[WikiEN-l] Clarification about prevailing AFD closing practices

[Todd Allen]

Leif Knutsen wrote:
> I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently,
> namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's my
> understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
> * Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
> criteria for inclusion, outlined here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
> * If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
> * If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put to
> a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
> * Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
> period of time
> * No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a clear
> sense to delete is it deleted
> * As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not have
> an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting
> the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
>
> Did I get anything wrong here?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
You are correct...but only in general. A lot of people interpret "The
closing admin should only interpret consensus, never override it" as
"Count the votes and shut up." I do not know if that is your take on it,
but that is not the case. (If it were, we wouldn't need admins to close
AfDs, we could have a bot do it.)

Admins are expected to look at strength of argument, applicable policies
and guidelines, and the like, and weight accordingly. Someone making a
strong, convincing, policy-based argument will (and should) be weighted
much more heavily than (insert one of: bare vote, interesting, likeit,
dontlikeit, cruft, useful, effort, etc.). If many early arguments are
based on a lack of secondary sourcing, and then significant secondary
sources are found, a good closer will discount the earlier arguments
based on the now-falsified premise entirely (unless the person who made
it indicates that they re-reviewed the situation and still believes
deletion to be appropriate).

Or in other words, it sounds simple, but try doing it sometime.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070807/8d9e645a/attachment.pgp