User:Kwsn/AfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

READ FIRST: Ok, warning/disclaimer. Part of the page looks like crap. I know, I put down my ideas, but I'm refining them. That, and it's in first person POV, aka, mine. At the moment, I have no intention of actually using this in arguments, nor do I have intention of posting it on the project space. It's a work in progress.

AFD has problems. I'll admit, its turning into a dump for articles that are bad.

Examples:

"IT'S NOT SOURCED! DELETE!" Well, you could put the proper tag on the page asking for sources, works a lot better.
"IT'S PART OF A MAJOR <insert series here>! KEEP!" Well, that's fancruft. No one else will get it but you.
"IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP! DELETE!" Well, why don't you fix it up yourself instead of bitching and moaning about it?
So on and so forth.

Now, recently, the 14th AfD of Daniel Brandt (now a redirect page) caused a lot of uproar. A head count would have given it a weak delete, but overall, it was "no consensus", also known as "keep". Which leads me to this: if it's no consensus, something must be at least notable about it. Well, an idea of sorts. If the article in question is related to a more notable article, why not merge it there? That way the article itself is "deleted", keeping the delete crowd happy, but the data is "kept", keeping the keep crowd happy. AMIB was not the first to do that. At this AfD (which I started), Nick said merge it, and personally, I can live with that quite well (and I'm a pretty hardline deletionist mind you).

RfA isn't the only place needing an overhaul. AfD needs one as well.

Some problems are given below:

[edit] WP:ATA IS JUST AN ESSAY!

So? it's showing what arguments for delete/keep are extremely weak. People say things are "useful" a lot, and never give a reason WHY. The admin closing it notices the number of keeps, and then decides, oh, no consensus. I'm sure not all admins do that, but I know some do.

[edit] No consensus closes

To me, no consensus is evil. Here's what should happen:

  • If there are less than 6 unique keep/delete/merge comments, relist the AfD for another 5 days.
  • If there are more than 6 unique keep/delete/merge comments, close it as "no consensus with intent to reopen in a month".

[edit] "Intent to reopen in a month"

Why do I say this? Well, WP:CCC says it all. The relist process is only to be repeated twice, then if no consensus is reached then, it's likely it won't period.