User:Sjakkalle/AFD closing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here are some of the thoughts I have on closing AFD discussions. This is incomplete, I will be working on this
Contents |
[edit] Basic vote count demand
By definition "consensus" implies unanimity, but demanding that would be unworkable. Therefore deletion requires the somewhat subjective term "rough consensus". In general I look for a two-thirds majority (2:1 ratio) for deletion, but with modifications. In general, by itself, a less than two thirds majority indicates a "no consensus", so making exceptions to the "two-thirds" guideline will more often mean that an article gets kept than deleted.
[edit] Vote count matters, but arguments matter too
Imagine you are set to close the following AFD debate, what would you do?
[edit] Kate Winslet
Non notable actress. Delete. Sink The Titanic
- Delete. nn. User:Polar iceberg
- Very strong delete. CunardLine
- Weak keep. Winslet played a major role in the movie Titanic which was a major movie, even though it was very overrated. Carpathia.
- Strong delete. Sinker.
- Weak keep. She was also nominated for an Academy award for her role there, although I am a bit uncertain like Carpathia is since Winslet didn't actually win the Oscar. --Lifeboat
- Delete Not notable. Definitely not notable. WhiteStar
(Apologies if I have used the actual usernames of people here, if I have it is purely coincidental) OK, never mind the fact that Kate Winslet garnering 5 "delete"s and only 2 "keep"s would mean that the AFD process has gone completely off the rails, more than it has done now anyway. If this debate were closed, the correct action IMO would be to call this a "no consensus" keep. The only argument presented by the delete voters is "nn", but they have been successfully rebutted by arguments in the keep vote.
Such an extreme example as the one constructed above has to my knowledge not occured to me yet, but the main idea is that if the only reason given to delete on the entire debate is an assertion of non-notability, it will stand weak against somebody who turns up to argue for the subjects notability.
The vote count does matter somewhat, if we have have a majority for keeping, then there is certainly no consensus for deleting, even if the arguments presented on the keep side are cheesy or virtually non-existent. Be aware though that an article with slightly less than two-thirds favoring deletion might be deleted if the "keep"ers present no case but only votes. "Keep. I like this article" goes into the vote count but it won't mean much if it's a close case.
[edit] Binary school of thought
For the most part I endorse the binary school of AFD closing. There are two basic results: "keep" and "delete". That is the action one makes as an administrator. That does not mean that I only close debates as either "keep" or "delete", but that I view decisions of "merge", "redirect", "BJAODN" and so on as editorial decisions. On these decisions WP:BOLD applies. It is perfectly acceptable for an AFD closer to look at the debate and say "We have 5 votes to keep, 2 votes to merge and 2 votes to delete. I see that the other articles in this series have been merged with the main article, and therefore I will merge this one as well", merging is an editorial decision and can be done by anyone. And reverted by anyone. Usually a merge should'nt be reverted if there is a clear consensus that the things should be merged, because it is not only AFD which is decided by consensus. Closing the debate as "5 keep, 2 merge, 2 delete, but I agree with the delete voters that this subject is entirely non-notable so I will delete it" is usually not acceptable, WP:BOLD does not apply to deletion of pages.
I find the binary school as a far more flexible school of thought than the m-ary school. It gives the closer more leeway in deciding where to merge things, and to call other decisions which seem to make a good compromise, such as calling a disambig result when 6 people vote redirect to 6 different articles.
The one result which fits poorly into this binary thought is the "transwiki" result which is kind of in between since it involves a deletion, but is more of a move.
[edit] Anonymous votes and votes from new users
The guideline here is at the top of the WP:AFD page: "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons).". It means what it means. If an anonymous user presents a good argument for keeping the article, that anon vote may be counted since it was a valid contribution to the discussion. The main reason for discounting such votes is the fear of sockpuppetry. If that fear is not a worry on a particular discussion, there is no need to disregard valid input.
[edit] Extremely contentious discussions are usually no consensus
The one AFD (then VFD) close I remember best was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. At that time I closed it as a "no consensus" simply because there was less than a two-thirds majority. That was one of the most controversial closes I have ever made, but now I think that the "no consensus" was in fact even clearer than I thought it was. If we have a pretty large minority very opposed the article's deletion then that indicates no consensus. I agree with User:SimonP's note here that "for especially controversial topics, like this one obviously is, the bar should be higher." I don't quite endorse that two thirds is an absolute limit for any article though, even though it may well be true in most cases.
