Knowledge talk:Deletion process/Archive 14

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 cases—the 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:

3342:

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 don‘t think that‘s necessarily the case. It‘s not uncommon for a relisted discussion to be closed „early“, 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 haven‘t 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, what‘s the damage? I don‘t 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 „obvious“ is not new; see

2251:

2. Don’t do comment-free relisting. It is pointless to disruptive. Relisting doesn’t 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 “lost” in AfD logs? Only when not listed correctly. Unless there’s 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 „What do others think about EditorXYZ‘s 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 it’s 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. —

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. – 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 you‘re 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. It’s 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 “would be considered” obvious. —

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:

That‘s right, it doesn’t 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 isn‘t 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 there‘s 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 “would be considered” into policy, it needs more information. By whom. What things are considered? “Obvious” 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, I’ve noticed that "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" is false rhetoric. It doesn’t 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:. It‘s 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 “keep”-or-“no consensus”, 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. —

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. — 2072:

transwiki-ing could potentially be sunset to make the deletion process less complicated. Hope this helps. –

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:

That‘s what I would prefer as well, I‘m trying to figure out what other people in the discussion think :)

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. — 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? „These restrictions also apply to relisting discussions.“ 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 shouldn’t 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, I‘ve 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 § 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?“ or „Is there support for the proposed redirect?“ 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, here‘s 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. –

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:“Just a technical matter”? 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:? That’s 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/all : ) 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-tailed hawk 2152: 2150:That's fine. — 2143: 2142:it has begun... 2132:Red-tailed hawk 2129: 2122: 2121:it has begun... 2105: 2101: 2096:Red-tailed 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:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 3629:Thryduulf 3599:King of ♥ 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 ♥ 2423:SmokeyJoe 2392:Thryduulf 2361:SmokeyJoe 2347:Thryduulf 2280:SmokeyJoe 2257:SmokeyJoe 1893:Alpha3031 1799:Thryduulf 1770:King of ♥ 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:— Maile 1570:Tarcanes 1541:Tarcanes 1508:Tarcanes 1486:— Maile 1443:— 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:🌹 ( 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:. – 2790:. — 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:⛵ 2607:⛵ 2597:) 2540:) 2536:• 2514:) 2452:) 2429:) 2398:) 2377:. 2367:) 2353:) 2325:) 2311:) 2286:) 2263:) 2006:) 1903:) 1899:• 1880:) 1866:) 1805:) 1761:) 1745:) 1716:) 1697:) 1675:) 1635:) 1606:) 1582:) 1561:) 1514:) 1492:) 1449:) 1411:iz 1345:— 1331:) 1303:— 1270:) 1245:) 1228:) 1140:) 1123:) 1109:) 1092:) 1074:) 1042:) 1025:) 1019:(/ 1012:is 981:) 967:) 937:) 931:(/ 913:) 895:) 856:, 852:, 848:, 844:, 821:– 765:) 750:) 728:) 686:) 628:) 608:) 597:-- 584:}} 580:{{ 570:}} 566:{{ 557:}} 553:{{ 549:}} 545:{{ 528:) 509:) 477:) 459:) 455:• 436:) 396:) 359:jp 343:, 327:) 313:) 298:) 278:) 245:) 230:) 215:) 183:) 150:iz 118:) 64:← 3631:( 3622:@ 3614:♠ 3609:♣ 3604:♦ 3553:( 3275:( 3256:: 3244:@ 3217:@ 3135:) 3131:( 3107:C 3103:· 3099:T 3064:C 3060:· 3056:T 3021:( 2996:C 2992:· 2988:T 2971:: 2967:@ 2964:: 2960:@ 2948:( 2922:( 2908:( 2888:C 2884:· 2880:T 2856:( 2817:( 2794:( 2750:( 2728:. 2691:( 2675:) 2671:( 2668:- 2620:) 2616:( 2613:- 2593:( 2567:C 2563:· 2559:T 2538:c 2534:t 2532:( 2510:( 2498:♠ 2493:♣ 2488:♦ 2448:( 2425:( 2394:( 2363:( 2349:( 2321:( 2307:( 2282:( 2259:( 2255:— 2197:m 2194:a 2191:e 2188:r 2185:D 2134:: 2130:@ 2085:) 2081:( 2048:: 2044:@ 2002:( 1976:/ 1968:C 1927:C 1923:· 1919:T 1901:c 1897:t 1895:( 1876:( 1862:( 1843:) 1839:( 1801:( 1785:♠ 1780:♣ 1775:♦ 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:× 323:( 309:( 294:( 274:( 263:@ 241:( 237:— 226:( 211:( 179:( 159:@ 147:L 114:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Deletion process/Archive 14 - Knowledge

Index