 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
.jpg)
Summary: When a well-attended deletion nomination forms valid points of view by experienced editors, even the slightest shadow of Keep after adequate commentary (and surely after one relisting) should be enough for the nom to be Kept by a closer. If a large percentage of the experienced commenting editors find value in an article's encyclopedia's information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value.
Wikipedians shape language into "just the facts, ma'am", and excel at focusing societal reality into articles and images. While most WP:BEFORE-adherent nominations correctly end in unopposed deletions, many well-contested discussions occur. WP:GNG claimed or denied, viewpoints presented and arm-wrestled into submission, editors diligently work to improve or disprove the page.
"Keep" arguments achieve merit when credible adherents reach either a primary or a strong alternate point-of-view. Some do this rather quickly, while others do so after discussion and additional sources clarify a logical "Keep" viewpoint. Rule of thumb maintains that the discussion should end there, the page Kept, and the article allowed to roam free to educate the readers.
Recognizing a shadow of keep can often save an enormous amount of unneeded bickering, nitpicking, and time sinks which may accompany such discussions. Editors might fight like wild animals (or sugared-up children) when a deletion nomination goes on too long or has one or more relistings (usually an indication that the Shadow of Keep exists). The nominator should then consider kindly withdrawing their good-faith nomination and ask a closer to step in early and Keep it. A closer may receive complaints that they have put their thumb on the scale, but everyone knows when the shadow of Keep exists and when it doesn't, and a review of a properly done rule of thumb closing would likely be endorsed.
Until next time, when the article is nominated for a second, third, or even a fourth deletion attempt. After being saved more often than Rapunzel or Rasputin, by the time a page survives a first relisting or a second dog and pony show the Shadow of Keep and Rule of Thumb should mix with WP:COMMONSENSE to disallow a third or fourth bite of the apple...unless a very good reason emerges. Should triple jeopardy exist on Wikipedia? Rarely.