Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Roberts (2nd nomination)

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

As the AfD nominator, I know that creating nutshells is discouraged when done by either of the nominator or by any involved editor. However, this AfD is already getting quite long and is only in its infancy of the discussion (it has another 5-6 days to go). Thus, I'm wondering if a non-involved editor could add a neutral nutshell below the nomination and deletion sorting tags which summarizes the salient points of the discussion? Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's long because you've responded to every keep !vote. I don't believe a nutshell would be helpful, nor do I think a neutral nutshell is possible. A reviewing administrator/editor can decently follow the arguments and, even if it were to continue at this rate for the rest of the AfD, I don't think that would hinder an administrator judging consensus. Vermont (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfCs should not be held about AfDs, see WP:RFCNOT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64 Thank you for the reply. Shouldn't we have closed the discussion, so that Legobot correctly closes the RfC ID? Secondly, can you clarify if there are circumstances when a Nutshell can be used for an AfD, provided it's done by someone non-involved?--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "so that Legobot correctly closes the RfC ID"? Legobot creates rfcids when it finds an {{rfc}} tag that doesn't already have one, and once created, they are permanent. Legobot doesn't close anything. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64 So does Legobot re-use an RfC ID that no longer exists on Wikipedia? My concern is that by removing the RfC, rather than closing it, Legobot would still have in its log file, and indeed Wikipedia may have some RfC log files, that show that RfC ID as being unclosed. So, to my way of thinking, it would've been better to close the RfC procedurally with your rationale being, "RfCs should not be used at AfD," or similar, no? Doug Mehus (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Legobot maintains a table of rfcids that it has ever assigned, one row per rfcid, included in which is the name of the page upon which the RfC took place. It uses this table to ensure that any rfcid that it generates is not just unique, but has never been used before; hence, rows are never deleted from the table. If an rfcid does get reused, that will not be due to any action of Legobot: it will be because somebody has copied an RfC from one page to another without removing the rfcid, the consequence of which is that there are two rfcs with the same rfcid occurring on different pages, and this confuses Legobot: it publicises them using links to the first but the text of the second.
    Legobot does not respect any form of "closure" other than the actual removal of the {{rfc}} tag. It doesn't care one bit whether there was any formal closure or not. I have seen several RfCs where somebody has wrapped the discussion in one or another of {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}; {{discussion top}}/{{discussion bottom}}; {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}}; {{cot}}/{{cob}} or some other pair, but have not removed the {{rfc}} as a result of which Legobot continues to publicise what is no longer an ongoing discussion. The {{rfc}} tag is key: if this is not explained at WP:RFCEND, please indicate where it is deficient. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, ah, thanks, that's helpful and clear now. I see what you mean. When you say, though, that Legobot checks if an RfC has been used on a given page, would that cause problems with more than RfC on a page or no because Legobot matchs up a given RfC ID with the anchor link (part after the hashtag)? (Aside: you've looked into the ins and outs of Legobot. Are you, by chance, involved in the development of Legobot?) Doug Mehus (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Legobot doesn't check if an rfcid has been used on a given page, it checks its own private table of rfcids that it has ever generated in the past. See WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page: when there are two or more, each will have its own rfcid, unless the rule there about "with a delay between each edit" was disobeyed.
    Legobot was developed by Legoktm (talk · contribs), but the RfC portions were mostly the work of Harej (talk · contribs) and others, but not me. I just field the questions, since Legoktm rarely posts these days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, ah, thanks. Speaking of which, an expired RfC for Talk:Bell Media Radio generated no replies. Is there a way I can restart that RfC without renaming the section header? I'd really like to establish some consensus on this. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you want to rename the section heading (n.b. it's not a header)? Legobot doesn't care about them. Looking at that RfC, I have similar concerns to those expressed at Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight#Sentence in Criticism section, i.e., where is the evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE was fruitless?
    Also, talk pages are intended for discussing improvements to the associated subject page, which in this case is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Roberts (2nd nomination), so why are you drifting this off into areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject page, the purpose of which is whether and why the article Jo-Ann Roberts should be kept or deleted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

[edit]

Discussion has started at Talk:Jo-Ann_Roberts#RFC_about_notability_tag over whether the notability tag should remain. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jo-Ann_Roberts_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=926219354"