Wikipedia talk:Postponed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the point of this thing? AFD isn't for cleanup, and an article isn't going to be (or at least, shouldn't be) deleted if there are correctable problems that don't make the whole article worthless. Can anyone please point to any afd discussion where an end result of 'postpone' would've actually bee a better outcome?

In the end, it gives the exactly same end result as saying 'keep', but adds another arcane detail that newcomers to the process won't be familiar with. - Bobet 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many users don't read the talk page, and tags are either swiftly removed without comment or added in such numbers as to be more like vandalism than help. As a result, the only way to improve an article at the moment is to AFD it. As Masem points out, this means that some articles that could have been cleaned up are deleted. Conversely, and I confess this is more aligned with my concerns, a lot of AFDs end up with a 'keep' result because the interested editors claim it could be improved, but the improvements never arrive, leaving us with a horrible mess of an article. In both cases, the right course of action is to keep the article for a time in order to ascertain whether the article can be improved, and to delete it if and only if it isn't improved. That's what postponed deletion would achieve. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Another way to improve the article would be to improve it (sorry). Like I said, AFD is for stuff when simple cleanup isn't possible. If you could point out to a specific case maybe I could see some value in this proposal, but I currently can't think of any scenario where it would be useful. - Bobet 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
AFD is supposed to be for that stuff, but until there's a way to get people to listen to requests for cleanup that doesn't involve threatening to delete the page, AFDs will be started for cleanup purposes. That said, I think "cleanup" may be being used here in a slightly unusual way; I wouldn't describe notability concerns as a cleanup issue. Regarding examples, you'll see a slew of them if you trace the links to WP:HEY, and I'm sure Masem can fill you in with ones that have gone the other way. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The only way to improve an article at the moment is to AFD it? Percy, you need go read the editing policy, and also WP:ATD from the deletion policy. And you may also find WP:WIP educational. --Pixelface (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Pixel. You know that's not what I mean. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanism

My suggestions for mechanism.

  • Use a template as per the one on the article page
  • A page with the template subst'd is automaticaly added to [[Category:Postponed AfD debates]]
  • Arrange for User:DumbBOT or similar to produce an output on WP:PADSUM in a similar way to WP:PRODSUM
  • Expired PADs can be checked via PAD patrol or editor checks for either removal of the template (and cat), or relisting on AfD.

Hope this makes sense.Gazimoff WriteRead 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems completely logical and well thought out. Two thoughts occur:
  1. I think it would be a good idea to have a method of manually logging the addition of a page. In some situations (for example, if a maint template or AfD notice has been improperly removed previously), there may be reason to believe that the template will be removed before the bot can pick it up.
  2. We may need to split the category into week of addition, for easy handling. But we can probably postpone (ahem) this for the time being, and deal with that problem if/when it arises.
Jakew (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. To elaborate:
  1. The admin, when closing the AfD, closes it with reason postpone
  2. The admin removes the AfD tag and replaces it with {{dated PAD}}. This would be a manual process, but by adding the tempate, you automatically add the article to the PAD categories.
  3. The template follows the layout on the article page here, in a similar design to {{dated prod}}. This template can automatically include the article in a PAD category for the day/month/year the PAD started, to make handling easier with no bot required.
  4. Either the category page or WP:PADSUM (the bot-generated summary for easy PAD patrol) can be transcluded onto this article page for a dynamically updating list of open PADs.
Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Oppose. Too easy to game the system. Nothing would ever get closed because every SPA and his brother would just stick a postponed request on the article. Corvus cornixtalk 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We originally looked at this possibility, as it's a legitimate fear. The conclusion was that unless there have been major improvements to an article, you can only postpone once. Further, postponement is at the discretion of the closing admin, preventing abuse by SPAs and similar. You may ask for postponement, but you might not get it. This should eliminate opportunities to game the system, either through frivolous postponement requests, or through chain-postponement requests. Both these elements are on the project page already. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant support with the caveat that after this has been tried for a while, it can be stopped if it fails somehow. I like the idea that it is not automatically granted (to avoid obvious abuse). I suppose that misuse of this possibility (say, asking for postponement on twenty AfD's, and then not improving even one of them) can be considered disruption, if necessary? Just trying to avoid abuse of the system. Fram (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd call that disruption, unless there was a very good explanation. It could happen once, but I think if an editor were to do that, (s)he would find it difficult to do it a second time, because of this: "Other editors may discuss the merits ... basing their comments on ... the reliability or dedication of the editor asking for the postponement". Jakew (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support with comment with the caveat that a full AfD may not be needed if the article remains unchanged. Really, "Postponed" means 'As it stands, this should be deleted, but someone claims it can be fixed within a month.' So, if it's not fixed within a month, why is there a need for a full, additional AfD process? Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)