User:IgnatiusofLondon/Break the newstrap

Many articles about breaking or recent news stories follow a typical cycle on Wikipedia, the premature newstrap:

1. An editor creates an article on a breaking or recent news story.
2. Another editor nominates the article for deletion.
3. The deletion discussion prematurely debates the tension between the topic's notability and Wikipedia's scope. Because the topic is in the news, the deletion discussion typically attracts widespread participation.
4. Editors participating in the deletion discussion chase the moving target of the news story's notability, particularly its lasting coverage. Earlier participants contribute to the deletion discussion with certain expectations about what future coverage might be afforded to the story. From further developments to the news story, or the lack thereof, later participants have updated expectations about this future coverage.
5. The deletion discussion closes, with the risk of giving disproportional weight to the contributions of earlier participants. Meanwhile, the news cycle moves on, and the very next news item starts its journey through the newstrap.

What's the issue?

The premature newstrap means that some articles about news stories are kept or deleted prematurely. Had the deletion discussion taken place only a few days later, the outcome of the discussion could have been different. If the outcome was a premature deletion, editors may have to recreate a deleted article or contest its deletion through the deletion review process. If the outcome was a premature keep, then Wikipedia retains an article about a news story that, several months later, a subsequent deletion discussion may determine to be unencyclopedic.

Therefore, through the premature newstrap, editors who believe the news story should receive encyclopedic coverage can inadvertently contribute to the article's premature deletion, while editors who believe the news story should not receive encyclopedic coverage can inadvertently contribute to the article's premature retention.

The same tensions, policies, and arguments are typically repeated and debated across different breaking or recent news stories. Through its widespread participation, the deletion discussion may consume many editors' time, for an outcome that is often challenged anyway.

How can we escape the premature newstrap?

We can try to stop the premature newstrap at every step of the process.

Don't rush to create articles on breaking or recent news stories

Further information: WP:DELAY

Many articles on breaking or recent news stories can be treated as part of an existing article. For example, a fire at a notable building can be treated as a section in the building's article (e.g. 2024 Børsen fire → Børsen#2024 fire). There may also be a list article that summarises other examples of the event (e.g. Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello → List of political self-immolations).

Often, it is prudent to start articles on breaking or recent news stories as sections in these existing articles. To encourage other editors to do the same, you might even create some redirects to the section. Through building consensus on the article's talk page, editors can discern together whether the section about the news story should be spun off from the article.

Don't rush to nominate articles on breaking or recent news stories for deletion

Further information: WP:RAPID

There is no deadline. By waiting to nominate an article on a breaking or recent news story for deletion, you permit editors time to reflect on the news story's notability as it becomes clearer over time, and therefore have a better chance of reaching a definitive, lasting consensus on the topic's suitability for Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, you can help the article by ensuring it is reliably sourced. Many articles about breaking news coverages.

Because many news stories can be treated as part of an existing article, a merge is often a viable alternative for deletion for articles on news stories. If there is a suitable target article, consider starting a merge discussion rather than nominating the article for deletion.

Don't rush to participate in deletion discussions about articles on breaking or recent news stories

A deletion discussion typically runs for seven days. By waiting to contribute to the deletion discussion, you are likely to have a better-informed perception of the topic's notability, and be able to argue more clearly, concisely, and convincingly why the article should be kept or deleted.

Of course, you should allow sufficient time for editors to read and respond to your rationales. Waiting until the very last minute to contribute to a deletion discussion can frustrate attempts to build consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

Acknowledge how editors' timestamps may affect their evaluations of the article

In the deletion discussion, it is helpful to note how earlier editors may have worked under different presumptions than those available to later editors.

Be ready to acknowledge how the distance of time and any further developments in the news story might have affected the contributions of other editors, especially yourself. If you were an early participant in the deletion discussion, it may be helpful to briefly comment at a later date on whether time, further developments, or the contributions of other editors have qualified or changed the views you expressed.

Suggest a procedural close to a deletion discussion

This essay posits that, for articles about breaking or recent news stories, deletion discussions that wait have a better chance of forming a lasting consensus. Therefore, the premature nomination of articles about breaking or recent news stories constitutes an issue with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself, the criterion for procedurally closing a deletion discussion. By enforcing WP:RAPID, and recommending that the article not be returned to deletion for a week, a procedural close can encourage editors to collaborate towards building a lasting consensus.

This conclusion is not established consensus on Wikipedia, but a minority viewpoint argued by this essay.