Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 3

< Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Nihiltres in topic Explicitly exclude SNOW
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Snow Again

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

This issue has come up at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_2#Lady, and the guideline altered [1]. 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I notice that you're not arguing with my logic, you're just making personal attacks.- Wolfkeeper 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's why discouraged means nothing at all.- Wolfkeeper 05:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
LOL, you're funny.:-)- Wolfkeeper 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Deletion nominations that don't provide a reason for deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
If and only if nobody else advances an argument either, right. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes.--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles scheduled to appear on the Main page

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

  • 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)

Clarification discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

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)

Wrong venue

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

See also

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Removed section

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion
  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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WP:DELPRO#Early closure - jc37 11:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Boldly completed the merge. Gigs (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Support merge. - jc37 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

SK 1

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

"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)

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)
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)

Clarification regarding deleting on sight

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Erroneous nominations

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just had a case [2] 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)

Change from Speedy keep to Speedy close

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)

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)

Proposal to bring current two literal references in the lede

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

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)

Proposal to delete reference to WP:KEEP

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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

AFD/DRV speedy-keep policy discussion at Village Pump

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Consider altering position 1

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)

new common sense criterion

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

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

Explicitly exclude SNOW

Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments9 people in discussion

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)

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

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Also, I do not see consensus in that thread either, so I'm removing it. Pcap ping 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that consensus supports the discouragement (but not a prohibition):
Archived to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 59#Early closures. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for taking the time to review this. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep/Archive_3&oldid=1146639905"