• Archive1 - October 2005 - July 2006.

I've just had an article Manuel Torres (porn star) that I've been fleshing out with a few other people nominated as an AfD 1 hour and 12 minutes after its creation! This is absurd. It's nominated using criteria that aren't even approved or adopted—Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Instead of having time to work on the article, now I get to work on defending its existence. I'd like to think that the nominator is unfamiliar with the nominating process, but I doubt it. I'm specifically referring to Before nominating an AfD:

Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template.

This sort of nomination should definitely be added as criteria for "speedy keep" when the article is in the process of being created and is on a valid topic. Nor should the article be tagged as a "stub" or anything else in the first hours of its creation. This only discourages authoring any articles; maybe that's the nominator's intent.—Chidom ^talk  23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I don't think it falls under speedy keep. The article is failing not only WP:BIO but WP:PORN BIO as well. It has to meet requirments of notabililty as well as verifiability. Sorry. SynergeticMaggot 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is off-topic. This isn't about the notability of the article; that's being debated elsewhere. This is about the rapidity with which the article was nominated for deletion. The Before nominating an AfD guidelines have been completely ignored in this case. The article is not a "hopeless case", it's not nonsense, and it's being actively edited. I know it doesn't currently fall under Speedy Keep, that's what I'm trying to have changed. I think it should qualify as Speedy Keep; the nomination was inappropriate and doesn't deserve the time it will take / is taking to respond to it. If you want to nominate the article, fine—but wait more than an hour and 12 minutes to do so and give the authors time to work on it. The nomination has now taken away that time, which may have been the intent all along.—Chidom ^talk  00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how its off topic. You asked a question, and I gave you my answer. Its more fitting as speedy delete under CSD A7, which is vanity. It was disputed and now its onto AfD. This is what happens when the prod tag is removed. You coming here to ask for speedy keep to be ammended to suit on ongoing AfD is bad form. I recomend that you take your dispute back to AfD. Have a nice day :) SynergeticMaggot 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was no prod, from what I see. SynergeticMaggot 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a speedy; there was never a prod; there's an AfD. That was added to the article a little over an hour after it was started.—Chidom ^talk  06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way. I don't see it fitting into speedy keep when it meets a speedy delete as vanity, non notable, and does not accert importance. We cant ammend a guideline based on this. You still have four days to work on the article. Has the actor won awards? Can you verify it? I purposly did not bring up speedy delete on the AfD to give you time to work on the article. So please take my advice and work on it. SynergeticMaggot 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we're supposed to discuss and give articles with a plausible chance of becoming encyclopedic the benefit of the doubt, per the instructions he's referring to. Progressive saves often look crappy at the beginning, but can be much better after 4 or 6 or 12 hours. We've got such a high rate of new pages, though, that people are getting quicker on the draw to try to send things to the trash bin. -- nae'blis 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But send an article to the trash bin (or nominate it to go there) an hour after it's created? I think that's a bit quick on the draw than is healthy for any new article. Failing outright libel or vitriol, a page should be given a chance; if it's nominated in its first 24-48 hours for an AfD it should qualify for a Speedy Keep. There's no way to tell if the article will meet notability guidelines or anything else in its first few hours. Yes, these things should be drafted in someone's sandbox and not put in public until they're ready; but if the originator has taken it as far an s/he can and needs further input, how is that to be sought without "publishing" it? I suspect that had this been an article of two paragraphs about an NFL football player, it would be around for years before someone nominated it for an AfD. As it is, this was an article about a gay porn performer, of substantially more than two paragraphs, but because of its topic, it got nominated too quickly. That's POV, not policy; there should be a way to keep the article for updating and editing without having to deal with 5 days of arguments on an AfD page that shouldn't have been created to begin with.—Chidom ^talk  09:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your fellow editors. I don't know whether it was nominated for AFD because of the subject matter, and since the nominator didn't put "OMG teh buttseks" in the edit summary, it's likely you don't either. The article is in fact two paragraphs about a gay porn actor, not counting the bullet-list videography. Also keep in mind that the "proven" audience for your average NFL players is probably larger than your average gay porn video (which doesn't mean anything, except that your analogy might be flawed). I agree with you that articles are sometimes being nominated too quickly, but keep in mind that a) the article was kept, i.e. consensus "worked" and had the result you wanted (not always the same thing, of course), and b) there's few practical ways to tag new pages for checking on them 24-48 hours after creation, which is why New Pages Patrol is the first line of defense against spurious articles. I'd apperciate hearing any suggestions you have about how to make the process work more like it is described. -- nae'blis 14:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....deep breath.... Thank you for the reminder—I do forget at times that we're all here trying to make this the best it can be. It is difficult, as a member of a minority against which much discrimination has occurred, to step outside that mindset and try to see other reasons for people's behavior. I usually can do it; I'm not sure I did in this case. I'll try harder. And my logic was probably terribly flawed; it was, however, meant to illustrate that two-paragraph articles on less controversial topics often survive for months.

Two examples: there is a three-sentence article with dubious claims to notability that's been around for 9 months, see Paula White. I have a difficult time being objective on that particular topic, so I'm trying to leave well enough alone. (Which I probably just failed to do.)

Michael Ninn is an incredibly well-known director in the straight porn industry who has contributed at least one film to the gay porn industry that won a number of awards and was noted for its departure from the usual method of directing such films. His article is two sentences and a list of films. He's notable because he has done so many films and is so well known in the industry; so I realize that it's not just gay performers/directors, etc. that are difficult in terms of obtaining information. (Although with the references cited on his page, I think a better article could be written.)

Some articles about gay porn actors may never get beyond two paragraphs and a bullet list of films; it is extremely difficult to get documented information about them. That doesn't necessarily mean they're not about notable performers; it also doesn't necessarily mean that they should be deleted, or that they should be kept. It's not surprising that the information is difficult to come by, and extremely frustrating. I suspect (and this is strictly POV, I realize) that pornography is just one of those "we're not supposed to talk about that stuff, so why put it in an encyclopedia?" topics for many, many people.

Guidelines for notability of these sorts of articles are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors). I assumed that the nominator was aware of that, since the Notability article (it was formerly known as WP:PORN BIO) was listed in his reason for nomination. I have come to realize that citing the article doesn't necessarily mean that he reviewed the lengthy discussion about it. Yes, the article in question was kept after 5 days of comments in any number of places; all that took time that I feel needn't have been given to that effort at the expense of other efforts.

I also understand that the New Pages Patrol is the first line of defense against spurious articles, and I know there are tons of them and not enough administrators to go around. As far as suggestions about making the process work more like it is described, if the process described in the quote above were followed—sdding a template to the article and leaving comment(s) on the article's Talk page or the Talk page for the article's creator—I think that would cover it.

My initial thought in all of this was that a page that had been nominated too quickly could be eligible for a Speedy Keep on the basis that the nomination was too speedy. I'm not sure that works; however, I still maintain that it's impossible to tell if an article that is similar to other existing articles, but shorter and less well-documented, is a candidate for deletion within the first few hours of its creation. Does that need to be "codified" somewhere? Do we need a "clock" on articles? I'm afraid I don't have any good answers here; but I appreciate the discussion. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its understandable, yet the actor was hardly notable. If an amendment were to take place, I doubt the article in which you wanted saved would fall under it as an exception. And article has to be important, encyclopedic, notable, and verifiable to be included. It failed on all of this without having to mention WP:PORN BIO. SynergeticMaggot 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could support having a Speedy Keep for articles which are less than X hours old and do not meet a CSD criterion. I think we're experiencing growing pains, and I appreciate your response. Do keep in mind, though, that that same discrimination you're talking about is being used in reverse to argue that gay porn (as a niche market) has different requirements from mainstream porn. I've seen at least two keeps result from AFDs though, so the criteria you're talking about seems to be gaining traction. -- nae'blis 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question still is unanswered. Can we add in for clarity that if there is no vote by the nom, it can be kept? Also, there is an issue of how fast a speedy keep really is. I usually close them in four days. Every time a new day is listed, I go through the second page from the bottom, and close em all. But then again, if there are around 9-15 people saying speedy keep on the articles first day on AfD, it gets kept by someone. It seems to me that alot more needs to be added to this page. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a personal preference, I never close an AfD that only 3-4 people have said keep on. These types might get relisted and 4 people is hardly a consensus to me. SynergeticMaggot 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the nominator is arguing for deletion, even if not specifically "voting". There are rare cases when the nominator specifies that they have no opinion, and that would apply, but don't write it so it sounds that the nominator has to specifically say Delete or risk speedy keeping. If you want to add something like "or if the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves", that would be all right. You may want to shorten it, though. :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do happen to see alot of nom's opting not to give an opinion. I'd just like some clarity in the current guideline. SynergeticMaggot 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I put it in. I added in the edit summary that if someone wants to shorten it, they can do so. I think it was fine the way you put it, but it may infact need shortening. SynergeticMaggot 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a number of AfD's that have been closed as keep or speedy keep by non admins, a WikiProject has been created in an effort to help reduce the number of resubmissions by placing the oldafd tag on article talk pages. For more information, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing. SynergeticMaggot 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badlydrawnjeff. I dont need a consensus to be bold and add in what is currently being done in several AfD logs. But if consensus is what you want, consensus is what we'll seek. I'd like to know from anyone if they feel that WP:SNOW shouldnt be added. SynergeticMaggot 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, to change a guideline, you absolutely need consensus to do so. If you want to do something similar to what's expressed there (like, for instance, Articles at AfD which have shown considerable opinions to keep with minimal argument for deletion, or something like it), you have my support, but not without getting consensus here first, and not as you worded it. Be bold has its roots and attitude in article space, not in guideline and policy pages. I'll point you to our page on policies and guidelines, where it's noted that guidelines are reached via consensus, and shouldn't be changed or amended without discussion on the talk page. "Improvements" don't mean radical changes to what the guideline says, to cut that argument off at the pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the snowball clause is predicated on Ignore All Rules, and thus codifying into a guideline seems sort of perverse. It's also widely disputed, not bound by any guideline except "I knew it was going to be a slamdunk", and otherwise falls outside the purview of this guideline. Which is not to say it's completely invalid, it's just outside the system, to a large degree. -- nae'blis 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it was a healthy change, given that a lot of people interpret WP:SNOW closings as "Well I really think this article should be kept/deleted, and it's already heading that direction even though some people object... it would be a really dramatic victory if I closed it early" which is not really what SNOW (or at least IAR) is about exactly. In a perfect world, yeah, it would be okay to close early... but our forsight isn't always perfect, alas. Also, I think it's kind of ironic that people are apparently clammoring to close some afds early while there's a perpetual 3-5 day backlog for those of us who actually close AfDs regularly. Just kind of weird... --W.marsh 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks the responses. While I was thinking I might be pushing it with SNOW, I was looking for some way to reflect the current closes as keep seeing as how most of them recently have in fact been closed with SNOW in mind. I didnt feel a simple linking would actually hurt in this case, as its in no way saying "hey, go close everything now per SNOW". We really dont have any guideline for keeping aside from Speedy. So if people are going to close early anyway, I think we should add some of the more common close examples to this guideline. SynergeticMaggot 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still lack consensus to do this. You and I following roughly 20 minutes of discussion on the talk page isn't consensus, so I'm reverting. I want speedy keep expanded, too, but I want it done the proper way so there's no confusion or complaints. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the archive and recent conversation, we're the only users on here. No one else has objected to the addition but you, and funny thing is, its your suggestion. SynergeticMaggot 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expectation for everyone who is either a) watching this page or b) would have an interest in the goings-on to have chimed in within a half hour of a suggestion. With a change of this magnitude, which would largely change the way we handle a number of AfDs in the future, to act as if we have consensus without, at the very least, advertising the discussion at the village pump and at the general AfD talk page would only cause more issues later. We have two people above who have expressed reservations already, and my suggestion was poorly worded and merely an example of what a similar final product would be. There's certainly no reason to rush it - if I thought I could get away with it, I would have already done so long before you got here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your statement here. The page/talk page edit history has more than just the two of you, and opinion seems to be about equally split so far. W. marsh and I had already commented by then, what did you mean by "the only users on here"? -- nae'blis 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, you, Bdjeff, W. marsh, is what I meant, not just two people. Upon reading, I saw no actual objections to including an actual acknowledgment of real time keeps (not the inclusion of SNOW, but of the last inclusion suggested by Bdjeff). I can list plenty of examples for you if you want. Or ask that the closers come here to voice their opinioins? But to not include something that is openly being done, or will continue to be done regardless of you or I, will be left up to whatever we decide from now on I suppose, per consensus. SynergeticMaggot 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My experience here is that trying to codify what's already done can be controversial. Check the archives about my attempted change earlier this year. What's openly done doesn't mean it's right, as we both know, and if we're going to change the guideline, we need to get people to come here and get as good a consensus as possible. It's the way editing guidelines work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I thinks it rather bland to not include common practice on a guideline. We must at least admit somewhere that it happens everyday. If it doesnt belong here then fine. It wont stop the early closer from doing it anyway. :/ SynergeticMaggot 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I was objecting too, so I wasn't sure why you were saying only BDJ was doing so (just because he's faster than me, heh). The problem I have, as I said above, is that WP:SNOW isn't a guideline, it's not even really an essay, it's mainly a reformulation of IAR. So to put into a guideline, "Here are the rules for speedily keeping something: .... And you may of course ignore all the rules if you see fit." is just odd to me. WP:SNOW is valid in certain cases, but trying to codify it will only result in a paradox, and everybody disappearing in a puff of smoke. -- nae'blis 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left SNOW out of this a while ago. Come up with a better solution to include the more recent early closes and I'll support it. If an article doesnt have a real reason for deletion plus the fact that is hasnt a snowballs chance in hell of being deleted, its more likely to be an early close/fast keep (i.e. speedy). I'm going with the name here: early close = speedy per the 5 day standard. Its mere common sense to add this in somewhere. So as I said, help come up with a better way to include, as there is me an Bdjeff here to support something along those lines. SynergeticMaggot 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your last edit on this subject was to add:

1. The AfD discussion has shown considerable opinions to keep with minimal argument for deletion.

Which is essentially WP:SNOW without a name. It is massive scope creep to say that "considerable" opinions to keep trump "minimal" arguments for deletion. Like Speedy deletion, we want clear, unambiguous criteria here, right? What is "considerable"? What is "minimal"? It's easy to note "No one is currently voting delete, including the original nominator", and close it. Anything else beggars the definition of consensus. -- nae'blis 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noted that in my edit summary. Those were his words, or how he wanted to phrase it without the linking of SNOW. So lets fix the wording shall we? SynergeticMaggot 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point #1 already covers it to my mind, if we can work out the details of what is and isn't an exception to the exception, as below. -- nae'blis 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intent, as I noted above, was not that those words that I used as a starting point example be used in the actual guideline. As discussion was expected, it was merely to give an idea as to how to word it without linking to bad places. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point one in no way reflects the recent early keeps done by closers on AfD. Bdjeff will more than likely agree with me on this, seeing as how we have had a simular dispute on the matter. AfD's are being closed after 2-4 days (and sometimes same day), after a large consensus has been reached, with or without quoting SNOW. And not to mention AfD's where there was not one reason to delete. Please explain how it reflects point one, and I'll leave it at alone for good. And Bdjeff, thats understood. SynergeticMaggot 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I understand that they are being closed early outside of the SK parameters; I'm disputing that they need to be "brought into the fold", as it were. Most would fall under IAR, and some get disputed; I'd rather not encourage early closes in any but totally unambiguous cases, so I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain. I've said how I would interpret Point 1, which does not include the "deletion arguments are minimal" as a sole reason to early close. -- nae'blis 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far as I see, there are 3 users who would like something simular to SNOW added, if I'm not mistaken (me, Bdjeff, and MONGO). I was asking that you help reword what I had begun, and Bdjeff had made an attempt at rewording. The inclusion of an additional speedy keep criteria which is not represented in point one. SynergeticMaggot 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some difficulty articulating what exactly is wrong with this, but:

1. No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves.

seems to lack something in the "Also..." statement. Frequently, a nominator will not explicitly say delete, but that's not always the same thing as not supporting deletion. I'd rather that sentence read something like, "However, in some cases the nominator is acting on behalf of another user (finish an incomplete nomination) or for some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves; these should not be speedily kept unless such an intention is made clear by the actual nominator." It's far from perfect language, though... -- nae'blis 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I've generally interpreted it: The article is AfD'd by Editor A, Editors B-G do not recommend deletion. The AfD can be speedy kept if a) Editor A withdraws the nomination, or b) Editor A put the page up on behalf of Editor X with no opinion, who never followed through with the nomination. While I have my own amendments to this, I think a wording like the following might work:

The nominator withdraws his/her recommendation for deletion, and no other editors recommend deletion during the discussion, or when a nominator, while offering no opinion, nominates an AfD to complete the process, and no other editors recommend deletion.

Is that more easily understood? Does it change the meaning of anything? (BTW, I reposted on an edit conflict, if you want to retract your statement, feel free, I'm not trying to step on your toes). --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine, I was going to merge it with the above section about the same thing, then just decided to be bold and try to edit the change in. Now that the page is protected, let's work it out here, though: My last edit was "However this does not apply in cases where the nominator specifies they are editing on behalf of someone else (such as an incomplete nomination), or has some other explicit reason to not argue for deletion themselves." -- nae'blis 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your change would eliminate the ability to speedy keep based on "Completing nomination"-style entries w/o delete recommendations from any editors? I just want to be able to understand it clearly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not precisely. If someone/somebot is completing a broken nomination, then presumably the original nominator's intention still stands. I would argue against the idea that such a SK criterion exists now, except in the breach. This is different from, say, Xoloz' procedural relistings, where he truly doesn't have a dog in the fight, and says as much. -- nae'blis 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was added from AfD talk because I couldnt get a response from here a while back (in other words, I had to reach some consensus there and not here). Not many people care about this guideline I'm guessing. I added it because there were some cases where there was no reason given by the nom. In some of these cases, the nom either waits until they see the replys before making a decision themselves, or is just new and wants to nom something. Either way, I'd only support it for inclusion on the basis that not all noms really want the article deleted, but bring it to AfD anyway. SynergeticMaggot 18:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're trimming has been reverted. It was fine the way it was. SynergeticMaggot 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should only be speedy when the pseudo-nominator explicit says something to the effect of "I have no opinion, just bringing this here to complete Joe Schmoe's partial nomination," or to gather a larger consensus, etc. In the former case, it's up to Joe to withdraw, and in the latter, I'd still prefer to see an explicit "Okay, good to know I was ill-informed about the fame of mallards in Tibet." -- nae'blis 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think my alternate wording above encompasses that in a better way than what's there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Really, we've got three types of nominators: regular deletion-oriented nominators, procedural nominators/bots who are completing someone else's deletion nomination, and questioning nominators who may not actually support deletion, but either want a wider consensus than prod or don't know enough about the subject. I would say that the second caetgory fails over to the original nominator, and the third must explicitly say they aren't after deletion to be a valid SK. Something like Xoloz' "I abstain." for post-Deletion Review procedural nominations, for example. Otherwise we end up reading too much intent into the original nominator, who may not know all of our processes and traditions. -- nae'blis 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if he/she doesnt withdraw, thats what the aim is here. SynergeticMaggot 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to take a lot more discussion to get approved, though, and the wording would have to be much better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More consensus than it coming from AfD talk? More users and admins follow there, then here. SynergeticMaggot 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then post a link to the discussion here over there. Get people involved. The worst thing that could happen is that you get consensus, or what you think is consensus, do what you think consensus indicates, and then have 5 people jump at you for it, especially when it comes to guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with it for right now. I've proposed it, its up to others to either fix my proposal (well its actually your proposal) and add it in, or reject it. SynergeticMaggot 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Most of us are admins though apparently, that doesn't mean we can just edit war freely though. Anyway I'm out but I wanted to mention that before I left. --W.marsh 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but are you sure you did it right? I just edited a few seconds ago. SynergeticMaggot 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was semi-protected when you edited...it appears to be fully protected now.--MONGO 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you throw the template on the top, por favor? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object that there is an actual dispute here though. Possibly some confusion, but not a dispute. SynergeticMaggot 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I do know that I'm disputing the fact that we are disputing. SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SNOW stuff got re-added, it seemed like there was an edit war brewing... anyway if there isn't a dispute then the page should be unprotected... but I think we should discuss before adding stuff people disagree with. --W.marsh 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested unprotection. We seem to be committed to working it out on the talk page now before editing the guideline directly. -- nae'blis 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was readded by MONGO I believe. I just want to work this out to include at least something. I promise not to add snow back in :) SynergeticMaggot 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new header per SM's gracious request

Right, well, I didn't know I was walking into a hornet's nest, but anything you two can agree on is impressive to me. What I don't get is the impetus to codify WP:SNOW into guidelines; it's explicitly designed to be an IAR-style "fuck process, this is obvious" workaround. bdjeff, what's your view on this? Am I misunderstanding everybody here? -- nae'blis 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to nitpick, but can we start a new header? I dont want to move your comments to a new header without your approval first. SynergeticMaggot 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me. :) Welcome back... I feel like maybe we were all talking past each other yesterday. -- nae'blis 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I hope this is a refreshing conversation from now on. I also wish to know what Bdjeff thinks. I only mention him and MONGO since the first comment from Bdjeff was that I have his support in adding in a different wording other than SNOW, and that MONGO agree SNOW should be here anyway. If we can work to include something (I should say anything at this point)simular to reflect current closings on AfD, I'll be a happy camper. We need only work out the wording I suppose. Suggestions are more than welcome. SynergeticMaggot 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I got hung up yesterday; what situation(s) are you trying to describe that aren't already covered? Is it the "only 2/37/120 minutes remained in the 5 days" argument? The "no one but a procedural nominator said to delete" cases? Maybe let's look at some test cases that WEREN'T closed by SynergeticMaggot, to avoid all the hullaballoo/personalization...I'll start. -- nae'blis 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Theres two conversations in this. The first is what the test case represents. The second is the SNOW inclusion discussion. These are seperate issues yet were conjoined the other day. SynergeticMaggot 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Should we discuss the SNOW/not-SNOW/SNOW-by-any-other-name here, and deal with the nominator's intent in the section above (exception to the exception)? Feel free to delete the test case below if so, I have to go for several hours... -- nae'blis 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test cases that are not currently covered appropriately by 1-6

1. When a nominator is bringing it to AFD but doesn't explicitly say "delete", do they have to explicitly withdraw before the case can be speedily kept? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JDQ Systems is my example, as a Google search was inconclusive for me to support deletion when I nominated it. -- nae'blis 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"5. The nominator is renominating the article on some regular schedule." Which means what, exactly? Should it say "...on a regular basis"? Deizio talk 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain it out, I had the same interpretation as you mention. I've also attempted to merge it into a general "disruption and vandalism" category, since that seems to be a common reason for quickly keeping a page. 68.39.174.238 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4 currently reads "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody recommends deleting it anyway (since calling a nomination vandalistic does not make it so). Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations (Such as featured articles), nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (EG. A userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment) and making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." However, in practice some people have used simply a bad faith or disruptive intention of an initial nomination to justify "voting" speedy keep in AfDs. Furthermore, in a few recent cases admins have closed AfDs with speedy keep based on issues with the nominations. In at least one case - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenny Morris (singer) the close occured despite the fact that the clear consensus was leaning towards deletion. If this sort of thing is that common we should either consider modifying criterion 4 to reflect actual practice or put something very clear in this guideline that such closes are not wanted. JoshuaZ 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support making very clear that early closes are inappropriate when an article is not clearly a stick-on keep. Articles must still demonstrate compliance with content policies regardless of the perceived faith of their nomination. I'm not suggesting limiting the discretionary powers of admins in AfD debates but in the highlighted debate the closing admin could at least have given a couple of lines explaining why the nom was bad faith. As at least one editor noted, it may have been nominated in bad faith but that didn't make it encyclopedic. Deizio talk 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what is supposed to be communicated by the second sentence in subsection two of the "Applicability" section: The discussion should be moved to on the correct place for deletion discussion, which may then decide what to do with it.. I would just fix it myself, but I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Matt Gies 11:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what it's trying to say is that if, say, a template is nominated for deletion on AfD, then the AfD discussion may be speedily closed and the nomination and any comments so far copied to TfD. I'm not really sure if that even needs to be listed among the other reasons, though it certainly should be mentioned; the distiction is subtle, but I know I personally wouldn't close such a misplaced nomination as a "speedy keep", even if it technically is one, but as "nomination moved to XfD". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix the guideline to say more or less what I wrote above. Feel free to improve it. One thing I wonder about is whther the use of the page move feature should be advised over a cut-and-paste renomination for those deletion forums that use nomination subpages. It certainly seems like a reasonable thing to do, but explicitly describing the steps here could be seen as too much detail, while just recommending it without describing it in detail might encourage half-assed attempts. In general, I'd expect that if you know enough about how the deletion forums work to come up with the idea by yourself, you also know enough to do it without causing undue confusion. Still, maybe some brief mention ought to be made? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page currently states that if an article is linked to from the main page, it should not be put up for deletion. I disagree with that. Although you could say that putting a large deletion stamp on the featured article of the day is nothing more than vandalism, I do think that it should be possible to discuss deletion of articles that are linked to from other sections of the main page. It should be noted that these articles get most traffic, and therefore they should be good and notable subjects. If an article linked to from the main page shouldn't really be included in the encyclopedia at all, then it should be deleted right away, after editing the main page, because a lot of people would otherwise see that bad article.

Of course, it won't happen very often that articles that are on the main page are put up for deletion, but it might just happen. And when it does, there is no reason to not very closely take a look at the deletion request, unless it's simply an act of vandalism, like the Cynna Kydd case. —msikma (user, talk) 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it wouldn't be deleted until at least 5 days after the AFD, (after which it will be gone from the Main Page), so the scenario you describe can't occur. What's wrong with just nominating it after it's off the Main Page? — brighterorange (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with nominating it then, but why? Is there some reason we should insulate people who browse the main page from AfDs? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Amarkov. What happened to "an article could be featured on the main page and be on AfD at the same time?" Yes, that's used as why notability isn't relevant to whether or not an article should be made an FA, but it's always been taken for granted that it was indeed possible. Also note that this line was added unilaterally by Celestianpower in August ([1]). --Rory096 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main page and its linked articles are the public face of Wikipedia and deserve to look clean, yes. Articles that end up linked from the main page are chosen by experienced editors, so they are usually good articles. Allowing new visitors to edit them is good for the visitors and for the articles. Since they are high profile, they are vandalism magnets, but most kinds of vandalism can be immediately reverted by the many people that watch them. But an AFD tag can't be removed except via the speedy keep mechanism, so the speedy keep guidelines should allow special leeway for keeping main-linked pages clean. There is nothing so urgent about AFD that it can't wait until the next day (the process takes at least 5 days). — brighterorange (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the mainspace is the public face. Does that mean we shouldn't have AfD tags at all and should just carry out discussions in projectspace with no notice? AfD tags are not only a way to get more people into the discussion, it's a great way to show people our real processes and attract more contributors. If an AfD is obviously ridiculous, it can be speedy kept anyway per the second criterion. If not, then there's no reason why a link from the main page is even relevant. --Rory096 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why shouldn't the public face of Wikipedia show AfDs? Are we trying to hide that articles get deleted? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, apparently the thing which caused the criteria to be added was a nomination of that day's featured article, which is still covered here. Thus, I'm going to go remove it now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they should, because the tags are ugly and confusing to casual readers, are usually disruption when placed on articles off the main page, and casual readers who are not likely to have read Wikipedia policy probably shouldn't be participating in AFD discussions. But if obviously frivolous includes good articles linked off the main page, then I'm okay with the explicit main page criterion being removed. — brighterorange (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, of course, featured articles shouldn't be nominated. If something isn't notable enough for inclusion, you can't possibly source it well enough for FA status. It seems odd, though, that we allow all manner of cleanup templates, and even protection templates, on some articles linked from the main page, but a discussion about inclusion isn't allowed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason why the AFD template is different is that it can't be removed. Anyone can remove other tags or fix the problems they indicate. — brighterorange (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the criterion again. Get the link removed first, AFD second. Having an AFD tag on an article linked from the Main Page gives the impression that we are very confused about what we think is or is not important. AFDs for such articles are likely going to be very controversial, and as there is no deadline, can wait until the article is no longer linked from our public face. For an example, see here (endorsed here). Kusma (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus to add "The closing admin just feels like it" to the list of reasons under 'Applicability'? —Random8322007-01-29 14:03 UTC (01/29 09:03 EST)

• Obviously not, but it is a mistake to view this as an exhaustive list that may not be deviated from. >Radiant< 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does say only. And allowing "per WP:SNOW" without further justification is essentially to say "closing admin feels like it" is a valid reason—Random8322007-01-29 14:16 UTC (01/29 09:16 EST)
    • It is a guideline. By definition, guidelines are not set in stone, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. The criterion is not "if the closing admin feels like it" but "if it would improve the encyclopedia" (per WP:IAR, an official policy). >Radiant< 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Official, if not controversial. I'm actually kind of surprised that this (speedy keep) isn't policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does seem a little incongruous that our frequently misued speedy deletion is policy, while this, which is rarely misused, is not. -Amark moo! 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I doubt that the current version, with the word only, has enough support to be made policy. I haven't had much recent experience with AfD, but it used to be that "speedy keep" was applied in situations where it wouldn't be allowed according to this guideline. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is speedy deletion. So what? -Amark moo! 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy should reflect consensus. The fact that this guideline is not obeyed across the board indicates that it does not represent consensus and hence should not be made a policy. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay then. We'll have to promptly demote WP:CSD. Then, due to out of process blocks, WP:BP too. Oh, and since that statement is diametrically opposed to WP:IAR, we'll have to do something about that too. Anything else? -Amark moo! 06:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason for that is that CSD is far more important than this page. If you don't believe me, go and do New Pages Patrol for a while. Speedy deletion is a matter of quality control: there are certain classes of pages that are so obviously not encyclopedic and yet so ubiquitously added by novice or erratic users that we need to be able to get rid of them with a minimum of overhead. It is an old policy designed to keep repetitive and pointless AFD debates down.
• Speedy keep, on the other hand, is only a matter of internal bookkeeping. It is pretty much an afterthought, and something we could do without since anything speedily kept would be regularly-kept three or four days later.
• Aside from that, very often when "speedy keep" is cited in an AFD, it is cited incorrectly; that might be called "abusing" it. >Radiant< 10:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD is no more important than this page is. And abuse of CSD is far more prevalant than abuse of speedy keep. Rather than an afterthought, it's a function to keep people from abusive AfDs and deletions. Hell, if we eliminated CSD, anything speedy deleted would be regularly-deleted three or four days later, right? Great non-argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had expected a handwaving response from you - that is, unless you've got any evidence that abuse of CSD is "far more prevalent"? At any rate, you're missing the point, which is that if we eliminated CSD, anything speedy deleted would then need three or four days of lengthy repetitive needless discussion, thus wasting a lot of valuable editor time. >Radiant< 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reply was just a mirroring of yours, really. Meanwhile, check the talk page of CSD, you'll see a recent examination of A7 in particular. I also didn't miss your point - there wasn't one to miss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's actually a very apt analogy, in that my reply was substantial and yours was just an image. You are, I hope, aware that most editors consider repetitive needless discussion a Bad Thing? >Radiant< 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then, please, by all means, stop. We'll be glad to build consensus in your stead. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESARA conspiracy theory (second nomination) if the nominator is later indefinetly banned does the AfD close speedy keep? Travb (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because other people concur with the deletion. See the second bullet point, "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it". >Radiant< 13:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Speedy keep will be cited more often when used incorrectly than when used correctly. Thus, I started an inapplicable section, using Coredesat's comment here. -- Jreferee 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, the organization of this section threw me off. I was following the procedure listed, but when I came to bullet point 4, realized I should not have been doing that. I think that bullet point 4 should be removed and its text integrated into the paragraph before the remaining bullet points in this section. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant bullet point 4, not 3 as my previous revision stated. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a well-established article is wrongly nominated for deletion. This may occur when an editor has limited knowledge of the subject or has a particular point of view that does not accept current usage regarding a term. This happened with the Consensus decision-making article (see this RfC, and recently with Nonviolent communication (see this AfD. Yet there appears to be no way in policy or guideline short of WP:IAR to justify a speedy keep. I'm for adding a fifth reason to the "Applicability" section along these lines:

• The article is an established article with citations and no one but the nominator believes it should be deleted.

Comments? Sunray (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The example AfD doesn't correlate to the statement you wish to add. Nonviolent communication was rescued. Sources were found and added only after the nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were citations in the article, including one to the book itself. But maybe there is a better way of wording this. Would you be willing to work with me on this? Sunray (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be right. I think what I meant was that more were added to merit its inclusion. But the statement makes it clear its a snowball/SNOW. I'm all for helping though. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked at WP:SNOW. However, that is neither policy nor guideline and someone is likely to do exactly what BB did and revert the closure. His reason for doing so was flimsy, but someone might argue "just give it time." This would be hard to counter if there were fewer keep votes (which happens). Perhaps a better way to go would be to modify WP:DEL, but I tend to think that something along the lines described above, might be sufficient (and simpler). Sunray (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELPRO isn't going to be changed until either WP:SK or WP:NAC is made into a guideline. If you honestly are looking to help, try looking over my page here and then go to my how to guide. I'm still working on it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• criteria 2 covers malicious nominations and the guideline says an afd tag is no big deal it gone in about 5 days, if anything it tends to be a positive as it encourages editors to expand and address concerns. Sunray raises three specific points in explain his reasons;

1. Sometimes a well-established article is wrongly nominated for deletion. if this was to occur then express your reason in the afd, most reasonable editors will withdraw the nomination when such any issue is highlighted. Alternative show how the article addresses the concerns raised there no reason to assume bad faith in such a nomination.
2. This may occur when an editor has limited knowledge of the subject how does one assess another persons knowledge of the subject, what is the distinction between limited knowledge and alternative POV.
3. or has a particular point of view that does not accept current usage regarding a term. where there are alternative uses of the term then its an issue over how to disambiguate the article names. Or do mean where any alternative POV exists but is excluded from the article in such cases NPOV is a valid reason to nominate an article.

IMHO such a change will mean that most AfD will be closed as speedy keeps within minute/hours of the nomination. Gnangarra 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to list as a reason for speedy keep:

• The article has been rescued (e.g. entirely rewritten) and is no longer the article that was nominated.

The Bed management AfD is an example: nominated when it had only 3 sentences and no references, it was relatively quick work to expand it using 6 authoritative references, so it became a speedy keep. Hopefully the Article Rescue and Intensive Care initiatives will result in more AfD'd articles being saved at the last minute like this. - Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what a coincidence - I was just coming here to make virtually the exact same proposal following the discussion linked to below. Is anyone opposing this? It seems only common sense to add it to the list.--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this for reasons spelled out in the linked discussion below. Plenty of editors say articles are heavily improved in AfD. I see no reason that discussion and admin discretion can't determine that rather than turning it into a SK tripwire. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So maybe it should be worded differently: e.g. "the article has been altered in such a way that the reasons given for the nomination can be seen objectively no longer to apply". If that's true (of course all SK criteria rely on someone's adjudging them to be true) then there seems absolutely no reason to keep the discussion open, confusing anyone who may stumble across it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Speedy keep is supposed to be a clear, bright-line criteria. something either meets SK or it doesn't. IF there is room for discussion then discussion occurs. I don't mean to treat the proposal so negatively but this sort of thing is important. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that this proposed criterion is any less objective than existing criterion 3. No point in continuing discussion over a moot point. If the article still deserves deletion on other grounds, then it can be immediately renominated. This has the additional advantage of keeping the "votes" from the previous discussion (which are no longer relevant) separate from those in the new current discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy which discusses (in part) changes to this policy. Please join the discussion. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be in disagreement - or at least is misleading when compared with - WP:non-admin closure. I think one of them ought to be changed, but I'm not sure which. For simplicity let's restrict discussion of it to the other talk page (and see there for my reasoning). Olaf Davis | Talk 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list in WP:Speedy keep#Applicability is introduced by "Reasons for a speedy keep decision include:". This phrasing is ambiguous as to whether the list is exhaustive. I favor a more restrictive interpretation of speedy keep, with a rationale like "keep, early close per WP:SNOW" taking up the slack.

• The WP:Criteria for speedy deletion are narrowly defined and applied. While avoiding an incorrect deletion is much more important than an easily-reopened AfD close, I would prefer a more consistent definition of "speedy".
• WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures lists SK and SNOW as separate bullets.

The specific terminology doesn't really matter since all keeps result in no action by the closer, but I see no harm or undue difficulty in being more precise. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 05:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion and support at WT:Articles for deletion#Speedy keep per SNOW, I propose adding the following text:

WP:SNOW is not a valid speedy keep criterion. SNOW may be cited for an early close, but its use is discouraged.

It would go in WP:Speedy keep#Applicability, immediately after the 5 reasons. I will add the text if there are no objections. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here.--Aervanath (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I made the change. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I wouldn't say discouraged. If the consensus is overwhelming or very clear, then there is no need to wait all the seven day to close with a Snowball Keep (or Snowball delete as well). JForget 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "discouraged" wording was based on a few closely-spaced discussions at WT:Articles for deletion where there was substantial support for discouraging early closures in general. I can find archive links if desired. JForget also started a related discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Snowball AFD closings. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this clause as well, and not knowing it was added since I've last read this page, I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushism (3rd nomination) that way. Do you really think that should have been left to run for a week after the previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushism (2nd nomination)? Pcap ping 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To use WP:SK for that early close instead, one would have to argue that the nominator acted in bad faith, etc. ("unquestionably vandalism or disruption"), which is a lot more troublesome than saying: the vast majority of the editors (all but the nominator in this case) !voted with valid policy reasons to keep the article, so WP:SNOW. Compare with WP:NOTNOW at RfA. Both are face saving. Pcap ping 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an early close was acceptable, but I would have preferred a little more time or keeps and an admin close. You're right that speedy keep would not have been correct. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not see consensus in that thread either, so I'm removing it. Pcap ping 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that consensus supports the discouragement (but not a prohibition):

• WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 52#Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days
• WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Speedy keep per SNOW
• WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#7 days
• WT:Articles for deletion#Early closures
  Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 59#Early closures. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much discussion about SNOW in those other threads, but I give you that the majority of editors that did express an opinion about it don't like it, so I've self-reverted. Pcap ping 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If a discussion is closed early then "speedy keep" is a reasonably clear way of explaining this. Saying that a snow close is an "early close" and that this is something different seems confusing and unnecessary - a difference without a distinction. I am therefore removing this clause. Andrew (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused by your explanation.  A snow keep is a true keep result, one that should not normally be revisited at AfD for six months, if ever.  A speedy keep is generally WP:NPASR.  Is that a sufficient distinction for you?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I reverted your removal. I inserted the distinction in May 2009, it was moved to its own section in August 2010, and it has remained there since November 2010. You (as User:Colonel Warden) restored a version where it was present in November 2010, although the separate section had been removed briefly. There have been disagreements regarding whether SNOW is discouraged (December 2009, April 2010), but there have been none on the entire section, until now. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an August 2010 discussion, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro), linked from #Clarification discussion below. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall considering the matter before. There seem to be two issues here:

1. Whether use of SNOW is discouraged in deletion discussions
2. How the close is described if there is a SNOW close

On the first point, my view is that SNOW should be used if the discussion and facts indicate that there is no chance of deletion. The AFD for Fred Housego is a fresh example. The subject is quite famous and so the discussion was immediately one-sided. When I see something like this, I will snow close it to save time and spare both the nominator and subject embarrassment. Such action should not be discouraged. One particular reason that this should actually be encouraged rather than discouraged is that having an AFD tag on a BLP is derogatory to the subject and so we should minimise such adverse exposure.

On the second point, the form of words "Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW" seems quite natural to me. This is shorthand for "Kept quickly because there was not a snowball's chance in hell that it would be deleted." Unscintillating seems to think that this is weak language which will encourage renominations. My impression is that it is quite the opposite. Anyway, what alternate form of words is proposed?

Andrew (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The English meaning may be words that "seem quite natural to [you]", but those words are ambiguous, because on Wikipedia, "speedy keep" has a technical meaning.  However, this ambiguity has precedent.  I propose that there are two basic avenues forward.  (1) Continue with the process below to rename this page as "speedy close".  As per WT:Speedy_keep#Proposal to delete reference to WP:KEEP, the current task here is to take WP:KEEP to WP:Redirects for discussion.  (2) Add another sentence to the Project Page with example terminology to use with a WP:SNOW closure.  (3) Do both.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Speedy Keep" does not have a technical meaning other than the straightforward one that the discussion has been closed speedily. There are various reasons that this might be done and "snow" is just one of them. My impression is that Flatscan just doesn't like snow-closes and so is trying to discourage them by trying to exclude them from the list of common cases. Andrew (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal.  To the section "What is not a speedy-keep", add the sentence:

An example of a snowball close is "Early close as Keep per WP:SNOW."

Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I shall list fresh counter-examples here as I encounter them. These will demonstrate that this section is a dead letter:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of infantry weapons of World War I
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Housego
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macklemore & Ryan Lewis (2nd nomination)
4. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Template:Infobox artist
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yank Barry
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sowers

...<more to follow>...

Andrew (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Macklemore & Ryan Lewis (2nd nomination): The close states "Speedy keep per WP:SNOW".  The close on the talk page is simply "Speedy keep".  Yet only one editor argued for a speedy keep, that being SK2c.  What was wrong with "Keep and speedy close", with the same phrase posted at the talk page?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Fred Housego:  The close was "Speedy keep per WP:SNOW".  The talk page reports the close as "keep".  There is nothing in the discussion about "speedy keep", and the talk page agrees that this is not a speedy keep.  The close is repaired by removing the word "speedy".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• List of infantry weapons of World War I:  This is marked as a speedy keep and so is the talk page.  There is a secondary interpretation as a WP:SNOW keep.  The two are shown and argued as distinct interpretations.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Andrew, you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Fred Housego and WP:Articles for deletion/Macklemore & Ryan Lewis (2nd nomination), and my bringing them to your talk page triggered this dispute. At WP:Articles for deletion/List of infantry weapons of World War I, you made a plausible argument for SK2e that was accepted by the closer. I agree with Unscintillating's analyses. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have given links to this discussion to the closers of WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Template:Infobox artist and WP:Articles for deletion/Yank Barry. Yank Barry and WP:Articles for deletion/Scott Sowers were both closed SK1, withdrawn by nominator. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, "Speedy keep per SNOW" is incorrect. Andrew, please don't confuse the two, as long as the page says what it says. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm quite certain that I've warned Andrew Davidson (in his "Colonel Warden" persona) about his improper use of "speedy keep" before. The distinction is clear. It's also clear to me that the most productive step forward would be to agree that, at the very least, Andrew can no longer close AFDs.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to strongly oppose this addition. It is very much instruction creep. The snowball principle is about reducing needless discussion by closing discussions whose result is inevitable… "SNOW" keeps (or deletes!) will always be "speedy" closes (i.e. <7 days of discussion) when applied. Making a distinction between "speedy" decisions and "SNOW" decisions is unnecessarily legalistic, especially as the basis for the snowball principle is the core policy "ignore all rules". The best argument I see for including this language is about limiting or allowing renominations … so why not deal with that directly? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After five years on the page, I think that calling it an "addition" is not accurate. As I recapped earlier this month, I inserted the proposed text in May 2009. It was moved to its own section in August 2010, and it has remained there since November 2010. I also linked a discussion from August 2010, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro). SK and SNOW were not the primary topic, but they did receive attention. "Speedy delete" (WP:Criteria for speedy deletion) is widely accepted as a Wikipedia term of art like WP:Notability or WP:Disruptive editing. I am confident that an admin closing SNOW deletes as "speedy" would quickly receive complaints and questions of "Which criterion did that meet?" SK's criteria are fewer and less rigorously delineated, but the concept is the same. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I think that this should be removed from the page, for the same reasons. I support replacing it with something reflecting practice on appropriate renominating, which seems to be the real concern here. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. "

I don't think this is a valid reason for speedy close. I have posted XfDs several times on behalf of someone where I myself did not have a position on the XfD. Usually this happens because someone clearly intends to nominate something for deletion, but is unfamiliar with our processes and has trouble completing the XfD process for whatever reason. Usually they have provided a rationale for deletion which I provide in the nomination, even if I remain neutral. I have never had one of these speedy kept before, and I don't think this is a normal practice to speedy close efforts to assist others in the filing of an XfD. If the intent here is to speedy close XfDs with no apparent rationale for deletion, then we should just say that. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be some sort of revision. The recent discussion WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 57#Procedural nominations showed little support for SK'ing procedural noms, except when the nominator had just declined a CSD or PROD and was listing "for more input" without a belief that the article should be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to reflect that we don't speedy close good faith proxy noms, and tried to clarify that the real problem is a nomination that doesn't include a deletion argument at all. Gigs (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revised it a little, mainly to preserve the numbering which is occasionally referenced. I think a single item covers these cases, as AfDs with insufficient nomination statements will be left open if a convincing delete argument is made separately. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't think of that. This version looks good to me. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a project page about that? 169.226.85.157 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be, unless you wanted to merge the pages on speedy keep and delete. You are taking an action every time you close a discussion, after all. "No action" is the same as keep. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination.

Every so often, there is confusion over whether a nominator may withdraw regardless of the AfD's state, i.e. if there are other deletes. (There must be zero outstanding deletes, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Withdrawal of AFD.) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'vi language.E2.80.8E‎ is an example. As I wrote there, the only change I can think of is italicizing and. Flatscan (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think we need to split that criterion. I have done it in the past but it was remerged to keep the numbering of the subsequent ones the same. I'm not sure that the numbering should be such a priority. If it is, then we need to do this CSD style and strike repealed criteria. I don't think we need to do that though, most people don't refer to speedy keep by the numbers.

Anyway:

1. No one other than the nominator has recommended that the page be deleted and the nominator withdraws the nomination.
2. The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging.

What do you think? Gigs (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we add "no one has recommended that the page be deleted" to your number 2. as well? If the nominator says to merge and then other editors come along and !vote delete it would seem silly to speedy keep on what amounts to procedural grounds, forcing those editors to reopen a new AfD if they want their !votes counted. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the current wording includes that for the 'nom doesn't say !delete' case - did you mean to include it Gigs? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Olaf Davis is right, the proposed (2) is not quite correct. If the nominator writes an invalid nomination (e.g., a merge only), the AfD can be SK'd immediately, but as soon as any user recommends delete, SK is taken off the table. I think the criterion could be rewritten as "there are zero arguments for deletion" and specific requirements A (no one else) and B (never made or withdrawn).

1. There are zero arguments for deletion:
   • No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and
   • The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination.

The less common criteria are referred to by number, such as at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The zero arguments thing could be confusing. A withdrawn nomination still put forth an argument originally. You see what I'm saying about the numbering though right? We are artificially hamstrung here if we want to both preserve numbering, and avoid doing the strikeout thing that CSD does. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "zero active arguments"? I agree that it's not quite right, and my first preference is for the existing wording plus italics. I understand your point about flexibility in the numbering, but I think that the current criterion should not be split, even without considering numbering. Another point for consistency: criteria 1-4 have persisted since April 2007. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "zero remaining arguments"? Gigs (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not quite right, but that sounds fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_2#Lady, and the guideline altered [2]. What does it really mean for a guideline to say "is discouraged". I think that SNOW should only be used to reduce embarrassment, or some similar reason, and that if its use leads to complaint, then it was poorly used. While experienced Wikipedians may know that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of a discussion ending up any other way, its use should be cautious where the discussion is serving an educational role for someone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a type of IAR. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what this guideline says about it, by definition. IAR isn't discouraged, it's one of our few core policies. I've moved this into its own section because the other conversation was ancient and it took me quite a while to find your comment even though I saw it on my watchlist. Hope you don't mind. Gigs (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'discouraged' in this context means absolutely nothing at all. It means if you're an admin and you want to use it, go right ahead, except in the most clearcut cases of abuse nobody will ever do anything.

In fact, if you've got a bunch of friends with or without sockspuppets, that's the ideal way to use this, you pad out the AFD with votes as soon as possible after opening, and then call SNOW; bingo, AFD is instantly dead. That's the intended usage isn't it?- Wolfkeeper 00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't think of any other possible use for it, if it really is SNOW, then you can just wait a few days and it will be self determining. The only people that benefit from closing with a SNOW in AFDs are up to no good.- Wolfkeeper 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nearly everyone disagrees with you doesn't mean that we are all sock puppets. You have continued to push an agenda that really does have a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming policy. I'm surprised you haven't been banned from policy discussions yet honestly. Gigs (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're not arguing with my logic, you're just making personal attacks.- Wolfkeeper 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you pad out the AFD with votes as soon as possible after opening"- couple of points. 1) Does this ever happen? That is not what happened in the AfD you're complaining about- that was a genuine discussion and true consensus was reached. Let me know when this solution of yours finds a problem. 2) Even if it did happen, surely only the "delete" faction could use that tactic because it relies on getting in quick before anyone notices. And the only way you can really do that is to know in advance when the AfD will be opened. Since the AfD you're complaining about was a snow keep, that does not apply. 3) You really need to accept that the War on Words is over, and you did not win. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it can be used as a mallet by inclusionists, and only inclusionists (given there is apparently no snow delete). And there's no way to know if you're being socked, a carefully used sock is undetectable; or for that matter just use email to set up meat socks. The policy surrounding AFD is based on the assumption that socks exist, and to try to minimise their effectiveness. Snow keeps have no advantages except for people that *have* to close the AFD quickly. Please tell me why they would have to do that in the context of the wiki, given the existence of speedy keeps and admin deletes for completely obvious cases.- Wolfkeeper 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is such a thing as Snow Delete, and it seems to be only marginally less common than Snow Keep. But anyway, I still maintain that trying to force a snow keep by canvassing or socking just won't work. Here's why: our hypothetical crooked inclusionist doesn't know about the AfD nomination until after it's happened. Then they have to set up their sock drawer or rally their friends, all of which takes time. By the time the inclusionist is ready to fire his weapons, two or three other editors might have wandered past and put in a delete opinion. A dodgy deletionist, on the other hand, has the advantage of surprise. He can line up his socks or meatpuppets in advance of the nomination and have them pile on the bolded deletes the minute he completes the nomination. But I'm not aware that that has ever happened. So if inclusionists can't dishonestly force a snow close, and deletionists don't do it, it's fairly clear that there's no problem to be solved here. Reyk _YO! 10:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments that SNOW is an instance of IAR, that it should be used sparingly, and that complaints and ongoing discussion usually indicate a poor use. I would be fine with replacing "is discouraged" as long as these underlying points are hinted at. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if it's being policed. What are you going to do? Take it to DRV? In practice the people snowing just trek across to DRV and do the same thing there. Snow is just pure mob rule.- Wolfkeeper 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why discouraged means nothing at all.- Wolfkeeper 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that wp:Snow is actually supposed to be part of WP:BUREAU, it's not IAR. IAR is about improving the wiki; BUREAU is more about cutting corners whenever convenient. SPEEDY KEEP is what they're supposed to use, it's been carefully designed for this. But they can use SNOW anytime there's a majority, and there's no restrictions at all.- Wolfkeeper 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wolfkeeper has made his point as well as it can be made, and it is likely that the editors who SNOWed the Lady AfD are discouraged by this fuss from doing it again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're funny.:-)- Wolfkeeper 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely no-one's disputing the early closure of the Lady AfD? This serves as an excellent example of when SNOW should be used - both because it improves the encyclopedia (we remove a distracting AfD notice from an article that people are likely to want to read), and because it saves editors wasting their time arguing about a case of angels on pinheads. As for educational value, the SNOW closure has that too - it teaches POINT-making nominators that Wikipedia's procedures are flexible enough that we don't have to go through them when doing so would mean being complicit in disruption. --Kotniski (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text you reverted to is subtle satire, but it is accurate in that it describes how the Wikipedia worked in that case. The AFD doesn't seem to have been done to make a point. You're supposed to have made the leap that that guideline is not how it's supposed to work. You don't appear to have noticed that it completely overrides all of the rest of the guideline, undermines the entire AFD process, and permits, and indeed encourages mob rule.- Wolfkeeper 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need fast decisions in the Wikipedia, we need good decisions in Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "mob" that rules refers to a large number of Wikipedians who disagree with you? We all come up against them from time to time, and there's no defence against them, with or without SNOW. And if the AfD process is being used to attack legitimate but imperfect articles to make a point about their imperfections, then anything that undermines it is greatly to be welcomed. However I agree with your last point, so will you agree with me that (a) we dispense with the AfD tags on articles; (b) discussion about possible deletion of an article take place on that article's talk page where you would expect; (c) there be no time set for how long a deletion discussion should last; (d) no particular distniction be made between "deletion" discussion and general discussion on possible ways to improve an article. That way we could talk about deletion in its proper context without any feeling of pressure or the general combative atmosphere.--Kotniski (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. What a terrible suggestion. Once you take oversight away from the community as a whole and restrict it to just the small clique of editors who might be interested in that article, you remove all possibility of maintaining this encyclopedia properly. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the AFD process is generally useful. The ultimate thing along the lines you're referring to is pure-wikidelete, but on its own it has severe limitations due to people being able to repeatedly edit-war dead articles back to life. At some point there needs to be a decision process that the article should be gone; and discussing the merits of an article, in terms of its adherence to policy is what we need. The worst parts of the AFD occur when people treat it like a vote. As a rule of thumb to stop this I find you must: 1) insist that the closing admin gives a policy reason for the decision (not just a majority rule) 2) point out where votes are unrelated to any policy- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that (but not necessarily "policy" - making the encyclopedia better is a higher aim than compliance with rules). But the same principles should apply to all decision-making on WP - I don't know why we should have a totally different procedure for page deletion than for, say, paragraph deletion. And I'm not saying that oversight should be taken away from any members of the community - you can comment on an article's talk page just as easily as on an AfD page - I don't really understand Reyk's objection. (Though we seem to be going off topic here, and I know the bureaucracy-loving folks at AfD won't entertain common-sense ideas like this one, so there's no particular point in discussing it further.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that without some kind of centralized thing like AfD where the whole community can be informed about deletion discussions, nobody will ever know about them. If I leave a note on some article explaining why I think it's sourceless rubbish about an irrelevant topic, who's going to read it? Only people who have the article watchlisted will become aware of it, and anyone who cares enough about the article to have it watchlisted will likely be inclined to defend it no matter how crap it is. Your suggestion would turn Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a playground for trolls, POV-pushers, fanboys and cranks. No thank you. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you do if only one paragraph is sourceless rubbish (but the watchlisters disagree)? We have ways of notifying editors at large of discussions which require outside input, and the same could still be done with discussions that involve suggestions of deletion (indeed we could still use templates so that this would happen automatically). But in many cases the answer to the objection that caused someone to want an article deleted is to improve rather than throw out the article, so it seems logical to have the discussion on the same talk page as, and in combination with, discussion on possible improvements to the article. Basically anything that encourages constructive discussion instead of combative and time-limited keep v. delete contests has to be a good thing (obvious deletes go through CfD or prod anyway). --Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the recourse when an editor believes in good faith that the problems with an article cannot be fixed through normal editing. It says so quite prominently at WP:AFD. And not all obvious deletes go through CfD or prod. A ridiculous amount of hopeless articles don't meet any of the speedy criteria but can't be prodded because the article's creator objects. AfD is necessary for these cases. And I think you'll find that AfD is pretty uncontroversial in most cases. The combative poofights only make up a small number of the dozens of articles nominated there. If it was really such a battleground, why are there only two or three deletion reviews a day? Seems clear to me that AfD is usually uncontroversial. Also, I'm not sure why you make such a big deal over the fact that it's time limited. AfDs that need more time to establish consensus get relisted anyway. Do you really want to create yet another category of backlogged issues stretching back years and years- because that's what will happen- and how would you respond to an editor who's upset because their legitimate concerns are not being dealt with in a timely manner? Replacing a centralized venue that works well in 95% of cases with a haphazard scattering of obscure discussions that will lead nowhere, be forgotten, and obstruct genuine attempts to maintain the encyclopedia? Sorry, but your suggestion is not a very good one. Reyk _YO! 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I see you're not going to be convinced - you don't convince me either (I don't see how you reach any of your conclusions about the disadvantages of my scheme), but since people are not very open-minded in this area, I know there's no point in taking the idea forward. (To get vaguely back to the original topic - rejected per SNOW.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's a no-brainer that pages nominated for deltion without any reason being provided should be speedily kept, but this isn't listed as one of the criteria. Is there any reason for that or is this simply so obvious that nobody has bothered to write it down? This AfD discussion prompted me to ask the question. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I've seen the nominator state their reason in a separate delete comment made sometime after the original nomination. While this would seem to be bad practice, it may be one reason why it shouldn't be a SK. Also, sometimes a reasonless nom is followed by legitimate reasons given by other editors, which might be another reason why not. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this is one of the criteria (the first one). "If the nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion ..." --Kotniski (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if nobody else advances an argument either, right. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should criteria 5 (The article is currently linked from the Main Page) be expanded to include articles scheduled to appear on the Main page within 8 days of the AFD nomination? DYK currently schedules updates 24 to 48 hours before they appear on the Main Page. TFA in turn often has items scheduled a week or two ahead. It is a simple matter to violate the spirit of criteria 5 by nominating an article minutes before it is visible on the Main Page without actually violating the letter of the law.

The 8 day limit is included to handle items at OTD which reappear on an annual basis are are thus perpetually scheduled to appear. If 8 days are not enough time for guarantee an AFD has time to be handled properly then a grace period (10 days, 2 weeks?) could be substituted. --Allen3 ^talk 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as someone who is completely ignorant to putting together the main page I would think that any issues brought up should, if nothing else, delay the appearance on the page. The main page is our window to the world and if someone feels that an article that is soon to appear there warrants deletion the argument should be carefully assessed not speedily kept. J04n(talk page) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page, specifically the reference to WP:SNOW, is being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro). Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro). Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that an editor is currently getting raked across the coals at WP:AN for an improper speedy keep, I feel silly closing this AFD the way I did. This guideline currently says..

If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be speedily closed and the page renominated on the correct forum, with the original nomination, and any comments made so far, copied over to the new nomination. The closing comment should indicate where the discussion has been moved. This does not strictly count as a speedy keep, since the page still remains nominated for deletion.

I propose that "wrong venue" be officially added to the speedy keep criteria as "6" and that moving such a discussion be made optional. A good reason for this is that arguments for deletion in one XFD might not apply in another. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your example close and see the usefulness of your proposed criterion. The example is a pretty clear case, a sub-stub redirected a day after creation and never edited since. I think there should be an explicit caveat that encourages users to review the page's history beyond its current state. Bulbasaur spent most of the last year in project space and as a redirect, but WP:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (3rd nomination) was the best venue, regardless of its state at nomination (it had been restored). Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A closure as wrong venue is not the same thing as a speedy keep. Your closure shouldn't have been "speedy keep. Wrong venue". It should just have been "Wrong venue". A keep means the debate is closed and the page should remain. A wrong venue means that the debate should be shifted to a different place and makes no statement on whether the page belongs. It's better being separate than one of the speedy keep criteria. However, I do agree with changing the current wording to make moving the discussion optional. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is weaker than a normal keep and usually does not present a bar to future renomination. I consider speedy keep and speedy close to be equivalent, which I think matches prevailing practice. My guess is that "keep" is meant to parallel speedy delete and to limit this page's scope to XfD. I do remember an AfD where an editor argued that speedy keep prevented a quick renomination; I think the closer there amended his closing statement to replace "keep" with "close". Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misremembered the AfD, it was very large group nomination that was closed at the normal time without decisions on the individual articles, what might be called a "procedural close", not a speedy keep. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a reference to the essay Wikipedia:Process is important, which is essentially an expression of minority dissent from our firm policy that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. It certainly doesn't belong on this page which is about how process really isn't important. --TS 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are zero remaining arguments for deletion:
   1. No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and
   2. The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging.
      • An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position. (If you dispute the deletion of a prod-ed article, just remove the prod-tag, sometimes nobody will want to pursue deletion of the article via AFD anyway.)

This really seems to be setting up a situation for early pile on "voters" ganging up on a nom, to get it closed before others have a chance to comment. And since DRV is not supposed to be AFD 2, it becomes fait accompli.

This may not be what's intended, but that's how it immediately came across to me upon reading it.

We already have WP:SNOW for this. And a procedural nom (like the last example) can wait out the time frame. There is no deadline, after all. - jc37 06:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand - this wouldn't cover the pile-on case you mention; it would only cover a case where not even the nominator himself (and no-one else either) was advocating deletion. --Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that that was one of the ideas that was being conveyed.

But in just that case, there is no reason to not let the discussion run the full length of time to ascertain that that will be the case. - jc37 10:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means an ugly "article up for deletion" tag defacing the article unnecessarily for a week, and people getting distracted into taking part in a pointless discussion (e.g. defending an article that isn't even under attack) when they could be doing something useful with their time. So I think there is every reason to close such things early.--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I might agree with that, whether it is or not is totally subjective, can too easily be "gamed", and besides, really, that's the situation for any page up for deletion discussion. (has the "ugly" tag on the page...)

And if the closer is concerned about process for the sake of process, there's always WP:SNOW, which this example probably better falls under anyway. - jc37 10:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you understand - this criterion is not subjective, and I don't see how it's gameable. Perhaps it's not written very clearly, but note the and after the first clause - it won't apply in any case where the nominator (or anyone else) is still arguing for deletion. It just allows us to get silly non-discussions off our books so people can concentrate on the real ones. (I don't know how often it actually happens in practice, but the principle seems a good one.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me to be a textbook example of WP:SNOW. And the principle (in general, and presuming it isn't being abused or gamed), is a good one. It's directly related to WP:IAR : ) - jc37 10:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think with SNOW, there usually is someone proposing (say) deletion, but with people opposing the proposal in such large numbers that it clearly isn't going to be accepted. That's a different situation than the one being described here. SNOW can be abused or gamed, but this one pretty much can't.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well SNOW covers both, actually.

And certainly it can be (But then anything can be if the person is determined, I suppose.) The goal being to try to avoid providing opportunities for such gaming.

I'm trying to avoid some beans here, but let's stick to my example at the top and your example.

Let's say I, as a helpful admin, pocedurally list a nom, but have no opinion in the nom itself (so the "nom" in this case does not suggest delete).

Now let's say that you don't notice the discussion til day 3. And you had some very good reasons to suggest deletion.

But, since I listed it neutrally, and by the second day, no one had suggested to delete, a closer came along and closed as "speedy keep".

Now that's just presuming everyone operated in good faith. What if a group of individuals make a practice of doing pile on keeps in the first 2 days of a nom, in order to "hopefully" attain that speedy close?

You guessed it, that's gaming the system.

This is one of many reasons why the discussions are a week long. It's to give editors time and opportunity to discuss.

But if a discussion really truly looks like it's process of the sake of process, regardless of whether the result should be keep, delete, or whatever, then SNOW it as whatever the consensus is, and let's move along.

Does SNOW get abused? Sure, I have no doubt. And so do most of the "rules" on Wikipedia. imho, the only true counter to editor abuse is editor vigilance. (and hope : ) - jc37 11:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose similar argumentation could be used about any "speedy keep" criterion. (Although if someone actually does happen to come along with a genuine reason for deleting something, they can always re-nominate, so a speedy keep close doesn't really matter that much.) All in all it would be better to drop this artificial distinction between speedy and SNOW closes, and try to describe as well as we can all the circumstances in which it's appropriate to close a discussion "early".--Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELPRO#Early closure - jc37 11:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the sort of thing. Since that exists (and leaving aside for the moment the question of whether consensus is for or against the criterion you removed), do we actually need this page at all? I suggest we simply merge and redirect it to the appropriate section of DELPRO.--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clause that was removed had absolutely nothing to do with SNOW closes, it was primarily about withdrawn nominations, or nominations in which the nominator wasn't advocating deletion. I think you failed to read the "and" between the two parts. I have combined them into one.

I have restored the clause over at DELPRO as well. I support redirecting this over there and completing the merge as long as that clause is retained. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, apparently. In my opinion, a.) This isn't a good reason to speedy and b.) when it is, it falls under WP:SNOW/WP:IAR

So in either case, it shouldn't be listed.

Anyway, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Removed_sentence. - jc37 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly completed the merge. Gigs (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. - jc37 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There seems to have been inadequate discussion. I was looking for the long-standing page and was surprised not to find it. It took some time to figure out what had been done. A case in question is when an argument for deletion is not advanced and so there is no case to answer. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School tie. Nobody, not even the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would that not be a WP:SNOW close for keep? And if it isn't, then why shouldn't it stay open the length of time? - jc37 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the simple answer is that it's not a SNOW close because by definition it's a speedy keep. It may seem like semantics, but it's the same reason that a G1 isn't an IAR deletion, because we've given it a formal criteria. SNOW is really just an extension of IAR and WP:NOTBURO.

On the mostly procedural issue of the merge, Colonel Warden, would you be opposed to the merge if it incorporated the full criteria as they existed before Jc37's edits? Gigs (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't mind if the merge is just a matter of putting the same content somewhere else. The new formatting didn't look so good but that's just cosmetic. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care one way or the other if this is merged to that.

For one thing, this would seem to be a page specifically for AfD (Something I didn't realise at first).

So do what you will with the formatting, but I think I should probably revert some of my edits which made this page appear more broad than it is. - jc37 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have raised a good point about this page's scope. If it is AfD only then we should make that clearer. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I reverted the page back to the edit just prior to my first edit here.

And nod, I agree. Including a possible name change... - jc37 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is going on now? What are the arguments for having this page separate from the one at WP:DELPRO? As far as I can see, only one person objects, and the objection is nothing to do with the pages being separate, only that the criterion (which Jc insists on suppressing whatever page it may happen to be on) is no longer there. Surely we can all see that this page merely duplicates a section of DELPRO, and is therefore redundant? And that whether the disputed criterion is included is an entirely separate matter from whether we have this separate page?--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the merge, but note that jc37 created that duplication just recently by copying this into DELPRO. It's not as if they were overlapping the whole time. I was thinking about it, and at a minimum, the stuff here applies to AfD and MfD equally, so I don't think it's too AfD-centric. Gigs (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, We're working on cleaning up DELPRO (It was a mess, and Black Falcon did a nice restructure) and one of the spots had a link to here, so I was checking it out (like I've been slowly checking out most links, slowly but surely). (And because of a discussion with kotniski.) And saw that this could be "tightened" a bit (some of the page looked like editorial comments that were better suited to the guide to deletion, for example).

And so I started editing here, and realised that the "meat" of the page could just be copied to DELPRO fairly easily. And did so.

There were concerns, and we started to address them through talk page discussion, and someone else came through, reverted the merge, and didn't like, etc. So I reverted my edits to make whatever discussion here "easier", and because of the seeming AFD-centric importance of the page. So no reason it can't stand alone due to NOTPAPER (ecept that redundancy in such pages means that it multiplies the editing needed for upkeep, and multiplies the pages that someone need to read.)

As far as "suppressing" - huh?

I thought that we worked out that confusion??

I even added it to the page at DELPRO.

(Though I removed it when reverting my edits here, since a new discussion was about to start - though I suppose I don't strongly oppose it being re-added once things are figured out here.)

So figure out whatever needs to be figured out, I guess. But I would strongly suggest that whatever the page ends up looking like, the text is done in a way to minimise abuse and potential disruption. - jc37 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I weakly oppose the merge, I think there's enough detail for a separate page here and a {{main}} at DELPRO. I agree that keeping all the criteria (pending discussion) is more important. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted."

Can this be clarified so boneheads don't spam it in any ArticlesforDiscussion (AfD) discussion that doesn't suggest deleting from the outset. Clearly AfD is used quite often to gain consensus for controversial mergers and this is just a way of saying "I'm too damn lazy to actually give a crap about this nomination and its merits or lack thereof, but I feel like I have to comment on EVERY AfD." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience nothing can be so clear that it can not be willfully misinterpreted. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The wording of Criterion 1 has been reviewed, most recently at #Withdrawing (Criterion 1) (January 2010) and #Removed section (November 2010). Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's being suggested here that the proposal of mergers is a legitimate use of AfD. Is it? If so, then I agree the criterion needs rewording, but we ought to establish whether AfD is intended to be used for that purpose or not.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe all proposed mergers should, but ones that will draw a lot of heat and arguing should. Talk pages are inactive often, and its usually only after action has been taken that someone chimes in and says "Hey! I think that should stay there". Just like categories and templates, I believe this should be Articles for Discussion (I'm told that there is consensus to do so, only the actual name change has yet to occur). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion regarding whether it is ever ok to remove a deletion tag before a discussion has started. I've suggested that WP:SK permits this but user:Guymacon isn't certain. As there is currently only the two of us, more opinions will be welcome.

The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause#Clarification Needed Concerning Deleting On Sight., please leave comments there rather than here to keep everything in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a case [3] where someone nominated a correctly tagged non-free file (complete with source, FUR and all as required) as a copyvio, and someone else queried whether this could validly be closed as a speedy keep. Seemed to me it fell into the same category as nominating an article you've never read, so I've added 'not read the file license etc'. Hope everyone's ok with that - please refactor if preferred. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in its current form 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a proposal to change from speedy keep to speedy close:

Rationale

• (1) A closure with speedy keep means that a page can be re-nominated again immediately, whereas with a keep closure a considerable period normally elapses before re-nomination.
• (2) A speedy keep !vote at an AfD is the equivalent of a comment, not a keep !vote.  Yet editors sometimes object at AfD that these should not be treated as keep !votes.
• (3) At the same time, editors are mis-using speedy keep as a !vote to mean a combination of strong keep and snow keep.

So the two should not be confused, and the association of this page with the word "keep" needs to be reworked.  One example of the problem is at WP:Articles for deletion/List_of_"Occupy"_protest_locations, which has two incorrect "Speedy keep" !votes and an incorrect closure as "Speedy keep".

Proposal

• Project page title
  • move Project page from "WP:Speedy keep" to "WP:Speedy close"
• Lede
  • intro shortcut: WP:KEEP --> <remove>
  • hatnote: WP:KEEP --> WP:SPEEDY CLOSE
  • lede: Speedy keep --> Speedy close
  • lede: "keep" --> speedy close
  • lede: "keep" --> speedy close
• Applicability
  • First paragraph: speedy keep --> speedy close
  • Exception: speedy keep --> speedy close
  • second paragraph: speedy keep --> speedy close
• What is not a speedy-keep
  • Section header: speedy-keep --> speedy close
  • nutshell: speedy keep close --> speedy close
  • first paragraph (2 instances): speedy keep --> speedy close
  • first paragraph: "speedy keep" --> speedy close
• When closing an AfD debate as speedy-keep
  • Section header: speedy-keep --> speedy close
  • first paragraph: speedy-keep --> speedy close
  • 2nd bullet: speedy keep --> speedy close (no italics)

Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has a problem in that it does not provide for a phase-out period (deprecation) of the existing "Speedy keep".  I'm withdrawing it for now in favor of working on smaller issues that will simplify the main proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal
Change the lede by adding two words, marked here with underscores:

Speedy keep is the process of closing debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and related pages with a result of "speedy keep" before the normal discussion period ends, but without unlisting or deleting the actual discussion. This guideline applies only to "speedy keep" closures; the criteria for speedy deletion cover the circumstances under which pages may be deleted immediately.

Rationale  The lede incorrectly states the result of the closure as it is now understood, calling it a "keep".  A keep result would mean that the community has considered the issues at an AfD and wants to keep the article for a while.  A speedy keep closure occurs without prejudice to an immediate re-nomination.  The correct closure, "speedy keep", is given further down the page, in the section WP:SK#When closing an AfD debate as speedy-keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also noting as part of the rationale that this page is now consistent on this point with WP:Deletion process#Early closure.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal
Delete the sentence that reads:

:'''''WP:KEEP''' is a deletion guide on entire articles. For the editing policy about keeping information in an article, see [[WP:PRESERVE]].''

Rationale  WP:KEEP is not a useful redirect to WP:SPEEDY KEEP, and should be redirected to WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes.  But before doing so, the mention at the top of the Project page should be removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:KEEP shows 60–70 uses. It might be best to list at WP:Redirects for discussion and take advantage of the automated tools available there. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here, one is whether or not, as per the proposal, to retain the mention of WP:KEEP on the Project Page here.

The second is what to do with WP:KEEP, which I take the point that we don't want to suddenly change the redirect.  I'm not familiar with WP:Redirects for discussion or those tools.  Without knowing what the alternatives are, I'd suggest modifying the WP:KEEP Project Page to make it a dab page, retaining the current link to WP:SK, and also providing a link to WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes, and adding WP:PRESERVE.  Then after a long time, the link to WP:SK could be marked as deprecated, and then with yet more time, removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that WP:KEEP has been a redirect to this page since 2005, and is the oldest redirect to this page that I know of, so I don't see a pressing need to change it. However, that is a matter properly discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion, not here. (See that page to familiarize yourself with it.) I have no objection to adding a hatnote in the interim to disambiguate this page from [[WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes. The hatnote that has been proposed for removal should stay there until WP:KEEP has been redirected elsewhere; as long as WP:KEEP is a redirect to this page, I think it would be confusing to remove references to it here.--Aervanath (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a current proposal to modify the AFD/DRV speedy keep procedure in this thread at the village pump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I'd like to alter the phrase "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". There are a several WP:Common outcomes that recommend redirection instead of deletion; the two I'm most closely involved with are primary schools and individual songs. In the case where the school/song is not independently notable (that is, when no significant coverage in independent sources can be found), we generally redirect the primary schools to the local school board or city/village/town, and songs are redirected to the album (or artist, if there is no album). However, it's also not unusual for someone (an alumni/teacher or fan) to object to the redirection. Now, if we apply clause 1 strictly, its impossible to nominate these for deletion, as the nominator would be proposing a redirect. However, the alternative is to engage in a much more lengthy (in fact, technically open-ended if the other party is insistent) process: 3O, RfC, DRN, etc. Now, I currently use AfDs for the purpose of these redirections; I even use them in cases where there haven't yet been objections but I anticipate there might be (maybe there's 1 source, but it's marginal). But I sometimes see people trying to move to a speedy keep based upon this rationale. It usually doesn't pass, but I don't see why the option should even be there.

Is there some way that we can rephrase this to avoid the problem specifically in cases where Common outcomes recommends redirection? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with your nominations, but I think that using AfD to resolve strongly contested redirects is a reasonable use of WP:Ignore all rules. I think it shouldn't be used routinely. Opinions vary widely: some editors will recommend speedy keep, some will discuss on the merits (but prefer that you had raised it on the talk page), and some send this sort of article to AfD readily. Your nominations are in a gray area, and the SK comments reflect that. FYI, this page is not well watched, so you may want to post a notification at WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This issue is included in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add "An AFD on article that is currently a GA, A-Class article, or FA class may be closed as a speedy keep. If you want to nominate an article of that class for deletion, then the proper venue is that classes review WP:GAR, the A-class review, or WP:FAR. "

Rationale: Articles at or above GA class have gone through a fairly extensive review process. AFDs on these articles are highly likely to be vandalism, and they almost always have a state in their history where they would be a widely accepted article.

Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I've ever seen an AfD for articles like this.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I havent either, but I assumed they existed (albeit rarely) and it was my lack of experience that had prevented me from running across any. If it's not a problem that occurs more than say once a month, then it's probably not worth cluttering up the page with a new criterion that would have the potential to be misused/misinterpreted.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I'm a bit late in coming to this discussion, but I wouldn't recommend barring any article, no matter how well-written, from a deletion discussion. I think the snowball clause already covers this proposed criterion pretty well. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary problem I see with this proposal is dealing with elaborate hoaxes. There have been case where WP:HOAX articles (as opposed to articles about notable hoaxes) have existed on Wikipedia for years before they were detected and locating proof of a hoax is not always easy. It is easy to imagine some of the examples I have personally seen in my years at Wikipedia that could fool an inexperienced or rushed reviewer at GA. When such a hoax is detected, it is in the project's best interest to be efficient in its removal. Requiring a slow review process before such an article can be nominated for removal just prolong the problem. --Allen3 ^talk 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 is correct; we've had hoaxes among GAs. As for FA, those are harder to come by, but here is one (linked from the main page at the time!): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:JzG: In the interests of avoiding further confusion, could you please confirm, in express words, that when you said there was "no consensus to change" in your closure of the above thread, and "no consensus to change policy" in your corresponding edit summary, you meant there was no consensus to change the wording of criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Speedy keep from its original wording that had existed for many years before this recent edit changed it to something it has never been (which must, in ordinary language, be a change of policy), and which isn't necessary to allow the nominator to advocate redirection (ie advocating redirection after deletion or advocating both deletion and redirection as alternatives are already allowed under the original wording). James500 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was made for clarification and is based on "Allowing the nominator to advocate redirect is current practice, and this debate shows no consensus to change that." I believe that is fairly clear. However the old language in the guideline did not reflect this and has been used by some to close down AfD discussions asking for a redirect. I believe my clarifying edit is entirely consistent with the closing statement in the RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you'd be right about that. The context is clearly that existing consensus does allow people to propose a redirect and that this practice should not change by fiat (these guidelines are supposed to reflect practice not direct it).

The other should also be clear. The proposal referred to a recent change mandating WP:BEFORE, and the debate clearly shows that there is little support for making failure to follow WP:BEFORE a grounds for speedy keep. Obviously if the nominator has not followed BEFORE, there are likely to be many other grounds for speedy keep. Equally many debates are allowed to run when they should be expeditiously closed as delete.

If people think there is still ambiguity, then perhaps a more specific RfC listed at Central would be an idea, but let's not forget m:CREEP. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ad Orientem's change reflects both current practice and the RfC close, so I have restored it. Reyk _YO! 20:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the only people who claimed, during that RfC, that advocating redirection without also advocating deletion, at least as an alternative, was our existing practice, were ansh666 and Lukeno94. A lot of people said that they wanted this to happen and be allowed in the future, but very few people claimed it was already happening. A number of people explicitly claimed it was not already happening. My experience is that nominations that argue for redirection without also advocating deletion, at least as an alternative, are normally shot down in flames using criteria 1 of WP:SK. So I can't understand JzG's reasoning, unless he is using the words "existing practice" to refer to what people say they want to happen in the future, rather than what actually does happen now, which is not what those words would normally mean as ordinary English, hence my confusion. James500 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, my vote should be understood as meaning that redirect recommendations at AfD happen now, are certainly allowed, and should not be forbidden. It is baffling that anyone would try to interpret it any other way. Reyk _YO! 22:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be "existing practice" per the wording on the policy page, but it definitely is in the field. I had actually never seen an AfD advocating redirection closed per SK1 before. ansh666 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per my experience at AfD, which is considerable, AfD nominations that don't provide a direct rationale for deletion may be closed as speedy keep. The notion of a redirect-only AfD nomination goes against the grain of what AfD is for, articles for deletion. Furthermore, there's no mention of a redirect-only AfD nomination as allowable at WP:DEL-REASON. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]