Wikipedia talk:Postpone: An Alternative in AfDs

I changed the wording of the template a little, to avoid confusion with the existing Deletion Review process. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems redundant

If an AfD's outcome is unclear but there's a reasonable chance more time could allow a consensus to form, we already have the simple mechanism of relisting. This seems to bring more bureaucracy to that, for not much benefit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My simple answer is that this has more to do with defending wikiminorities from WP:systemic bias than unclear consensus. Moreover, this can also be used to combat those times when perhaps consensus is formed all too quickly and opinions are made stubbornly as parties take it personally against each other. It's like how when a couple argues, they do not listen to each other and refuse to compromise on principle even when it harms them both. But just keep the two arguing people apart a little while to let tempers cool and then bringing them back together afterwards can make all the difference to keeping a happy marriage together. —CodeHydro 12:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that this is supposed to allow articles more time to meet concerns from AfD voters. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as to give AfD voters more time to consider their reasons for judging an article. As in the case cited in the essay, when there's a flood of AfDs on the same topic at the same time, people tend to stop considering the individual merit of the articles, instead judging on a vague impression of the subject as a whole. When given only a short amount of time to examine large pile of rocks, it's easy to miss the diamond and throw it away with the rest. That's why even publicly open areas with diamonds for the picking like Crater of Diamonds State Park still yield plenty of diamonds year after year. —CodeHydro 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just move the article out of mainspace?

It seems to me that a far better solution would be for someone who wants to "rescue" the articles and believes they can do so request to have the article moved to either the WP:Article Incubator or to a sub-page in that user's userspace. That way, the unverified, NPOV, or potentially non-notable content (the most common reasons I can think of that would merit the use of a Postponement) is not in mainspace, but still exists for the benefit of those who think the article can be salvaged. Besides decreasing the quality of mainspace, postponement also makes AfDs even more messy than they sometimes already are. Essentially adding a 4th option (on top of keep, delete, and merge, along with the hybrid "keep or merge" and "delete or merge" options) simply confuses the fundamental issue, which always should be, "Does this article meet our core policies and guidelines?" To a large degree, I see this policy as trying to invoke the the eventualist view of "There is No Deadline", while I'm arguing the AfD process in specific and Wikipedia in general is "better" if we follow the immediatist view. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about single articles. As described in the essay, this proposal is a response to a recent mass nomination of thirteen closely related articles within a week or so of each other, completely overwhelming any rescue response possible from the groups underrepresented by Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Moreover, most of those articles were fairly well-established and several years old. Do you think it's fair to make one person be the caretaker of 13 moderately long articles in their user space? That is an undue burden to ask of anybody. By leaving the articles up a little longer, more people can work on it. And I disagree about postponing making AfD messier; I believe it is the rushing the creates chaos. Postponement will allow parties to spend more time researching and verifying notability in order to make a more informed decision. Moreover, is it not true that people are far more likely to get trampled in a rushed stampede than in a slow and orderly march? In short, postponement is supposed to ensure that mass-nominated AfDs happen in an orderly manner. —CodeHydro 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, as you said, the article incubator is also an option, but as the article incubator has far fewer people accessing it. Often the incubator ends up being a sort of graveyard anyhow... many of the articles haven't been edited in months. By postponing the AfD, it maintains the deadline pressure to make the article survive the AfD process, but does so without in a less-overwhelming short period of time. —CodeHydro 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely think it's fair that someone who wants to defend content that doesn't currently meet guidelines take the responsibility for fixing it, and enlist whatever help (say, a relevant Wikiproject) they need. It's not like a bathtub--one's userspace doesn't overflow just because it's got a lot of stuff in it.

Ultimately, though, our real disagreement is in our interpretation of WP:DEADLINE (and the pillars, and how to apply them). I would personally much rather have articles deleted now then leave up bad articles in mainspace. If the subjects really are notable and verifiable then they'll get recreated. Your policy is essentially an attempt to convert eventualism into policy, which I don't believe (or, perhaps, I just hope) doesn't have enough the consensus to be done.

Finally, I have to say that I find your invoking of Systemic Bias to be a little disturbing, given that the example you're trying to defend is essentially the polar opposite of the points that WP:Systemic Bias addresses. The bias that article (in my opinion, correctly) addresses is that we focus very heavily on things like Transformers at the exclusion of real people doing real things in other countries, in lower social classes, that aren't easily verified and/or don't meet the interest of the "average" Wikipedian. Now, maybe you don't mean to connect the two (Systemic Bias and Transformers), but I just wanted to let you know that that is striking me in a very off way. --Preceding unsigned comment by Qwyrxian (talk).

I think you're missing an important aspect of this proposal: that the postponement would involve automatic relisting by bot at a later date (usually only 1-4 weeks later). Eventualism necessarily means no deadline, while clearly automatic relisting is a deadline. If issues are not addressed by the time the second AfD closes, then it will most likely result in a delete. Please do read (not just skim) the whole essay before commenting further. —CodeHydro 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Under what circumstances would an article be postponed? Let's say that most people !vote for deletion, but one or two people ask for a postponement to improve the article. Does the postponement automatically "win"? If not, it seems like postponement doesn't work--presumably, only 1 or 2 people want postponement; if it was a larger group, they would likely be able to reference in time. Assuming AfD isn't actually a vote, how does the closing administrator way requests for postponement? Do they have to judge the likelihood that postponement will solve the problem? Do they have to weigh issues like the number of articles of similar type being nominated? Can a closing admin decide that postponement is fruitless because it's unlikely the article will be referenced? Let's take the Transformers-specific case--would it be acceptable for the closing admin to decide that individual transformers cannot, by definition, meet notability guidelines (except perhaps for a scant few that have received individual media coverage, say stars of the film) and thus consider the requests for postponement to be not relevant? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it would be up to the discretion of the closing admin to decide whether postponement should be used. As with any discussion, it is not just about the number of !votes, but also the quality of the arguments that determine the result. Obviously if a bunch of people say "postpone" without any one of them giving a single half-decent reason when asked, then it would be fair for the admin to ignore them and act on the opinions from rest of the discussion. Moreover, I will not pretend to be able to predict exactly when and how this process should be used as the circumstances of each case may well be unique and nobody on Wikipedia can know for sure what uses of postpone with auto-re-list would cause controversy and which ones won't without trying it out. —CodeHydro 18:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'd like to see in this venue

Personally, I think an AfD delay for current events (about two weeks) might be beneficial and conferred uncommonly. When Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis was started, the event was only twelve hours old. I suggested early on in the AfD to wait a week, but I think two might be better. By that point the news has stopped developing for most stories and it is easier to judge such things as notability. Raymie (t • c) 04:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, while news may not be worth keeping after it's no longer newsworthy, it certainly is worth keeping the article alive at least while people are still trying to read about it in my opinion. —CodeHydro 20:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what Wikinews is for? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How does the removal a week earlier of information help those who seek to learn more? Is it not true that people are more likely to (re-)create content while a subject is "hot" in the new if they don't see an article on it? Could leaving the article online until interest in the topic dies save Wikipedians from having to re-write, re-discuss and/or re-delete the article again and again until future notability becomes clear? —CodeHydro 13:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)