 | This page describes a proposed process or system that is in an experimental stage. Consensus may or may not exist for this process. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
Deletion advocacy is an alternative, experimental forum for discussing deletion, usually of articles. Unlike every other deletion forum, which involves a nominator, a variable amount of people chipping in their points, and a closing administrator, exactly three people are involved: the deletion advocate, the inclusion advocate, and the judge. The idea is to get rid of the bulleted bold statements and to change the frame of debate from "who can get the most people on their side" to "who can pose the better argument".
To advocate for the deletion of an article, create a new section on this page. Use this form:
===[[PageName]]=== * Deletion advocate: ~~~~ * Inclusion advocate: * Judge: Argument for deletion. ~~~~
If you disagree with an article's deletion, sign up as the inclusion advocate. If you have no opinion one way or the other and you are willing to preside over an idiosyncratic deletion discussion, sign up as the judge. As expected, the deletion advocate is the one who makes the case for deletion, the inclusion advocate makes the case for keeping, and the judge moderates the debate. It is expected that those three people are the only ones involved in the discussion. After a certain amount of time elapses (probably 7 days), the judge closes the discussion and makes the decision. These things are not inherently binding, though it is technically possible for them to be. Just don't do anything rash.
Try it out!