Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Too many relistings?

Is it just me, or are too many articles for deletion with minimal input being relisted, some for multiple times, when there's a clear--if sparsely attended--consensus? Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If the deletionists doesn't get their way, they can nominate the same article their friends did, for deletion, as many times as they want. And if that doesn't work, they can delete a large portion of the article, or eliminate it anyway with a merge/redirect if there aren't enough people around to notice and protest. Meanwhile if someone sees something that was deleted, and tries to restore it, it is an uphill battle. Horrible system really. So much easier to destroy than to create. Dream Focus 09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Relisting as in extending the time before an AFD is decided to get more input, not listing the same article for AFD after it has previously survived. There is a problem with too many nominations for people to sort through though. Dream Focus 12:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the issue that unites the above two remarks is low participation at AfD.

  To Dream Focus, I would say that it's hard enough to delete material from Wikipedia. The policies are there to protect the interests of genuine content creators; the issue is that AfD participation is so low that it's a lottery which policy or guideline is actually implemented.

  Jumping back to the original question, I quite like this trend. I think it's better for a closer to relist than to risk making a mistake by implementing a very small consensus.

  So I think the question we should consider is, how do we motivate experienced editors to comment on AfDs, given that it's so massively unrewarding at the moment?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect AfD will always be "so massively unrewarding" - it's as popular as being a tax collector, 90% of what goes to AfD is crap that no-one will miss but some of the rest has merits and may be defended vigorously - and the fanboys, etc. outnumber serious editors hugely, so there's plenty more where the crap came from.

How about looking at it from the other end, via the grading system. Create a new lower grade or 2 below unassessed, and show the gradings to all readers including IPs. The fanboys won't like seeing their faves listed as "below acceptable" or whatever, but to do anything it they'll have to face reviewers who know and apply the rules. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many AfDs nowadays go underattended. I view deletion as a rather extreme action—and I'm sure many other admins do as well—and one can hardly claim one or two comments constitute community consensus. If it's indisputably necessary, I don't see anything wrong with relisting a discussion multiple times; on the other hand, using a relist as a lazy way out of making a judgment call is inappropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, will AfD involvement ever improve if article after article that has garnered no more than three comments is relisted. Yesterday, I went through and closed as "no consensus" articles that had been relisted both a first and a second time, with ZERO !votes in between the two relistings. I'm of the opinion that a relisting should really be used to extend close but active discussions, not as a "punt" to next week. I've been closing uncontested deletes (even with just 1-2 others agreeing with the nom) as deletes, and most of the other underattended relistings as no consensus, in hopes of unclogging the queue. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I like the unsigned comment about grades lower than "unassessed".  :) I can see it now: "This article has been assessed as complete bollocks on the project's quality scale."—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Or some epithet that fanboys regard as the ultimate put-down >-) --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"This article is full of fail"? Fences&Windows 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a suggestion a little while ago concerning AfD's with a continuous lack of discussion be considered PROD candidates? I can't find it, but do you know if it ended up somewhere? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd object to that. AfD is where you come if prod fails, not the other way around.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't find it either but I do recall the suggestion, and I do recall that it failed to gain any kind of consensus to implement it. Shereth 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 54#Multiple relistings, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods", and the discussions that they in turn link to. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Casting votes

Is it appropriate for closing admins to make casting votes as in this and this? I'd say no, because it turns him into a participant and means he can't close it. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I also just found this and this. Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I relisted two of them, I noticed too. These are all invalid closures and should be overturned at WP:DRV. Per WP:DGFA, the job of a closing admin is to assess consensus, not just to cast a vote, and at any rate AfD is not a vote.  Sandstein  12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So DRV rather than simply reopening them? I understood DRV was for where the administrator's assessment of consensus is in question, rather than the validity of his close altogether.Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was mindful to seek an overturn at DRV myself; for one thing, since AfD is (theoretically, anyway) to seek out the proper policies and guidelines to apply to the situations, I'd be extremely interested in hearing the policy basis for the admin's "closing vote."  RGTraynor  12:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have seen this sort of AfD/move/etc discussion, which goes on wordily repetitively intermittently, some of them for weeks, until it is many times as big as the article which it is about, and never comes to a concensus. I felt that someone had to make a decision. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  And perhaps you could explain your policy basis for doing so? I don't have a problem, myself, for bringing to a close an AfD discussion that's gone eight days, but since the sticking point is whether the sources discuss the subject in substantive detail, as WP:GNG requires, which of the sources listed have you looked over and found to do so?  RGTraynor  12:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, treat them as cases of "no concensus, so keep". I have known such disputed matters to be discussed repetitively inconclusively for weeks. There are claims of nuclear blueprints being found in the Al Qaida guest house, Kabul: that surely makes it somewhat like noteworthy?, given that Pakistan has nukes and Iran is trying to get nukes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily disagree with any of your closes, Anthony, but I do think the closer should summarise his or her reasons, especially in borderline cases (such as implied by the term "casting vote"). --NSH001 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily agree with Anthony Appleyard's "casting vote" closure, but closing all of those as "no consensus, default to keep" seems absolutely reasonable. They're all the kind of terminally-inconclusive discussions that mutter along for ages, never forming a consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• I found these 4 AfD's pointed to in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 22, which was pointed to in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Old discussions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• In case of Al Aqua military training camp, the AfD is already about ten times as long as the article, as measured by text length in being-edited mode. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• No. The closing role should be distinct from the !voting role. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Thought experiment. Had he just said "no consensus defaults to keep", would we be having this conversation? Protonk (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Still, it's inappropriate WP:COI. That's why crats don't close RfAs they voted in, even if the result was obvious. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• What Protonk said. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)