Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive2

Nikkimaria my recommendation is to just ignore this.

For years, out of processs FACs and FARs were g6-deleted. Years. I don't know when that changed, but it doesn't much matter. If deleting or blanking the page is no longer acceptable, then no harm is done if the page just sits there.

Proper FARs have two possible outcomes: FA status is Kept or Removed. If an article is nominated out of process (that is, instructions weren't followed), and the article is not reviewed, then FA status is neither kept nor removed. Adding a third option to every piece of the process to allow a third outcome (faulty nom) would be goofy, make unnecessary busy work, and create an incentive for those who don't follow instructions to keep doing so. If we archive this as Kept, it would leave a false impression that an article was Kept at FAR when it wasn't, disallow another FAR in the short term, and also make a mess of the URFA stats, the FA stats, the articlehistory-- every piece of the process would be messed up, and merely result in incentivizing those who don't read the instructions to codify a non-event into archives and articlehistory. When an article isn't reviewed at FAR because the conditions necessitating a FAR weren't met, we don't codify that in archives or files or articlehistory; that would mean creating a third and unnecessary option. Ignore it.

Piotrus: Is there a reason this has to matter so much? It hasn't for 20 years ... why now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, re Liz's comment that there's too much content on the page to delete-- lesson learned. Close out-of-process FARs immediately with a move of discussion to article talk page, so discussion doesn't occur on a faulty FAR page. I know you and I both always got on out-of-process noms right away, so I don't know why this page kept getting commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia Replying here to this line of thought: not having seen the g6 deleted content in question, I cannot comment on it. If there is a custom that need to be added to the rules (be it speedy, or page blanking), then this can be done (probably after a discussion at a relevant page). My intent here is too register an objection to a what seems like a pointless deletion (blanking) that is not supported by the written rules, it is a slippery slope to censhorship of discussion (note I am not suggesting any bad faith on the part of anyone here, I am just pointing out that we have strict rules governing when content can be deleted and blanked, and they are strict for very good reasons IMHO). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz see separate discussion at Nikkimaria's talk page. For years, and years (when I was FAC Coordinator), I tagged out of process FACs or FARs as db-g6, and admins deleted them right away. I guess that process changed at some point, so I understand your hesitation, but viewing WP:G6, a) the page was created in error as a result of not reading or following the instructions, and b) it should be uncontroversial housekeeping to delete the faulty page (rather than corrupt archives and other pieces of the FA process files) because the content of this page was moved right away to article talk, where it is now enshrined in talk page archives. This happens so rarely that it would be odd to create a whole 'nother category and prcoess to deal with obvious errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]