Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Query

Hello, everyone,

I don't close many CFD discussions but I've run into a misunderstanding on the part of some editors and admins that if they move a category manually to a new category/page title, all of the category contents will be magically moved over to the new category. This is not my understanding of how the system works. As far as I know, for category moves/renames, User:JJMC89 bot III handles all of the recategorizations of articles and pages unless the category is small and the closer decides to handle this recategorization manually.

The reason I bring it up is that according to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#How to rename categories, the instructions given imply that the category contents will just automatically be moved over by "a daemon" and that these moves should be done manually which is not typically how categories, especially large categories or bundled nominations, are handled. As far as I've seen, JJMC89 bot III handles this process about 95% of the time unless, as I said, it's a very small category involved and the closer decides to handle it themselves. Should these instructions be written, at least to explain Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and the actions of the bot? Because I can see where a well-intentioned editor or admin just working with the advice given here, could get themselves into a mess. Maybe this section on categories should be revised with the help of some regular CFD closers who understand that unique process better than the rest of us. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. I have belatedly noticed this and updated that section. – Fayenatic London 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

On deleting pages cleanup recommendations

There is a discussion about cleanup requirements for prods that does not appear to be converging. Please consider participating at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Quick_cleanup. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple participants

I reverted Jclemens's addition of "two or more participants". The edit appears to be related to WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 24#Tyson Apostol and WP:Village pump (policy)#Question About No Quorum Redirect, which both refer to WP:NOQUORUM (shortcut to WP:Deletion process#No quorum, guideline). Its participation-related wording is received few or no comments from any editor.

The section also contains Soft deletion, which is generally applied to one or two participants including the nominator (minimal participation). Selected recent AfDs closed as soft delete:

As a counterexample, a bare WP:PERNOMINATOR (shortcut to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Per nominator/X, essay) comment has low value despite meeting the numeric threshold.

WP:Consensus (policy) and WP:Silence and consensus (related essay) focus on disagreement or the lack thereof, not a specific number of participants. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion, unless one posits a single participant with mutliple personality disorder, is among at least two people. Do you disagree? Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I have two questions:
  1. What is the meaningful distinction between a one-participant nomination or proposal and a two-participant "discussion"?
  2. Why is the clarification relevant here rather than at WP:NOQUORUM?
Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
1) Because a proposal has one person. A discussion has two or more. One person can't be a consensus, because consensus is something bigger than an individual action, which one editor can take unilaterally at any time.
2) Because you reverted the change. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. I believe that highlighting the difference and having to substitute "deletion nomination or discussion" when both are covered is discouraged by WP:Avoid instruction creep (essay, shortcut WP:CREEP).
  2. I will rephrase: why did you edit this guideline and not WP:NOQUORUM?
I saw your comment at the DRV, and I replied there. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
1) Except that reminders of definitions are not instruction creep. 2+ people is inherent in the definition.
2) No particular reason, other than it occurred to me first that it was missing here. You think I should correct NOQUORUM next? That's an odd suggestion given that you reverted my clarification. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I requested input at WT:Deletion process#WP:NOQUORUM and number of participants. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge into Wikipedia:Deletion process § Determining consensus

Much of the material in this page substantially duplicates the guidance at Wikipedia:Deletion process § Determining consensus, particularly on determining rough consensus, weighing arguments rather than counting !votes, handling bad-faith participation, and the relationship between local and wider community consensus. Since determining consensus is the core function performed when closing XfDs, it seems more logical to centralise that guidance in this section rather than maintain a separate page covering largely the same ground. Plus, non-admins need to follow these guidelines as well, despite the title of this page, so it makes no sense to keep them separate. Merging the page here would reduce duplication and make it easier for closers to find the relevant guidance in a single page rather than spread across multiple overlapping pages. FaviFake (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a meta page for collating a lot of different useful information. We wouldn't be able to merge most of this into the proposed target, because it wouldn't make sense (e.g. including CFD closing info). On the whole, though, I'm far enough removed from "I need to know how to do this" that I'm not sure how useful any of these pages are to new admins, so I'm probably not the best person to evaluate a possible merge. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
including CFD closing info
Yeah, that should just be merged into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, and the rest can be merged into Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Viewing deleted pages.
I'm not sure how useful any of these pages are to new admins
My point is that the instructions on this page, such as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, also have to be followed by non-admins. So there's really no reason to keep these pages separate. FaviFake (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Whatever you people think is best. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Primefac is correct. Returning to many deletion related pages after being less active for some time has not been pleasant. I have yet to see a merge or overarching revision constitute an improvement in clarity or function. Leave it be. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2026

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators → ? – The instructions on this page, such as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, also have to be followed by non-admins and also apply to non-deletion discussion, such as merge proposals at AfD. So the current title makes no sense. This page was split from Deletion guidelines in 2003 for a very different purpose. I suggested merging this page into 3 more relevant pages, in case we can't decide on a more reasonable title. FaviFake (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)