User:Cool3/AfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

After noticing that most of my AfD votes read in almost the same way, I decided to create this page on my AfD philosophy. It's a pretty simple philosophy, but I might as well codify it.

Contents 1 Definition of Good References 2 Automatic keep vote 3 Automatic delete vote 4 In the Absence of Automatic Criteria 4.1 Increased Likelihood of Keep Vote 4.2 Increased Likelihood of Delete Votes 5 Application

[edit] Definition of Good References

A good reference is a reputable, trustworthy work. Such references must strive for accuracy and be accepted by a significant segment of either the general population or a particular scholarly community. Good references include:

• Major journals and magazines
• Major newspapers (e.g., The New York Times, not some school newspaper)
• Significant published books (e.g., not self-published)
• Significant television programs (e.g., network news not public access TV)
• In general, sources that have Wikipedia articles.

Good references do not include:

• Some random webpage you found
• Any webpage on free hosting (e.g. GeoCities)
• Very local newspapers (circulation < 5000)
• Advertising
• In the case of websites, the website itself

[edit] Automatic keep vote

If an article satisfies any of the following criteria, I will definitely vote keep:

1. The article has at least three good references written on the same subject.
2. The article has at least five good references that deal principally with another topic, but significantly mention the subject of the article. A significant mention must be more than a sentence or two.
3. The subject of the article has at least 500,000 relevant google hits. This criterion does not apply when a subject shares its name with something else of importance, rendering effective use of this method impossible. In general, if at least 7 of the top 10 hits are relevant to the subject an there are 500,000+ google hits, I will consider an article to satisfy these criteria.

[edit] Automatic delete vote

1. The article satisfies any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion (in which case I will vote speedy delete)
2. Repeated requests have been made for the article to be cleaned up without any results.
3. The subject of the article has zero relevant google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors.

[edit] In the Absence of Automatic Criteria

If the article is verifiable, does not contain original research, and cites at least one good reference, I will almost always vote keep. However, in gray areas, I am generally guided by the following.

[edit] Increased Likelihood of Keep Vote

The following increase the likelihood that I will vote keep:

• The article is well written.
• The article adheres comes from a neutral point of view.
• The article cites any kind of outside sources.
• The more google hits the better
• The article's subject received attention in national or international news media (in which case you should be able to satisfy one or more other criteria).
• The article has many relevant wikilinks
• The article was requested by another party
• There is an article on the same subject in another major encyclopedia.

[edit] Increased Likelihood of Delete Votes

The following increase the likelihood that I will vote delete:

• The article is very poorly written
• The article has no outside sources
• The article has no semblance of neutral point of view
• The fewer google hits, the worse
• The article has no relevant wikilinks and no potential for good wikilinks from other articles.

[edit] Application

In general, I apply these criteria to all of my AfD votes. Of course, there are exceptions, but if you feel I have violated my own philosophy just drop me a note. If I agree, I will at least switch my vote to abstain/neutral.