User talk:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2023. The result of the discussion was Speeky keep.

We agree

Randy, I think you might find the beginnings of my latest essay interesting: WikiPurpose. It still needs work, but it's a start. I have a number of other essays listed on my userpage. -- Valjean (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, when I wrote the above, I hadn't read your essay carefully, just noticed that you tend to be an inclusionist, like myself. Now I've read it and was shocked to read this: "I was told off real good..." That really saddens me. I'm very sorry you read my explanation in that way. That wasn't my intention at all. -- Valjean (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valjean, thanks very much, that's more of a figure of speech on my part, wasn't offended at all. My apologies, and I'll change the language. You seriously inspired me to finally start this, esp. the "rule of thumb" description. Read much of your essay, good one (I've never written an essay before). But like the interesting-why-it's-still-not-closed ongoing discussion I linked, many editors differ on GNG, and maybe if enough lean Keep, even if there is disagreement, the thumb should be on the scale. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We agree, we disagree

I agree with the idea that if an article has closed as Keep, and it hasn't significantly or exceptionally changed, then it shouldn't be brought back to AfD. I also understand your shadow of keep as a variant of WP:SNOW.

However, simple numerical math isn't how things are run by AfD; consensus is most importantly (or as importantly) decided by the strength of the argument. Would you really close a nomination with 7 keep votes that do not address the nominator's concerns, and 0 delete votes, as "keep"?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Marsh (writer) (2nd nomination), where you plugged your essay, seems to be a very poor example of it, because:

It resolved as no consensus on the first deletion nomination, due to minimal participation (1 keep). No prejudice against speedy renomination. It's clearly not one of those abuse cases/can't accept the results that you talk about.
The relistings were done because the notability concerns I raised were not addressed by the first respondents. Clearly, the article is in much better shape now than it was before, but the !keep votes were throwing WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments around and sidestepping the fact that there were no sources to determine notability. Luckily somebody with topical knowledge made the effort of finding the offline sources (although most if not all don't satisfy the nominator's WP:N concerns, in my view, but that's a different question)
There's also the issue in WP:BIO that if the article fails the basic criteria but meets one of the SNGs, which was the argument brought forward by !keep votes, the recommended move is to merge (per WP:BIOSpecial). Hence why it was reopened and relisted.

At any rate, I think it's a valid essay, and I hope you bring it to completion.

Pilaz (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pilaz, thanks. Just chiming in with another viewpoint (that improved page seems to have the 'Keep' momentum which, I'm saying with this essay, should be the thumb on the scale). Will disagree that it's another form of WP:SNOW, as SNOW requires overwhelming agreement while this just requires, after an AfD has been listed for awhile, just a thin shadow of Keep for a close. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

better examples

If you want to find better examples of articles that have been nominated for deletion at AfD, you can perform a search for

intitle:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*th nomination)

Example here The largest number of renominations of the same article that I'm aware of is 17, BTW. Vexations (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vexations, will take a look, have been bouncing around talk page discussions the last couple of days which cuts down on my Wikipedia-attention time. 17? Holey moley. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, nominated (and kept, of course) 17 times. The title of the article, the name of the organization, is (intentionally) offensive to many people, but you can find it here. The next most-nominated article may be Daniel Brandt with 14 nominations. Note that the current article is about a different person with the same name. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]