 | This is an
essay on the
deletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: When an unusually large number of articles on closely related specialized topics are nominated for deletion at the same time, it may be appropriate to postpone some deletion discussions for bot re-listing at staggered dates so that all parties have due time to evaluate each item individually, thus avoiding rushed decisions. |
The following is an essay. Any policy that may result will be written after the discussion is complete.
While I acknowledge the role of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions in improving Wikipedia and ensuring reliability of information, it cannot be denied that sometimes decisions made at AfD are made all too quickly. After all, is it not true that many !votes to delete are often changed to keep towards the end of AfD discussions? Moreover, is it not true that sometimes a topic may undergo deletion multiple times before a version finally emerges that makes notability clear?
In dealing with a situation as fatally dangerous as the AfD is to progress in Wikipedia, Shakespeare wrote in Romeo and Juliet, "Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast" (Act II, Scene 3). Of course, we all know what happened when such wisdom went unheeded.
Therefore, I propose that "postpone" and relist at a later date be a serious option at AfD discussions. While I admit that I am inclusionistic in leaning, I do not automatically !vote keep with every article I see. In fact, I generally stay out of deletion discussions until I have had the time to verify notability myself. Unfortunately, I do not always have the time to personally look into everything before some AfDs are closed as delete.
To be clear, I am not proposing that AfD discussions be stalled indefinitely. Moreover, I am aware that a previous proposal for postponing exists. Before I write more, please take a look below for the template {{ AfD-postpone}} I created, which should explain what I mean in fewer words: {{AfD-postpone|Example|Example|d=30|m=8|y=2010|wks=1}}
This proposal is a response to a recent mass nomination of at least thirteen articles to AfD within a week or so of each other that all related to Transformers (if there are anymore, I am unaware). I sincerely believe that to be forced to work on referencing so many articles at the exact same time by mass AfDs is unfair to those who specialize in topics like Transformers as well as to the article rescue response. Indeed, as one non-partisan to Transformers, I stayed out of its AfD debate as I focused my own rescue efforts elsewhere until the sheer number of Transformer articles flagged for rescue became so appalling large that I could no longer ignore them.
What further impressed me was the general relatively high quality of some articles despite their lack of "reliable" third-party sources. While some may argue that those into Transformers have had years to reference those articles, the fact is that serious work on expanding articles often does not begin until there is pressure to delete. As mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the double-edged role that AfDs play in improving Wikipedia.
As you may see from the example above, I propose that postponed AfDs be reopened automatically by bot at a set time. Hopefully, this will quell all objections that I intend to stall deletion discussions indefinitely.
While there are some who say that a page can be userfied, that puts an enormous amount of (undue) responsibility on that one person to fix potentially a dozen simultaneously deleted articles. By leaving the articles intact until it is relisted, it allows for people who were previously unaware of the deletion to join in the rescue efforts.
And finally, I am not suggesting that mass nominated articles all be postponed to the same date. That would only cause another bottleneck for rescue efforts. My suggestion is that deletions debates are postponed so that the discussion dates of closely related topics are staggered in a way that no more than 2-4 closely related articles are dealt with at any given time. It is this purpose which distinguishes this proposal from past proposals for postponing AfDs. For those concerned about this being overused, we can develop a policy that details acceptable uses of postpone. My hope is that this will give due time and a fair chance to those who care before major decisions are made.
Sincerely,
Alexander Zhikun He ( User:Codehydro)
PS: Thanks for reading, and don't forget to discuss the idea at the village pump proposals.
Tentative guidelines Information
- Note: For now, please ignore whatever is below for the purposes of the main discussion. the below is just a place to deposit rough ideas which may or may not be covered by other policies for which I am unaware. I will make a note in the main discussion area when the below is ready for consideration. In the mean time, feel free to expand upon them or discuss them personally with me at User talk:Codehydro.
In some cases, an
Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion may be postponed. To prevent overuse, the closing of a discussion as postpone may only be done by an administrator. Moreover, baring exceptional cases, postponing is to be used almost exclusively in the following situations:
- When there may almost be enough support for the article for the decision to be ruled as " no consensus," even though the overall consensus may lean towards "delete"
- When the number of articles at AfD simultaneously is unusually large and the subjects of those articles at AfD are so closely related such that it is suspected that any non-keep consensus may be based on vague generalities on the whole rather than on the individual merit of each article as determined by due research
In a sense, "postpone" can be considered an intermediary option between "no consensus" and "delete." In cases when the overall consensus seems to lean towards "delete" yet enough uncertainty exists such that the consensus may be doubted, it is often safest to postpone the discussion to give all parties time to re-evaluate their initial impressions. Moreover, if the closing administrator suspects that a potential "delete" result has a reasonable chance of being overturned at deletion review, it may be better to postpone since fewer improvements can be made while the article is unavailable.
Nonetheless, it must be cautioned that postponing must be used sparingly and that the choice of "no consensus" is much preferred when reasonably appropriate as to avoid diverting towards unnecessary debate of time that could be used on improving article space. Do not use postpone when having difficulty choosing between no consensus and keep.
There are certain topics which are only understood by relatively few active Wikipedians or internet users in general but are nonetheless notable among others who generally either do not edit here or who use Wikipedia less frequently. Often in such cases, those sources that may prove the topic's notability may be largely inaccessible online. It may be impossible to list every topic that may be affected by Wikipedia:Systemic bias since the very notion implies that those special interest groups most affected by such may not have read these guidelines, much less edit them!
Thus, in order to compensate for the lack of representation among Wikipedians, it may be appropriate to assume good faith and give more time for editors to demonstrate that the topics are worth including in Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, a deletion discussion may be postponed at the discretion of the administrator even when the majority opinion supports the article's removal.
Nonetheless, to prevent overuse, it is highly advised that the decision to postpone with regard to special interest topics be reserved for those situations when unusually large numbers of articles on closely related topics are at AfD at the same time.
Slowing down the blitz: Ensuring due process
This section is named after the German word blitzkrieg for good reason. There is an inherent risk, when a large number of special interest articles are nominated for deletion simultaneously, that an article may be deleted not because its notability is indefensible, but because the efforts of the few who could best verify it were rendered ineffective as they were divided among too many article fronts.
While some numerical guidelines can be provided, it is important to note that considerable leeway may be appropriate considering that there is enormous variation in special interest group size as well as variation in article length and quality. After all, a single fairly-established piece of " fancruft" may have taken more work to write than 10 stubs.
As a general rule, no more than 2-4 articles pertaining to the same special interest should be at AfD at the same time. The exact number depends on the discretion of the closing administrator. Longer articles which have an extensive edit history spanning years should be given more time for individual consideration over articles that are relatively shorter or new.
The following timeline is a hypothetical case of 9 articles relating to subject X being nominated for AfD at more or less the same time:
- Day 0 : All nine AfDs are closed as postponed.
- Day 7 : First batch of three articles begin AfD discussions, each with their own discussion page
- Day 21 : Second batch three articles begin AfD discussions (giving one week for the first round to close, and a week's intermission from AfD to merge articles if necessary and to prepare for the second round)
- Day 35 : Final batch of three articles begin AfD discussions
The schedule of re-listing can be adjusted as necessary. For example, if an administrator notices that the first batch is taking longer to reach consensus and close, then later rounds can have extensions in time before their AfDs begin. Any desires to re-enter AfD early should be thoroughly discussed at the article's talk page, while preferably informing all parties of interest who participated the original round of AfDs.
In general, postponing should only be done once and no more than twice consecutively. In the case that an editor feels that the date of re-listing at AfD is too soon, the editor must contact the closing administrator before the article is re-listed with an alternative timeline proposal, explaining why re-scheduling is necessary. Only after attempts to discuss the matter with the closing administrator have failed should an editor seek arbitration.
There are of course exceptional cases when an AfD discussion is better closed as "postponed" that were not described in these guidelines. For example, in the hypothetical event that participants in the discussion become so personally involved that the normal decision may risk leading one party to cause physical or emotional injury to another or themselves, it is usually safest to postpone the AfD for 2-3 weeks to allow tempers to cool. Whether or not a situation qualifies as an exceptional case is up to the reviewing administrator.
| This is an
essay on the
deletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: When an unusually large number of articles on closely related specialized topics are nominated for deletion at the same time, it may be appropriate to postpone some deletion discussions for bot re-listing at staggered dates so that all parties have due time to evaluate each item individually, thus avoiding rushed decisions. |
The following is an essay. Any policy that may result will be written after the discussion is complete.
While I acknowledge the role of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions in improving Wikipedia and ensuring reliability of information, it cannot be denied that sometimes decisions made at AfD are made all too quickly. After all, is it not true that many !votes to delete are often changed to keep towards the end of AfD discussions? Moreover, is it not true that sometimes a topic may undergo deletion multiple times before a version finally emerges that makes notability clear?
In dealing with a situation as fatally dangerous as the AfD is to progress in Wikipedia, Shakespeare wrote in Romeo and Juliet, "Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast" (Act II, Scene 3). Of course, we all know what happened when such wisdom went unheeded.
Therefore, I propose that "postpone" and relist at a later date be a serious option at AfD discussions. While I admit that I am inclusionistic in leaning, I do not automatically !vote keep with every article I see. In fact, I generally stay out of deletion discussions until I have had the time to verify notability myself. Unfortunately, I do not always have the time to personally look into everything before some AfDs are closed as delete.
To be clear, I am not proposing that AfD discussions be stalled indefinitely. Moreover, I am aware that a previous proposal for postponing exists. Before I write more, please take a look below for the template {{ AfD-postpone}} I created, which should explain what I mean in fewer words: {{AfD-postpone|Example|Example|d=30|m=8|y=2010|wks=1}}
This proposal is a response to a recent mass nomination of at least thirteen articles to AfD within a week or so of each other that all related to Transformers (if there are anymore, I am unaware). I sincerely believe that to be forced to work on referencing so many articles at the exact same time by mass AfDs is unfair to those who specialize in topics like Transformers as well as to the article rescue response. Indeed, as one non-partisan to Transformers, I stayed out of its AfD debate as I focused my own rescue efforts elsewhere until the sheer number of Transformer articles flagged for rescue became so appalling large that I could no longer ignore them.
What further impressed me was the general relatively high quality of some articles despite their lack of "reliable" third-party sources. While some may argue that those into Transformers have had years to reference those articles, the fact is that serious work on expanding articles often does not begin until there is pressure to delete. As mentioned earlier, I am well aware of the double-edged role that AfDs play in improving Wikipedia.
As you may see from the example above, I propose that postponed AfDs be reopened automatically by bot at a set time. Hopefully, this will quell all objections that I intend to stall deletion discussions indefinitely.
While there are some who say that a page can be userfied, that puts an enormous amount of (undue) responsibility on that one person to fix potentially a dozen simultaneously deleted articles. By leaving the articles intact until it is relisted, it allows for people who were previously unaware of the deletion to join in the rescue efforts.
And finally, I am not suggesting that mass nominated articles all be postponed to the same date. That would only cause another bottleneck for rescue efforts. My suggestion is that deletions debates are postponed so that the discussion dates of closely related topics are staggered in a way that no more than 2-4 closely related articles are dealt with at any given time. It is this purpose which distinguishes this proposal from past proposals for postponing AfDs. For those concerned about this being overused, we can develop a policy that details acceptable uses of postpone. My hope is that this will give due time and a fair chance to those who care before major decisions are made.
Sincerely,
Alexander Zhikun He ( User:Codehydro)
PS: Thanks for reading, and don't forget to discuss the idea at the village pump proposals.
Tentative guidelines Information
- Note: For now, please ignore whatever is below for the purposes of the main discussion. the below is just a place to deposit rough ideas which may or may not be covered by other policies for which I am unaware. I will make a note in the main discussion area when the below is ready for consideration. In the mean time, feel free to expand upon them or discuss them personally with me at User talk:Codehydro.
In some cases, an
Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion may be postponed. To prevent overuse, the closing of a discussion as postpone may only be done by an administrator. Moreover, baring exceptional cases, postponing is to be used almost exclusively in the following situations:
- When there may almost be enough support for the article for the decision to be ruled as " no consensus," even though the overall consensus may lean towards "delete"
- When the number of articles at AfD simultaneously is unusually large and the subjects of those articles at AfD are so closely related such that it is suspected that any non-keep consensus may be based on vague generalities on the whole rather than on the individual merit of each article as determined by due research
In a sense, "postpone" can be considered an intermediary option between "no consensus" and "delete." In cases when the overall consensus seems to lean towards "delete" yet enough uncertainty exists such that the consensus may be doubted, it is often safest to postpone the discussion to give all parties time to re-evaluate their initial impressions. Moreover, if the closing administrator suspects that a potential "delete" result has a reasonable chance of being overturned at deletion review, it may be better to postpone since fewer improvements can be made while the article is unavailable.
Nonetheless, it must be cautioned that postponing must be used sparingly and that the choice of "no consensus" is much preferred when reasonably appropriate as to avoid diverting towards unnecessary debate of time that could be used on improving article space. Do not use postpone when having difficulty choosing between no consensus and keep.
There are certain topics which are only understood by relatively few active Wikipedians or internet users in general but are nonetheless notable among others who generally either do not edit here or who use Wikipedia less frequently. Often in such cases, those sources that may prove the topic's notability may be largely inaccessible online. It may be impossible to list every topic that may be affected by Wikipedia:Systemic bias since the very notion implies that those special interest groups most affected by such may not have read these guidelines, much less edit them!
Thus, in order to compensate for the lack of representation among Wikipedians, it may be appropriate to assume good faith and give more time for editors to demonstrate that the topics are worth including in Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, a deletion discussion may be postponed at the discretion of the administrator even when the majority opinion supports the article's removal.
Nonetheless, to prevent overuse, it is highly advised that the decision to postpone with regard to special interest topics be reserved for those situations when unusually large numbers of articles on closely related topics are at AfD at the same time.
Slowing down the blitz: Ensuring due process
This section is named after the German word blitzkrieg for good reason. There is an inherent risk, when a large number of special interest articles are nominated for deletion simultaneously, that an article may be deleted not because its notability is indefensible, but because the efforts of the few who could best verify it were rendered ineffective as they were divided among too many article fronts.
While some numerical guidelines can be provided, it is important to note that considerable leeway may be appropriate considering that there is enormous variation in special interest group size as well as variation in article length and quality. After all, a single fairly-established piece of " fancruft" may have taken more work to write than 10 stubs.
As a general rule, no more than 2-4 articles pertaining to the same special interest should be at AfD at the same time. The exact number depends on the discretion of the closing administrator. Longer articles which have an extensive edit history spanning years should be given more time for individual consideration over articles that are relatively shorter or new.
The following timeline is a hypothetical case of 9 articles relating to subject X being nominated for AfD at more or less the same time:
- Day 0 : All nine AfDs are closed as postponed.
- Day 7 : First batch of three articles begin AfD discussions, each with their own discussion page
- Day 21 : Second batch three articles begin AfD discussions (giving one week for the first round to close, and a week's intermission from AfD to merge articles if necessary and to prepare for the second round)
- Day 35 : Final batch of three articles begin AfD discussions
The schedule of re-listing can be adjusted as necessary. For example, if an administrator notices that the first batch is taking longer to reach consensus and close, then later rounds can have extensions in time before their AfDs begin. Any desires to re-enter AfD early should be thoroughly discussed at the article's talk page, while preferably informing all parties of interest who participated the original round of AfDs.
In general, postponing should only be done once and no more than twice consecutively. In the case that an editor feels that the date of re-listing at AfD is too soon, the editor must contact the closing administrator before the article is re-listed with an alternative timeline proposal, explaining why re-scheduling is necessary. Only after attempts to discuss the matter with the closing administrator have failed should an editor seek arbitration.
There are of course exceptional cases when an AfD discussion is better closed as "postponed" that were not described in these guidelines. For example, in the hypothetical event that participants in the discussion become so personally involved that the normal decision may risk leading one party to cause physical or emotional injury to another or themselves, it is usually safest to postpone the AfD for 2-3 weeks to allow tempers to cool. Whether or not a situation qualifies as an exceptional case is up to the reviewing administrator.