Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep per WP:SNOW. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents

Page is misleading and contradictory. Quite simply, we don't do precedents, and this list ceases to be useful as time progresses and things change. Furthermore, the list is completely unmaintainable, with 100+ AfDs closing a day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as listed by the nominator. Sancho McCann 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but mark as essay and thus simple someone's POV. It isn't quite accurate to say we don't do precedent. All the guidelines we have WP:WEB WP:MUSIC WP:BIO etc. are extractions from precedent - a record of the type of things the community tends to do. None of them are binding, of course. Providing something is verifiable, and can be neutrally describes, inclusion/deletion is a matter of consensus at that moment. Precedent, and codified guidelines are merely descriptive of what we tend to do. However, they can save us from repetitive debates. If you know the community always and inevitably decides to keep articles of type x, then you are less likely to waste time nominating them for deletion.--Doc^g 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, but we can never know that the community always and inevitably decides to keep articles of type x, we only know how they have voted in the past. Sancho McCann 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly, I suppose, if I nominate George W. Bush for deletion, then this time the community might agree to delete it. But precedent tells me that's fairly unlikely. Similarly, knowing that the precedent is that Pokemon stubs get kept is really the only thing stopping me mass nominating the lot.--Doc^g 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Doc brings up some excellent points regarding WP guidelines being an effect of precedents. Due to the amount of subjects in the world, there are so many of them that it would be logistically impossible to write out complete WP:BIO-esque guidelines for and precedent helps us with those massive subject policy "gaps." For example, roads and highways articles are in the thousands. They frequently don't have the preverbal "subject of multiple published works" about them. A lot of people believe that roads are inherently notable while many don't. Weeding through an AfD on every one of them prove a time-consuming nightmare if we didn't have WP:USRD/P to help us out in this. This is just one subject example. Yes, things are changing, but it's literally impossible for there to be iron-clad rules on everything and precedents demonstrating WP:Consensus is extremely useful to editors. --Oakshade 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If we keep this page, I think it is very important to direct more attention to it than it currently has, if it's out there, new users should know about it.Sancho McCann 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with that wholeheartedly. Accuracy of previous AfD consensus and upkeep is certainly a challenge. --Oakshade 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While AfDs are a changing beast as editors and moods on WP change, at least there is some common point for AfD reference and discussion. It is better to reference one page then trying to wade thru the history for one similar AfD, which may not be similar enough to be used as a consensus building point. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. We do do precedents, whether or not we should. Deleting this page will not change that, we'll just be down a list of what things are going to cause people to say "Keep per precedent". This is not the proper place to change AfD culture. -Amarkov moo! 03:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So we should keep a page that completely goes against our guidelines? Or are we saying that WP:CCC isn't, in fact, true? I'm okay with either answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Consensus can change. That's an entirely different statement from saying that it always will change. And the fact remains, regardless of what anything says, people do keep from precedent, heck, some will even speedy keep from precedent, and I'm not sure I blame them. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason that I have changed my decision to 'keep' is because this page does describe how the community has acted in the past. It is good to describe how we do things on Wikipedia. Also, since it doesn't prescribe certain outcomes for the future, isn't in contradiction with WP:CCC.Sancho McCann 03:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because people have testified that we do do precedents. Sancho McCann 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Heck. Even the Arbcom has precedents listed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, yes consensus can change, but this is what reflects the current consensus and should be updated as needed. A handy guide for those who need some quick advice on whether the article qualifies for inclusion. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trends. Per the latter comments of Doc G, this page is useful as an indicator of what's likely to be kept based on outcomes of past AfD's. But what's likely to be kept is different from what should be kept following our guidelines. Calling this page "precedent" implies authoritativeness, which is bad for at least two reasons: one, it encourages blanket arguments at AfD like "all X are notable per precedent," whereas notability is not a blanket. Two, WP:AFDP does not reflect consensus and is not on a par with our guidelines as some above commenters suggest. In the absence of a general discussion that leads to a guideline on, say, highways, there is no consensus that highways are notable even if all highway articles have been kept at AfD. Actual guidelines, not WP:AFDP, come from general discussions about what our coverage should include, and only actual guidelines, not WP:AFDP, reflect actual consensus. So, agree with Sancho that the content of WP:AFDP doesn't contradict WP:CCC. The problem is the title. Renaming this page to something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trends would reinforce the notion already expressed in the 3 lines of disclaimer at the top which make clear that, like the nominator says, we don't do precedents. Pan Dan 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the rename. Anything that can be done to communicate the actual purpose of this page would be helpful. Sancho McCann 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In fact this page is useful for those not familiar with the AfD process, for example IPs; and it also provides examples of how the community has acted in the past, therefore how they may act in the future. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but actively maintain. In November, a user made drastic and incorrect changes to a precedent that went unnoticed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Argh. This is the problem that caused it to be listed for deletion. "It's on the precedent page!" is not a valid reason to do anything. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Specifically, someone removed the precedent supporting the notability of highways because there was an ArbCom case WP:RFAR/HWY about it. Problem is, that case had to do with the naming of highways, not the notability of highway articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't dispute that the removal was= unjustified, but that doesn't mean that it matters all that much. -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and maintain per Rschen7754.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, only if it is marked as an essay. I had noticed this page around before, but as it is rarely (if ever) cited at AfDs, I carried on ignoring it. If it's marked as an essay, it really is no better and no worse than other similar essays, such as WP:ILIKEIT. Agent 86 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename is the best way. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rename we don't do stare decisis, but clearly a page indicating strong general consensus in the past can prove useful for nominator to know they are unlikely to succeed without particularly strong arguments. I can see room for confusion in the current title and I would hate for this to become self perpetuating - "keep per precedent" thus making the "precedent" unassailable --pgk 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep they're only ideas that can help determine weather or not an article should be deleted. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.