Template talk:Article for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal, as written, has failed. A blanket ban on mid-AfD moves is not going to happen. It was found that moving a page within mainspace is a perfectly possible way to improve an article while it is being nominated for deletion, with multiple examples of the usefulness of such intra-mainspace mid-AfD moves cited. On the other hand, both supporters and opponents have stated that forced mid-AfD moves to Draft or User namespaces may be too disruptive to the deletion process, but are divided on whether to prohibit pre-emptively or just revert them as they happen. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the template that states that an article has been nominated for deletion, should the words "or move the article" be added after "do not remove this notice"? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template on an article that has been nominated for AFD states:

Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not blank the page.

Should the words "or move the article" be added after "do not remove this notice"?

Answer Yes or No with a brief statement in the Survey. Discuss in the Discussion section.

Survey[edit]

  • Support. Surprised it is not already the rule, I guess it was so obvious no one throught it had to be written. Per the VPP discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BD2412, User:Seraphimblade, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. At least partly. Moving the article is certainly “allowed”, but if the AfD is in progress, say so there, and if there is a good reason to move it immediately, then you are asked to close the AfD. This requires you to be UNINVOLVED, which deals with the stated problems.
    If the AfD should continue, then start a fresh AfD, with unbroken templates and correct navigation links to the page. If the page was moved to userspace or draftspace, then the forum has to change from AfD to MfD.
    Allowing renames or namespace changes during the AfD creates the possibility for frustration with broken templates, and astonishment when the links don’t match, on top of the status quo that technically doesn’t discourage WP:GAMING the process.
    If there is a BLP problem with a title, then this is a good reason to speedy move if that’s the simple fix. If the AfD still needs to proceed, it should proceed referencing the fixed title. This means the AfD needed to be closed and a new one open, which it what the proposal here implicitly requires. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not "have the wrong idea" at all. What I consider to be the "wrong idea" is that we should either hold off improving an article by making a needed change to its title, or disrupt an ongoing AfD by restarting it, for the convenience of a script. If the script cannot handle a moved page, close the AfD by hand in that instance (or, alternatively, improve the scripts so that they can handle that situation). It is by no means guaranteed that scripts will be available for or capable of all tasks; if they're not, one should always know how to properly do it manually. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Seraphimblade, thanks for answering.
    Can you suggest a typo, or a disambiguation rename, that can’t wait the week and definitely doesn’t alter the landscape mid-AfD? I suggest there is no such example. An important typo in the title gives a bias to delete. A disambiguation issue in my experience means a scope issue, and when fixed it changes the landscape.
    My thrust here is not to stop improvements, but to say that if there is such an improvement to be made, then don’t ignore the AfD, and understand that a url change mid AfD is a major thing not to be done lightly. Insisting on the bold page move improvement to require WP:UNINVOLVED seems a very good idea, given that draftification has been used to game deletion.
    I agree that improvements should not be limited by script limitations, but here I think the script limitation is a good limitation, and that notifications, deletion sorting, and the several AfD navigation pages being messed up is a close reflection on actual participants being messed up.
    In short, if your going to move a page while at AfD, you should know what your doing, and sort out any problems that it causes.
    I guess a possibly acceptable narrower solution would be to prohibit draftification by an author of the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just prohibit draftification (or other cross-namespace moves) in general during the process of an AfD, while still permitting moves within mainspace (subject to the usual process that if a move is then contested, it should be handled by a requested move discussion). I see no reason to make it more complicated than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I contest any move of a page while it is listed at AfD. It is disruptive to the AfD process. If the premise of the AfD is fixable by a rename, then the nominator failed WP:BEFORE and the AfD should be closed. If it is not a BEFORE failure, then the nominator is presumed to not be in agreement, and the bold move is not appropriate. There is never a good reason to move a page during an AfD that is not a reason to close that AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Please note that WP:AFDEQ states (last bullet) While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. I suggest that the guideline be amended before this template is made inconsistent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AFDEQ doesn't appear to be a guideline, just a project page. Could potentially change both with this RFC, if that is what folks want. Should probably advertise this RFC at WT:AFD though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    just a project page - it is a section within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is the fundamental page for the whole AFD process. What more do you want? Or maybe we should ignore the whole thing and just keep or delete pages on a personal decision regardless of what arguments were put forth during the AFD discussion? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is not currently marked as a policy or guideline. If this is some kind of error, perhaps someone should go mark it to avoid confusing people like me. Until it is marked, I will not be calling it a guideline nor assuming that it is a guideline. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have raised Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Status of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If moving the article improves the article, this should be allowed. As a plain instance, what if there is a typo in the article title? What if the title is clearly an uncommon name of the subject, and having the article at the correct common name would make it more evident whether sources exist to support its content? With respect to moves to draft space, problems arising from such a move can be addressed with an instruction to inform the AfD discussion about the move. BD2412 T 22:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually people just note the need for a move in the AfD and, if it's kept, the article is moved after it's closed. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a no brainer. With the exception of BD2412's plain instances and Robertsky's comment, moving an article to draft space during an AfD does not improve it. It is often simply gaming the system and might well be a tactic employed by paid editors or someone with a COI. Such articles when later moved back to mainspace may escape a thorough examination at NPP and/or AfC (especially with the current massive backlogs at both systems). The last bullet point at WP:AFDEQ seriously needs to be revised, it is clearly offering mixed advice.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftifying should not happen without closing the AfD. Normal moves that the proposal is seeking to stop can be beneficial or even mandated by policy. —Kusma (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the prior VPP discussion. I believe the intent of this was just to prevent moving to Draft space (which I support), but as written it states there should be no moves at all (even to correct a typo in the title). I don't really have a problem with that either as most minor title corrections can wait until the AFD closes (and I assume title changes would be discussed in the AFD). If there was some good reason why the title has to be corrected immediately, then WP:IAR. MB 01:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — strong support when it comes to moving to drafts, weak support (but still support) when moving to a different title. Regarding the former (draftifying), when an article creator insists on publishing an article that isn't ready, often one that has been declined at AfC and/or draftified, possibly multiple times, and when an AfD is opened then they suddenly want to draftify, I consider this gaming the system, and believe it should be prohibited. Regarding the latter (title change/correction), I've less of an issue with this, but cannot see why it couldn't also wait until the AfD has closed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Technically WP:AFDEQ only advises against moving articles during an AfD, and says there is "no prohibition", but in practice there has been a prohibition for as long as I've been active there: people usually note the need for a move in the AfD rather than doing it, and in the rare cases where they are moved, there's grumbling and reverts. Nowadays WP:AFDHELPER can usually handle moves, but where there are technical problems with closing it's invariably related to an unusual move, and as we've seen in the thread that led up to this RfC moves to draft remain a nuisance for everyone involved. We should WP:AFDEQ too, but unlike Redrose64 I don't see any reason to wait on that when the consensus is already clear in terms of what people actually do. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It makes it harder for the AfC reviewer if it goes that way. Gusfriend (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kudpung and SmokeyJoe (VPP). No reason to disrupt the process. Anyone wanting the page moved can express so in the AfD discussion. To "move" or "draftify" is an AfD result and not an action that should be taken during an AfD. I have personally seen and reverted a bunch of articles moved to draftspace and they often end up being de-AfDed, dragged through draft process again and then later moved back anyway. The only exception I would say is if someone (especially, nominator) moved the article right before AfD to a bad title (for example, vandalism or a highly biased one, or within arbcom topic sanctions or something). —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except for uncontroversial moves (but there should be no moves at all) It's easier to follow the page but anyone can improve the page to keep the article. Thingofme (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as CREEP. Moving to draft space is a no-no indeed (and I could support wording to that effect), but moving to a different title is quite unproblematic and may result in improvement of the article, such as slight rescoping to a related topic that may be easily demonstrated notable (e.g. rescoping from a work to its author, or vice versa). Sorry, but I don't want to wait seven days with a WP:HEY rewrite while delete votes are piling on. No such user (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to a different title screws up AFD closure scripts. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly possible to close AfDs by hand. We did it all the time 15 years ago... —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support prohibiting moving to a different title as it screws up logs and closure scripts, and generally can wait until the AFD is complete. No view on moves to draftspace. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-oppose - I agree with BD2412 on the point that if moving improves the page, it shouldn't be disallowed. There are plenty of ways article titles can be BLP violations, POV, typos, or just have a sufficiently crappy name that it distracts from the real issues AfD should focus on. The title frequently contextualizes AfD participants' opinions re: scope, or the extent to which it's POV or deserves to be TNTed. Cross-namespace moves should be disallowed, and yes, most page moves are disruptive, but they shouldn't all be disallowed. We should be clearer about what is allowed, and then perhaps even move-protect the pages to minimize disruption. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:HEY, and also just rule creep. Sometimes the "improvement" can come from a page move. A tyop, a commonname, a {{R from other disambiguation}} may be a better real page title. Obviously no draftifying during an AfD, but not against moving within mainspace. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Apparently its not so obvious from my reading of below. For the record I would support a ban on unilateral draftifying what's at AfD (obviously still allowing a snow close as draftify). Edited 15:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. While I think adding something along the lines of "do not boldly draftify the article in the middle of this AfD" might be appropriate, there are times when move discussions are opened prior to an AfD being made and where consensus to move the page is legitimate. For example, a March 2022 requested move was attempting to remedy WP:BLP1E concerns by an article on a Wikipedian arrested in Belarus. Five days into that discussion, an editor created WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) to try to delete the page on the basis that it was a WP:BLP1E. When consensus to move Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) to Detention of Mark Bernstein was found on the talk page, it was fully appropriate to move the page; if anything, the AfD itself should not have been made with the move request pending. Giving AfD primacy over pre-existing move requests—especially move requests which are designed to change an article’s subject—is far too blunt to address the narrow concern of bold draftification during AFDs that was previously discussed on VPP. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would be just fine with prohibiting draftification during an AfD, and for policy stating that any such move could be immediately reverted and the AfD left open. But if it's just a move to correct a typo, disambiguate, bring the title within standard article title guidelines, and so on? There's no reason for that not to be done just because an AfD is open. Perhaps the message could say "...or move the article to a different namespace"? I would be totally fine with that, and I suspect almost everyone here would be as well; there seems to be a general consensus that moving it out of mainspace in an attempt to thwart the AfD process is disruptive and unacceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per several recent experiences where the article being at an uncommon version of the subject's name materially affected the discussion because of the barrier to finding sources using the automated links. Also one where the subject's name appeared to be a possible BLP violation. No objection to explicitly prohibiting movement to draft, particularly where draftifying is being used to evade deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be advocating to keep the AfD links even though the AfD links include a BLP violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written, but support a prohibition of draftification. As an encyclopedia, it is our job to put the readers first. Sure, it is confusing to us, as editors, if a page is moved during AfD. But it is more important to improve the encyclopedia for readers, including by ensuring articles have good titles. If adopted, there is a very good chance that it will be ignored to improve the encyclopedia by properly titling articles. If a rule is just going to be frequently ignored, it is pointless WP:CREEP. I could maybe be convinced to add a suggestion to avoid moving the page unless the move would be a noticeable improvement. HouseBlastertalk 20:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per User:Mhawk10. This can be disruptive. But there has to be room for people to make good faith efforts to improve articles while they are at AFD. If the move is truly disruptive it can be reverted or contested on a case by case basis, and editors with a pattern of this can be given a warning. Jontesta (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Change title" or "additionally, a Requested Move is suggested" are outcomes, sometimes. Outcomes -- delete, merge, keep but change or discuss changing title -- should be done after the discussion is over. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP and also, as RedRose notes above, we already tell people to not do that. --Jayron32 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “We tell people not to do that”? The proposal is to add a note to the template to tell people not to do that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because sometimes not moving it would be far worse. For an old but obvious example, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogata no Saburo Keroyoshi, which could well have gotten deleted had someone not corrected the page title during the discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - First, User:Redrose64 states that this change would cause an inconsistency with AFDEQ. It was of course my intention that this prohibition would also provide for any needed changes to guidelines. Second, AFDEQ is a guideline and is meant to give guidance to good-faith editors. It will be and is disregarded by editors who are gaming the system, so that something stronger is needed to deal with them. Third, since some editors think that sometimes moving an article during the AFD is sufficiently urgent that it cannot wait for 7 days, does someone have an alternate wording for how to prohibit moving to another address space? (Does anyone think that moving to draft space during the AFD unilaterally should be permitted?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it should not be encouraged, moving the article as part of a restructuring process, or to fix a typo, or to a better title, etc., should be allowed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have participated in many AfDs (both kept and deleted) where the process of finding sources, or discussing content, resulted in the discovery of an obviously superior title. In these cases, basically nobody objected to the move anyway -- this seems to me like kind of a silly bureaucratic thing to add to a process that's already a gigantic pain in the ass. jp×g 06:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – mostly per Seraphimblade's reasoning. There's also the AfC reviewer issue as Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace [1]. I do think that page moves causing issues with the AfD closure scripts is something to consider, but maybe the scripts could be improved so that this isn't an issue? I don't know too much about how scripts work, so if this is not possible, I'd appreciate someone letting me know. Clovermoss (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While moving should not necessarily be done unilaterally as that can be disruptive to the discussion, especially if the move changes the article's scope, moving can often be a clear improvement to correct the title. I see no need for a hard restriction. Draftification ahead of 7 days may in some cases be appropriate, and those doing so to circumvent discussion can be dealt with. Reywas92Talk 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Any bad-faith moves during AFD seem like a problem that can be adequately addressed with existing tools (by moving the article back). Good-faith moves (including good-faith draftifications) don't really seem like a problem at all. (If they indeed mess up scripts that seems more like a problem with the script.) Good or bad faith aside, I'm not seeing evidence that this is a problem widespread enough to require a (quasi-)policy solution. Visviva (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moves can be done to address all kinds of issues with the title of the article, as mentioned above. If there is a single editor who is causing problems with this on multiple AfDs, then look at warning/blocking them for WP:DE, rather than adding an extra rule. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with exceptions. This is the right idea and I think it's rarely needful to move an article during the course of its AfD, but in the limited circumstances where the title is problematic for some pressing reason, previously uninvolved sysops and previously uninvolved experienced editors should be allowed to change it.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SmokeyJoe. I've increasingly seen this practice done by CoI editors to save "their articles" from an ongoing AfD. It needs to end as name changes can wait for the AfD to finish. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I remember closing a RM during an AfD discussion on article Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The AfD was meant only to discuss whether or not the article should exist, if it is even needed. The RM focused on the fact that the then-current title was vague and the new title was a clear improvement over the then-current one. After the move, I notified the AfD discussion about this move. I think moves that have consensus, are clearly an improvement (see also The Blade of the Northern Lights's comment above), and are duly notified to the participants of the AfD should continue to be allowed. A blanket prohibition may get us stucked with undesirable titles much longer than we should need to. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD you refer to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It was a snowball “keep” before and after the page move. The article was new (three days) and was titled poorly, and the page was an obvious improvement. The successful RM was initiated several hours before unsuccessful AfD. That makes this example very different for the intention here to stop INVOLVED editors from doing a page move to WP:GAME an AfD heading towards deletion.
    At the time you closed the RM, the AfD was ripe to be closed as “keep” and ideally you would have done that simultaneously. If you were not feeling experienced enough to closed the AfD, no serious harm would have come from delaying the RM close for the two days it took for someone else to close the RM.
    However, to wind back the scope of the proposal here, to add a note “do not move while the AfD is ongoing”, I would say that this note will not be limiting to the consensus found in the RM, especially where the RM process preceded the AfD, but that it is really intended to stop bold page moves. The note need not articulate this exception to its message, but this exception should be noted at WP:RMCI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support principle, oppose as written per one discussion principle: the productive use of editor time is maximized when we have one discussion about an article's scope. "Is this a topic about which we can write an article?" and "What is the topic of this article?" are inextricably linked questions. "Should the article be deleted?" and "What should the title of the article be?" are different ways of asking those same two questions. What is the scope, and is the scope notable? We should have one discussion about it. So, anytime we have an AFD and an RM, they should be in one discussion. Not allowing RMs while AFDs are open (and vice versa) help ensure that there is just one discussion, so I support it. That said, there may be times when making a move -- outside of an RM -- during an AFD may be a good idea: for example, to fix an obvious typo, or to correct a blatant and harmful WP:BLP violation. So, adding "don't move it" to the template is a bit of overkill, in that it doesn't provide for those exceptions. I'd support some language at WP:AFD (the existing part of AFDEQ, for instance) or somewhere explaining that people shouldn't move articles during AFDs because we should have one discussion (and "redirect" is an AFD outcome), and that people shouldn't nominate article for AFD during RMs, but that there are some rare exceptions, e.g. BLP or typos, where a move during an AFD would be OK (in which case whomever is making the move should also do the cleanup). Levivich 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As written, is to add "or move the article" to the template. What would you write? I think precise wording to address namespace moves would make the template worse at confusing readers. The mfd template says to not move, and I don’t think there has ever been a problem with not moving mid-discussion.
    IAR cases are extremely easily justified by an experienced editor, over a few words on the template, which can be read as a lie-to-children. However, I maintain that AFD navigation pages and lists should be insisted to have the name in the link match the name of the article. An easy way to do this is close the AfD, do the move, the restart the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, I'd just have the template say "do not remove this template". There's no reason the template needs to include information about moving the page. It's meaningless to 99% of people reading that template (readers, not editors), and I'd say even 99% of editors wouldn't move a page during an AFD. This is for the 1% of editors who might actually do something like move a page during an AFD, and for them... write it up at WP:AFD, rather than on the template. Levivich 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All that's desired is to change:

    This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
    Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.

    Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion.
    to:

    This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
    Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.

    Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not move or blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion.
    You would have most of these words removed? I don't think you mean that, but if you do, it is quite silly. Blanking of the article listed at AfD is a common instinct for new editors wanting to delete the page, and the blank page is very confusing for newcomers.
    "There's no reason the template needs to include information about moving the page"? You are not denying the reason, but asserting the reason does not exist. The reason is past experience that newcomers (or pretend newcomers with a COI) go to the page, click the move tab, and move the page, disruptively. They then can't be fairly sanctioned for this disruption, because nothing told them not to, and there is a tab inviting them to do it.
    I think something I am learning is that RfCs invite contrarianism. The VPP discussion already provided ample justification for the simple edit required.
    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remove "and do not blank the page" as well, per WP:CREEP, but that's outside the scope of this RFC. :-) Levivich 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose that removal, as the note is concise and important, and is in the place where it belongs (not buried in a policy page fine text), and as a note in a template, it is a very soft rule that doesn't stop experienced editor from IAR actions, but does stop inexperience people to trying to do something that usually makes things worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CREEP, note that page's title is "Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep". Instruction creep, not rule creep. "CREEP" is not a concise version of "Avoid instruction creep", but is jargon.
    Allowing moves except for namespace moves necessitates serious instruction creep.
    "do not move" is far better than "do not draftify", or "do not move to another namespace", because "draftify" and "namespace" are deep jargon for a new editor.
    "Move" is quite a reasonable word considering that at the top of the page is the tab labelled "move". So, if you value WP:CREEP, and oppose unilateral draftification during an AfD, the answer is it go with the simple "do not move". SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving the article to a different namespace should be prohibited, but something like capitalisation does not need to wait, AfC scripts be damned. AfD provides no guarantee that a particular script will support its closure. We have manual close instructions there to be used when needed. A guarantee we should have is that MOS errors can be fixed on any mainspace article at any time, that an article can be nominated for deletion while a move discussion is in place (so the move discussion may be closed mid-AfD) etc. There are edge cases where a good move may allow an editor to make massive quality improvement during the discussion, but could also be scrutinised as attempting to bypass AfD discussion over intended article scope. But in general, I see no reason to allow namespace moves (IAR works for genuinely rare exceptions) and some reasons to allow moves within mainspace. — Bilorv (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not thought of closing script errors, just deletion sorting, and the several AfD tables. If the title fix is important enough to not wait, then it is important enough that links to the AfD are correct. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me what breaks, SmokeyJoe? As I see it, if you infer the article title based on the AFD subtitle then you'll get a redirect which is good enough; but if you infer the AFD page from the article title then you might get a redlink. But in any case, these technical questions should be secondary to the matter of proper flow of editor actions, which is what my comment is about. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Bilorv. This is a difficult thing to "show", as it is discussion of hypothetical problems that derive from a hypothetical good reason to move a page despite an ongoing AfD. A double hypothetical.
    Suppose, after the AfD is listed, someone moves a page from a BLP-violating title to a BLP compliant title. But they don't fix the AfD page title. On arriving at the the AfD page, it's big title remains in BLP-violation, and from then on, the discussion is poisoned. At the AfD page, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 1, there is a Contents tale that lists *only* the original AfD title. Many of use look at that Contents title to choose what to engage in, and a BLP-violating item will draw attention, creating biased participation, and astonishment when navigating to the article to find it doesn't have the BLP-violating title that attracted the participation. In term of scripts, I was thinking of tables such as User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's. There especially editors navigate to discussions based only on the title. I don't how the script/bot works, but I fear that it will fail to notice that the BLP-violating article title has been changed, thus continuing the BLP-violation, and astonishing editors who navigate to the AfD based on the old title, and likely producing biased participation in the discussion.
    If the template tells people to not move the page, and if admins and pagemovers are expected to know the extended rule (if the page must be moved promptly, then fix the AfD to match), then the few hypothetical cases won't spawn further hypothetical problem.
    My concern is not driven by scripts not being updated to account for problems, but with AfD participants having been misled about the title of the page, because AfD links are not updated by the page move.
    Also, if the deletion reason cited the BLP-violation that was present in the title, and that was fixed by a rename, the surely the nomination needs rewriting, and likely the original nominator failed WP:BEFORE.
    I think it is fair to challenge to proponents of the first hypothetical. Can someone point to an AfD that experienced a bold page move during the AfD, where the page move was justified to happen promptly, and was non-contentious, and it was a good AfD after the page move? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation, SmokeyJoe. I think I see the point. Your challenge is asking for quite a specific case of move during an AfD, but I give a couple of other cases: MOS issues and move discussions that predate the AfD. Does it need to be that the move must happen immediately for it to be justified? If you notice a problem, you should be able to fix it, rather than having to keep track that you can only fix it in 6 days' time (and then 13 days and 20 days when it gets relisted twice).
    In cases where the move is so major as to cause the AFD to be misleading, I can think of a couple of possibilities. Maybe this is an attempt at a supervote and should be looked upon the same way you would see the redirection of an article while an AFD is in progress. Or maybe it's a case like a BLP violation that must be fixed immediately, and the AFD could close with "procedural keep" and participants could be pinged to a new AFD to restate or revise their comments accordingly. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There could be multiple ways to fix the wrong-titled AfD, but my guess is that to close it, renominate, and ping the prior participants is a very good way. Alternatively, the admin-qualified closer might judge that the deletion reason no longer applies, a subjective case-by-case decision, not suitable for an INVOLVED editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also logs. It is very frustrating when the deletion log mismatches the AfD title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 154.121.56.81 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are occasions when it makes sense, and I would rather there not be a rule outright prohibiting it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. TOPaner (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I will not comment about moving to draft space, as my opinion is that draft space is a novel invention by busybodies that we should simply do away with rather than create more and more rules about. I also think that supporting this idea because of closing scripts is completely arse-about-face. Scripts should support policy, rather than vice versa. The case that I see most often is of an obvious mistake, such as an uncapitalised proper name. It would be nice if deletion nominators would perform such moves first, before starting deletion discussions, but they often don't, and why should someone who has no intention of following a discussion be forced to wait until it is closed before performing an obvious, uncontroversial, action that gets rid of an eyesore? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just re-read that and see that it could be interpreted as my calling for the elimination of busybodies. I make no comment about whether that is actually my opinion, because it is irrelevant here, but I was actually saying that draft space should be done away with. It is far more trouble that its occasional worth. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Only for pages discuted for deletion. Krantler (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because there is no other instance where improvements to an article under AfD are forbidden, and because, occasionally, there might even be very good reasons (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cochrane Road (Hamilton, Ontario)) why a move should happen during an AfD. This seems like silly rules-for-the-sake-of-rules and solution-to-a-non-problem style of stuff, which is very much discouraged per WP:NOTBURO RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There can be good reasons to move an article during an AfD, for instance if there's an obvious typo. XFDCloser is generally capable of handling these cases without incident: it gives a message saying "Actions will be applied to this redirect's target page. To use the nominated page instead, undo the redirection before continuing." There's thus no real reason to prohibit uncontroversial moves during AfD. Draftifications during AfD are more problematic, but the correct response is simply to move the page back to mainspace, which anyone can do per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Adding additional verbiage to the template seems unlikely to be helpful: newer editors are unlikely to see/understand it (due to banner blindness or other reasons), and more experienced users likely don't need the reminder in the first place. This does seem like a solution in search of a problem, and even if there is a problem this solution is unlikely to solve it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. Bad faith moves will be reverted. Good faith moves are generally fine. Good faith but clueless moves can also be reverted. I do agree that draftification as a backdoor to deletion is problematic (especially if the discussion is trending keep), but that's not what this proposal is addressing. SnowFire (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to be a rational move. There is no good reason to move an article during AfD, particularly since at most lasts two or three in long discussion, perhaps longer occasional, but I dont see why it would during the Afd. scope_creepTalk 09:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scope creep: Suppose there's a fresh article on a breaking news event. An editor nominates the article for AFD quickly, citing NOTNEWS. During the burst of interest in the first few days - when viewership is at its highest- it turns out that the initial title picked is misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever. Additionally, the discussion is trending toward "keep." Would this not qualify as a "good reason to move an article during an AFD"? SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If yes, then it is just as important to fix the AfD with the “misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever” title. If the AfD is tending “keep”, under a misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever title, then there is a huge reason to stop the misleading / inaccurate / inconsistent / already outdated / whatever AfD.
      As this is a big thing, to be done boldly and unilaterally, it should be strictly UNIVOLVED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current guidance—from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion—is a word of discouragement: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator). I don't see anything problematic about this status quo (i.e. discouraged but not outright prohibited), and I share the concerns of those above who fear this proposal may be adding WP:CREEP. For what it's worth, the AfD template used to include the message For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion, but the wording about moving the article was removed in March 2021, see [2]. I would not be opposed to reinstating that longstanding text to the template (which was removed boldly). Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find, thank you. Strong support for reverting User:Kusma's edit, to reinstate that longstanding text to the template. It removed something needed, and the fine text at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion can be edited to mention draftification, and INVOLVED. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like most templates and guidelines, the instructions are so long that nobody reads them. I would rather suggest to simplify further in the hope that people might read shorter instructions. —Kusma (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Instructions that are too long are skipped by too many, yes, but does this apply specifically to the template? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I removed the text because I didn't find the instructions at the target page particularly helpful. If it gets re-added, I won't complain much, but I would suggest to try to update and simplify the wording at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Another idea would be to see whether we could have a conditional warning at MediaWiki:Movepagetext in case the article is at AfD to give specific instructions to movers. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If adding specific instructions to interface's move message is possible as you've proposed, I'm certainly on board with your idea. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article should be moved if that is necessary. It is not super common, but BLP or NPOV issues are more important than AfD guidelines. —Kusma (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kusma, but if the page move is necessary for BLP of NPOV reasons, why are you supporting the continuation of an AfD under the old AfD title with the BLP or NPOV issues? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Am I? If the AfD title has serious BLP issues (like, "Kusma is a pedo"), this should be amended by moving the AfD page and updating all the links, not by closing it and leaving the BLP issue title in the logs. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s the point. “Don’t move without closing the AfD” solves this, necessarily, and concisely. I guess you’d generalise to “Don’t move without fixing the same problem with the AfD”. But this is headed down the path of CREEP. I’m yet to see a page that MUST be moved in the week of the AfD. I would SLAP the nominator for not doing the necessary move and instead make it worse by advertising it through the AfD processes, which place notifications, including the violating title phrase in edit histories. Kusmo is a pedo should be emailed to oversighters. I maintain that moving during the AfD is always disruptive enough to unjustify the bold page move. An experienced editor should shut down the mess, and that editor is already limited by WP:UNINVOLVED, it doesn’t need repeating. Very concise.
    I don’t think any BLP or NPOV title violating article that gets sent to AfD doesn’t need deleting. I think that an inexperienced nonadmin attempting to rush fix by pagemove will always make things worse. There’s no downside to the instruction “don’t move without closing the AfD”, because it only limits inexperienced and INVOLVED editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard thing is a page titled "Jane doe" or "About jane doe" or "Jane doe biography", Ideally, these should be moved to "Jane Doe" before the AFD, but the page title should always be fixed as soon as possible, even if that is during the AFD. Thanks to redirects, the disruption caused by such a move is minimal. We don't wait for a week to fix a typo out of bureaucracy. —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparatively, the disruption caused by closing and reopening an AfD is larger (when should the new AfD be closed?), and you either need to copy over the old comments or get people to comment again, while AfD generally has not enough participation already. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Generally moving pages tagged for AfD is bad form as it causes confusion, but I don't believe there should be a policy against doing so. Articles under a deletion discussion can be improved to the point where the reason for deletion is no longer valid (i.e. the concerns have been addressed), and page moves can help with improving the article. AfD'd articles rticles can find their place with renames, just like any other article. So I don't believe adding a clause to prevent renaming pages during AfDs is justified. SWinxy (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • . Oppose it shouldn't be done just to fix trivial errors, but if the articles is misleadingly or obscurely titled, it can be so much improved by a move as to affect the decision. AfD is supposed to improve articles when possible. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Mostly just per WP:CREEP and the lack of a strong case to implement a change. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think that moving articles during deletion debates is a big problem. I don't see how another rule that might plausibly stop a beneficial move from being made is the right way to proceed. Carrite (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose instruction creep. If it's a non-controversial move (clearly the wrong title, whatever), then move it. If it's a controversial move, then it should be discussed first anyway. The fact that an AFD exists changes nothing. I don't see it as gaming the system - it's not like the page is going to go missing. --B (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - moving an article proposed for deletion can cause a lot of confusion as people would think the original article was a redirect. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - IAR. Schierbecker (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, yes, moves are generally a bad idea, but the rule is too prescriptive. It's better to let humans decide, case-by-case. Even draftification by the creator can be perfectly reasonable (for example where an inexperienced editor has unilaterally moved a draft that they didn't write into main-space and its creator knows it is only half-written and not up to scratch). Yes, it's confusing if things move around, but if people can't be bothered to track where an article's gone, I don't feel their input at AfC is particularly likely to be well-informed and well-researched. In good AfC's, major changes to the target, including moves, will be documented by those in the discussion. If people mess around at AfC and game the system, we have a variety of remedies ranging from a trouts of various sizes through to ANI. Elemimele (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per those who pointed out that sometimes a page move is an obvious improvement, and could lead to the addition of better sources. At the same time, I believe that bad page moves should never be allowed, whether it happens during the AfD discussion or even right before it. And by a bad page move, I mean even one that no longer adequately describes the article content, as happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shipping to Israel. In that case, even though the article admittedly would never have been kept as it was, still the point is that in my opinion, the late title change by the nom skewed the responses to lead to an easy 'delete', when the previous title had a much better chance of winding up as a merge or redirect. Therefore, since I see this proposal as having more to do with timing and less to do with substance, I cannot lend my support to it. Havradim leaf a message 20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Explanation by Proposer: Sometimes an editor attempts to interrupt an AFD by moving the article. The most common form is to attempt to move the article unilaterally to draft space. The deletion procedures are largely silent on whether this is permitted. Since only articles are subject to AFD, a move out of article space either (a) turns off the AFD, or (b) is disruptive and should not be permitted. There has been discussion at Village Pump and the rough consensus is that moving an article while an AFD is in process should not be permitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Moving_Article_to_Draft_Space_During_AFD Any move of an article while the AFD is in progress, whether to draft space or another title, interferes with the scripts. If a move is appropriate, it can be discussed during the AFD, and the move (whether to draft space or another title) completed by the closer when the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query: What about a move to fix some issue with the current article title? I think the phrase should be clear that the ask is not to move the article out to other spaces like draftspace or userspace. – robertsky (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Robertsky - My own opinion is that a problem with the article title is not so urgent that it can't wait a week for the AFD to complete. The title can be discussed along with discussing whether the article should exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon but some wouldn't be able to resist the urge, especially if it is a simple thing to fix. – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If prohibiting moving doesn't gain traction, may want to change RFC wording to or draftify the article. That is likely precise enough that many would support. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Novem Linguae's suggested wording ("or draftify the article") is good in that it gets around BD2412's point about moving to a more correct title (which I have much less issue with than moving to drafts, although even that could IMO wait until the AfD has closed). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Draftify" is a rather silly bit of wikijargon that won't mean much to the average reader or casual editor. I don't think we should use it in such a prominent template; moving a page to draftspace is a page move, like any other. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Moving to draft space is slow deletion, totally different from moving to any other namespace. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, there's also the technical possibility of automatically move-protecting all articles sent to AfD WP:MOVP by default, but that would be another discussion. Any admin or user with Page Mover rights can close an AfD that results in a move. There are currently 360 users with page mover right (6 months of editing history and at least 3,000 edits), which makes the total number of users with this permission 1,402 (the rest are administrators). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That will result in a new MediaWiki bug around a new protection level-pagemover. I think we should have pagemover protection (but only for move, admins should not set pagemover protection for edits) Thingofme (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not protect pre-emptively, and we should not encourage that move warrers can have their Wrong Version protected simply by starting a bad-faith AFD with a sock. —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pagemover protection for moving page would be effective against page-move vandalism or highly visible pages. Thingofme (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit late to this party, but contrary to popular belief, page movers cannot move WP:MOVP pages. Per these instructions, "[m]ove protection, to the surprise of some editors, does not permit page movers to edit through it." HouseBlastertalk 18:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there should be an option about page mover protection but admins may not set edit protection at this level. Thingofme (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making the text about removing the tag bold[edit]

I am proposing to change the weight of the text inside the template to the following, to make these templates consistent with the speedy deletion templates. Personally I find this text does not stand out to me and I fail to read it, which no doubt also happens to other editors, and the template erroniously removed from articles as a result.

"Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion."

Your thoughts and consensus on this would be appreciated. Osarius 10:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. I certainly don't see why not. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To maintain a clear visual hierarchy, we should only be bolding the most important thing in the notice. That's the fact that there's a deletion discussion. If we tried to bold everything (and a lot of notices on Wikipedia unfortunately do try that), that'd be the same as bolding nothing. This suggestion is editor-centric rather than reader-centric. Editors should not be making edits to pages with a giant red notice without reading that notice, and if they are anyways, then we should handle it through an editnotice. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: Closed edit request for now since this is a proposal for a change rather than a request at this time. Terasail[✉️] 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wording changes[edit]

There is a discussion at WP:VPI#{{Article for deletion}} refinement about the recent changes to the template message. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 1 February 2024[edit]

Please append: 

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from template shortcut}}
}}

to categorize the redirect. Thanks, QueenofHearts 23:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected edit request on 2 February 2024[edit]

A protected redirect, Template:Afd, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Article for deletion]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Article for deletion]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from template shortcut}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Additionally, I have reduced the permissions to template editor level. It remained fully protected as the move was done before the template editor group was created and no one went back to lower the protection level when the group was created. – robertsky (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, editor robertsky! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Article_for_deletion&oldid=1204120820"