Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Incorrect venue 2 If this gets reopened 3 Dicussion continues at WT:AMA 4 Thread moved from MFD 5 During the AMA deletion process

[edit] Incorrect venue

MFD is the incorrect venue for project closure. Try the talk pages for AMA itself. The 2 Esperanza MFDs were contrary to process, but had advanced too far by the time I found them at least. Please don't use MFD for this. It's not what it's for, and MFD cannot support the level of discussion required for long lived projects such as AMA.

• Long lived pages in the project namespace are tagged historical
• projects are not affected by page deletion at all.

As such, MFD (which simply deletes pages) , cannot provide the service you require.

--Kim Bruning 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct venue, this is what the community appears to want per suggestions. I would the esperanza set a precedent. Please revert your closure. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the WP:MFD page, "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept."

The nomination is based on this being a problematic page in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. and is therefore in the appropriate venue. Historical tagging is included in this mix, and is in fact quite common practice when someone brings some long-dead project page up for review here. --tjstrf talk 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot delete a long standing project or policy at all. It must be marked historical, based on consensus at the page itself. Else how can we learn from past mistakes? :-) This is wikipedia guidelines 101! ^^;; --Kim Bruning 17:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} --kingboyk 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then vote tag historical. --tjstrf talk 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't vote for that. *sigh*. The reference you are looking for is {{historical}}. That's what it's for eh? Note especially that MFD is not required. --Kim Bruning 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason" is somewhat different from a "problematic page in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas". --kingboyk 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case you still get to pick {{rejected}}. Either of which do not require MFD. Once again, it's not a good idea to delete historical projects. We are supposed to mark them historical... for some reason. :-) Note that people have already started the "historical" debate over at WP:AMA, so this MFD is now redundant. --Kim Bruning 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. And thanks for keeping calm under pressure, somewhat inspirational :) --kingboyk 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated several projects, generally inactive ones, for deletion on this page recently, including the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tulips, some of which have already been deleted. Not addressing the quality or importance of this project/group at all, I would greatly appreciate it is guidelines were established as to when and if a WikiProject or similar group can be proposed for deletion. John Carter 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they simply cannot be. It would be silly to do so, since then we'd lose our historic record (and be doomed to repeat our mistakes). And in fact you don't need to nominate pages at MFD, you can jut mark them with the {{historic}}, after all.

At any rate, I think it's a good idea to send people to the AMA talk pages. Worst case we still get the same result as here, but perhaps people will listen to each other there, and likely create a more useful compromise than is possible in the tight confines of an MFD. (including possible merges, or improvements to the system). --Kim Bruning 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the counter-argument is that if we keep all this old crap lying around Wikipedia will be like a junk yard. (General point, not talking about this specific instance). --kingboyk 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The for deletion in "* for Deletion" doesn't necessarily mean that the only outcome of these discussions is deletion. AfDs and other xfDs frequently result in merges, renames, or redirects. MfD is a fine venue, as it garners more attention from the community as a whole than a discussion on the project's talk page would. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is silly too, what's with process for the sake of process --Kim Bruning 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, when exactly did we lose so much site of what we are here for? Why the need for process for the sake of process? Who cares if it's the "correct", wiki-lawyer approved venue. Let's just decide on what needs to be done, and use this page to do it, since it's already here. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah duh, that's my argument! ;-) You can already just mark stuff {{tl|hisorical}] or {{rejected}} by simple consensus, without all this opening, voting, closing, counting, keep, delete and all that mess. Sheesh! ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not practical, coz you get reverted and the community isn't around to back you up. This way, we get to hear what the community actually wants. If there had been no Esperanza MfD, it would still be a monkey on our backs. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't think you have the community at your back here? --Kim Bruning 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I said is very far from what your argument was. Your argument was one based on venue, ie a technicality. - Taxman ^Talk 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Esperanza precedent was good. This is a perfectly valid place to hold the discussion. First, it is a deletion of a project, whether or not the deletion is governed by the deletion of the pages or the community consensus to remove the project. Second, MfD doesn't get a great deal of pages, so the traffic the discussion generates is not disruptive at MfD. Third, this is preferrable to having a separate forum to discuss the termination of projects—since that forum would get very little traffic, it wouldn't tend to generate adequate exposure for gauging community consensus. And finally, the nature of the MfD process establishes a timeframe for the discussion, yields a definitive decision, and has appeal process (DRV)—all things we don't need to create separately for projects by holding the discussion here. —Doug Bell 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If this gets reopened

please note that a couple of folks posted opinions in the short period of time after the first closure was reverted, which are now sitting in the edit history. New section break to avoid e/c. --kingboyk 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouw, I have no idea if anything even got reverted or what... too much edit conflicts as a lot of people stampeded over here. I think people want to slow down and think about things for a second. You're supposed to participate in consensus discussions with a clear mind. ^^;;; --Kim Bruning 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine was clear :P However, my stomach is empty, whopper calling my name. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I was edit conflicted but didn't know I was edit conflicting against a closure :) I don't mind, leave my edit in the history unless this gets reopened in which case it can be restored. --kingboyk 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dicussion continues at WT:AMA

Further discussion might best continue on the Association of members advocates talk page, I think. --Kim Bruning 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a great way to bring the issue up to AMA members. But I think that we need to bring this up the community at large, by using MFD as a venue. Just my 2 cents, though. Gracenotes^T § 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think AMA deserves a decent discussion on the matter, rather than just keep, delete, etc. If things really break down at the AMA talk page for some reason, well we could always consider MFD... but maybe not even then, you can just mark things historial or rejected anyway, after all. The esperanza MFD was a big drama. Trying this a different way can't hurt much ^^:; --Kim Bruning 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA has been discussed repeatedly. Off and on, over and over and over. XfDs are discussions, but they're also more decisive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Was any of those discussions about marking as historical? (Diffs would be great :-) ) --Kim Bruning 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall anything that major, no. The last discussion I can recall petered out and went nowhere, which is exactly what an MfD won't do. And no, I can't find it; please don't be angry if it's a false memory ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thread moved from MFD

• • Question - Do you think you could help me in my advocee request for an answer for me? My case has been open/closed/opened and then put "under investigation" since November with no communication with me for almost two months now, not since I requested an explanation and update re the "investigation" (which I never asked for and don't know what is being investigated -- except that some of the sockpuppets after me had Advocates) from the AMA Coordinator investigator and was told I was whining and to calm down. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Matisse, although this is not the right place to talk about this, I'm not AMA Coordinator and just can't take a case another AMA has taken... unless someone wants me to overthrow Steve and take the Coordination. But I'll inmediately contact Steve. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

::::For the record, Steve is not coordinator in question. Guess there is no way to get answer. He is the coordinator, so thanks! Mattisse 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] During the AMA deletion process

During the next five days... I user:CyclePat propose that all AMA members be requested to drop their current advocacy case. Advocates should direct their advocacee's that the due to a deletion discussion concerning AMA that they may no longer help them out. In fact, all pending cases on AMA should be advised that because of the AMA deletion we are AMA members should temporarily refuse their case. I also request that AMA members and the people whome they are helping be asked to comment on the MFD (deletion process) concerning WP:AMA and how the process was usefull. If the AMA is deleted I further suggest that AMA members still do not assist anyone until the deletion appeal is complete. After that everyone is invited to come to user:CyclePat/AMA and start it up where they shouldn't be able to touch us! --CyclePat 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I have a position in this, but MfD deletes user pages all the time, so moving to user space is a flawed strategy. —Doug Bell 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, it could simply be speedied as WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G12. --Iamunknown 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)