
524:(
505:(
473:(
451:(
432:(
412:T
392:(
365:g
362:Ć
323:(
309:(
294:(
274:(
263:@
241:(
237:ā
226:(
211:(
179:(
159:@
147:L
114:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.