This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This has been bugging me (and others I have talked with), but this has to be settled since in the last few months people have started saying "Keep/Delete per OUTCOMES" as their only argument in AFD debates. This essay has NO sources to back up the claims that any of the consensuses the page are actually the consensuses (particularly the one about schools supposedly being notable). Both of these are problems (people using this page of opinions as their only argument, and not having any sources). TJ Spyke 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a notability guideline as such, but is an indicator of consensus at AfDs. I've just put in a few more links to guidelines and notability essays which go into more detail on subject areas, and reworded some sentences which assumed that a series of AfDs which result in a topic not being deleted therefore confers notability on that topic, rather than acceptance by the Wiki community. Notability depends on Wikipedia:Verifiability, and that is one of Wikipedia's core content policies which cannot be overlooked. A series of AfD discussions which result in a common outcome that a topic is unlikely to be deleted means that the topic itself is acceptable to the Wiki community, though notability still has to be established by verifying the topic through reliable sources. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is troublesome. It presents statements of outcome with no references and essentially operates on the honor system. How do we judge when something changes? Only someone going through all the AFDs for a particular topic could reasonably make a claim, and I don't see any of those claims here cited. Pages should be deleted based on their merits according to policies and guidelines; at most, there should be a page for consensus on each topic (for example, a place to discuss the inherent notability of roads). I understand that this sometimes happens, but this page is too general and unsourced to be of use in an AFD discussion, though I HAVE seen it cited by people. Epthorn (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just encountered a person in an AFD a few minutes ago whos only reply was "Keep per WP:OUTCOMES". So it's still a problem as sometimes others will join in and cause an article (usually school articles) to be kept when it fails actual policies and guidelines simply because enough people cited this essay/opinion piece as reason to keep them. TJ Spyke 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen OUTCOMES cited much, but I have the same problem with it: it's not reliable, because it's not sourced at all. It looks to be the impressions of a handful of editors regarding how things turn out, which leaves a lot of questions. How active the editors were in AfD, how long a period of time on AfD the allegedly common outcomes have been true for, etc. You can't really discuss precedents without having the precedents in hand. The archive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents/Archive has the same problem. It would be nice to have good evidence regarding common outcomes, but at the moment it seems to me that it would be difficult to collect. I'd suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#put_categories_in_AfD_discussions.3F that searching for AfDs would be enhanced by adding the categories of the articles they were discussing to the AfD itself. If the search function could also be improved, then it would be easier to go through all the AfDs for various specific topics to note common outcomes and then be able to link them (which would also permit people to easily verify for themselves that the summation of how they went is correct). Though there's still any number of problems with following precedent when it comes to Wikipedia, unlike most other systems where it makes sense that precedent holds sway. Шизомби (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it says the Spelling Bee winners are notable, what about national winners of MathCounts? They're notable too, don't you think?--Heero Kirashami 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say neither are notable, but they are significant - they rate a mention on the competition's page, not a whole article. Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

The people section of the article contains the following:

"city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"

And was raised as an argument for keeping some articles I was proposing for deletion from London. Have looked further I think this article is confusing and also confused about the nature of local government in different cities. For a start is contradicts WP:BIO which states:

"just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"

and I think precedent has been for the deletion of London councillors with no other notability. Just looking at the examples cited Toronto has 44 city councillors, Chicago has 50 city aldermen and San Francisco 11 board members. London, on the other hand, has 32 councils plus the City of London, each election between around 40-60 councillors, giving it around 1,500 councillors (I'm not listing all 32, but you can find them all at London borough. The London Assembly on the other hand only has 25 members, who I think do attain notability. Could I suggest that the text in the article be re-worded to:

elected local officials are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping the members of city-wide bodies of major, internationally famous, metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London.

This avoids confusion from the different titles and gives an unambiguous statement about the level of office required for notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, this kind of thing is an example of why we shouldn't blindly follow precedent, but need to thoughtfully consider cases on their own merits and consider applicable policies and guidelines. If we could apply simple rules to the deletion process, there would be no need for us humans. Jakew (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• My only concern would be that membership of the City of London Corporation, for historical reasons, should be considered notable in a way that being a borough councilor should not be. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• When looking at London you have to take into account that the London Assembly has very limited powers. I would consider that the leader of one of the borough councils, such as Paul Lorber who is up for AfD, is more notable than a member of the London Assembly, as most decisions which affect the lives of Londoners at the local level are taken by the borough councils. The London Assembly is little more than a talking shop. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also the argument that a councillor has more real power than a backbench MP, because the councillor has more direct access to the people responsible for the services most people care about, like housing, education or social care. However, the test for Wikipedia is not power, but notability. On that criteria most council leaders are not even notable in their own borough, this article suggests name recognition is between 16-28%, frankly I'd be amazed it is that high. It would certainly drop significantly towards 0% outside of their own borough. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be amazed if name recognition for GLA members is anywhere near 16-28%. Do you know of any survey that has that information? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Generally, my instinct here would be to defer to the judgement of the people most familiar with the topic as to how to define notability vs. non-notability — precedent statements are just guideline summaries of how AFD discussions have tended to go in the past, not binding statements of invariable policy. They can always evolve and change as AFD treatment of the topic evolves. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, an apparent system of rules is likely to be treated as binding, even though that isn't the intent, whereas a more general description of the result of past discussions tends to encourage people to use their judgement. For this reason, I think we need to be careful about refining too much. Jakew (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I think the problem here is that the article is suggesting a precedent where none exists, that London councillors are notable with nothing else. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not suggesting a precedent that doesn't exist — it's just suggesting a precedent that some people legitimately feel should be reviewed and/or revised. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of the following seems more accurate?

• "Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping all councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"
• "Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping some councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"

Jakew (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be awkward and say neither! I think the problem is with the word 'councillor', since few places actually use the term (in SF they are Supervisors, in Chigago they are Aldermen) and the one place they are used the precedent seems to be that they need something else to gain notability. The first is definitely inaccurate (a London councillor was deleted yesterday), the second implies that being a councillor can be notable, but doesn't explain the extra hurdles. I still prefer using a more neutral phrasing like "members of city-wide bodies" - not elegant, but it avoids confusion caused by different political systems. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried a wording change which, I hope, reflects the general consensus of this discussion:

Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors.

Please feel free to edit mercilessly if the wording isn't quite right, but it's an effort. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm way way way too new at this to dare edit directly - boldly, mercilessly or otherwise. I would suggest, however, that the second sentence is unnecessary since the reference to 'citywide government' excludes London Borough councillors. Also thank-you for raising this issue on one of my AfD discussions, I've learnt a lot through the process - about Wikipedia and local government elsewhere. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learned about Wikipedia policy and guideline statements, it's that sometimes we need to specifically spell out certain things even if we consider them blindingly obvious — trust me, without that qualification, somebody will eventually cite the precedent in favour of a borough councillor somewhere in the world. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A good point, and given that, ignore my previous suggestion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was arguing if HD179949 should be proposed for deletion per WP:N but couldn't find a policy for that. When is a star/planet notable? Don't say every star is notable because there are many. Like 10²². --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at what is considered by consensus to be notable. A minor pass Willow Creek Pass (Montana) was overwhelmingly considered to be notable, though the written policies and guidelines didn't clearly indicate that situation. I have now updated the Outcomes to show that, so at least there is something in writing.

It is quite likely that there has been similar previous discussions regarding stars but nobody has put the findings on Outcomes. It would be worth putting it up on AfD to see the reaction if nobody here gives a better answer. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a more comprehensive article at HD 179949. --Iamunknown 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Language: "University or college student unions tend to survive AfD, although not always."

Proposed Language: "UK and Canadian University or college student unions tend to survive AfD, but American student governments tend not to survive AFD without significant secondary coverage"

Why? American student governments tend to fail AFD. UK and Canadian student unions do very different things, so they tend to pass. Out of 16 AFDs on US Student Governments that I have been able find, only 2 have passed AFD without a Delete, No Consensus, or Merge. Looking back at the record (Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Deletion)

12 Deleted in AFDs: 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7, 8,9,10,11,12

2 Merged from AFD: 1,2
2 No consensus: 1,2
3 Keep: 1,2, 3

Thoughts?--Flunkerton (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the proposed change is correct. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• I believe your data is correct since you're pretty much relisting/reformulating AfD outcomes from WP:UNI/D, but to get a better picture, someone needs to dig deeper and find AfD results from before we started logging them on WP:UNI/D (which was maybe a month or so ago max). I have voted in AfDs of NN student unions and other orgs before, but you are essentially correct. I was the vice president of my university's student government and American SUs do operate differently, but notability is the key. We really shouldn't begin generalizing these AfDs. I still believe the case-by-case basis evaluation of notability is the best way to determine whether the AfD should result in keep/merge/delete/nc. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • I agree, and I think that the language shows that notability must be established. I think the current language might lend itself to some specious arguments that I have seen in some AFDS: like this or this or this or this or this or this and in trying to establish blanket student government notabily. So, I think the new language gives a more accurate picture of the reality of AFDs on US student governments.

• • • As far as digging deeper to find more old AFDs, I tried. A few weeks ago I did search through a bunch of old AFDs trying to find more student governments. I searched for things in the wikipediaspace with "Associated Students" "Student Association" "Student Government" and "Student Union," and I add the ones I found to the WP:UNI/D archive. So, there are more out there, but I couldn't find them.User:SevernSevern aka --Flunkerton (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, personally, I don't think there's a problem with the current language. Here's the reason why. I agree with what you're saying (and if you look at those AfDs, you'd find my respective comments on each one of those AfDs) What you're proposing is basically to counter one person's (previously) somewhat relentless push to make SUs all inherently notable. I think the current process has carried its course properly and that WikiProject proposal is most likely not going to go through. The current language on individual notability establishment is, in my honest opinion, the fairest and most transparent way for any article, student organization, student government, student union, etc to have their own article. But hey, I'm always open to suggestions. Why don't you draft what you think should be the proper wording? (because or else we'd be talking theoretic future wording that no one knows what it's going to entail...lolz) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New language for this section?
"The notability of student unions may vary between different counties and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor in each AfD"

• Support User:SevernSevern aka --Flunkerton (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the new description. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support as well.—Noetic Sage 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just added a statement about nationally broadcast TV series being notable, because I've seen it claimed in AfDs often enough that I've started using it myself. As far as I've seen, as an argument it's always carried the day, and yet it wasn't documented anywhere. I notice above that it's been brought up more than once -- so silence consent, being bold, et cet. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This page seems to come across like instructions that often mirror notability guidelines in large parts rather than a set of precedents. What's the difference between this and notability guidelines? --neon white talk 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is meant to serve as sort of a thumbnail guide to how notability tends to be interpreted in cases where a notability guideline doesn't already clearly cover the subject. In some ways it serves as kind of a first step toward improvement and expansion of our notability guidelines by helping to identify new issues and conflicts where further work is needed. That said, I agree that in some cases old on-the-fly precedents have been left on here even after being fully integrated into and/or obsoleted by a higher-level guideline, and some newer precedents that should be added here haven't been. Some updating and revision is definitely needed — this should be one step in the evolutionary and improvement process for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but too often it ends up being reified as an end unto itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The page says "Shows and tours of bands should be listed in the band article, not in a separate article", and this has been used as justification for deleting concert tour articles in AfD. This text makes it seem like no concert tour articles exist or are justified, which is just plain incorrect. Many hundreds of concert tour articles currently exist, and are populated under Category:Concert tours. It is true that tour articles are sometimes brought to AfD, but many, perhaps most, have survived. Recent survival examples of sets of tour articles include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Syndicate Tour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stones American Tour 1981, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alive II Tour. Even one recent one that was successful, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour, deleted most, but not all, of the Rush tour articles. Same story with Metallica tours, most but not all deleted (sorry, I can't find the link right now). Want older examples? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Box Tour is a survival from a couple of years ago that turned into a speedy keep.

The common denominator has been, that tour articles that just list tour dates and set lists are liable to get deleted. Tour articles that don't have any references to real, third-party reliable sources and media attention are liable to get deleted. Tour articles that are well sourced and that discuss different and notable aspects of the tour do not get deleted. I am modifying the page to reflect this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunney's Pasture Station (OC Transpo) seems to have highlighted somewhat of a contradiction between two statements in the transportation section of this guideline. Specifically, one part of it says that subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable, while another says that bus stops are not notable, with the exception of certain hubs in major cities — and both statements are being simultaneously cited by opposite sides of the Tunney's Pasture discussion.

Thus, I'd like to request some input on how to revise the section for increased clarity about what is and is not acceptable. My understanding of the precedent as it stands is that an article about a station on a subway, commuter rail or bus rapid transit line is generally acceptable, as long as it's properly sourced, but articles on run-of-the-mill "shelter and pole" bus or trolley stops along regular road routes generally are not — however, I'd like to know how other people perceive the precedent before making any unilateral change.

Please note that this is not a debate about where the notability cutoff should be for transit stations — if somebody would like to raise such a discussion, this isn't really the place for that. But until such time as there's a formal proposal, we do need to be a bit clearer about where the precedent currently stands whether we agree with it or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"... individual stations are questionable."
This isn't accurate. I keep a close eye on the "places and transportation" category and I've been here for years now and I have no recollection of any existing or former train station article being deleted. I have a vague recollection of a tram stop article being deleted, but I'm not even sure about that. Some proposed station articles have been deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the notability of individual series and their constituent episodes seems to be something that no consensus has been reached on - the opinion seems to be that if someone creates enough articles and screams loudly enough if/when they're deleted, that the community isn't particularly bothered either way (so we get periodic pruning/recreation giving a kind of 'status quo'). However, what happens with one-off television shows ? Is it down to the number and quality of references provided, or is there some set of base criteria to meet (bearing in mind that such references are often harder to locate for smaller countries) ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES#Media states:

Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable.

Is Trinity Broadcasting Network a "major network" in this context? (See List of United States over-the-air television networks for size comparisons.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The boxes at the top of the page are lying over each other. Can somebody please fix the layout, Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The removed text was

• People initially notable for one event are generally kept in their own article (independent of the event's article) if mainstream national media begin covering aspects of the person's background (schooling, occupation, childhood, family life) unrelated to the notable event for which they made news, within 48 hours of that notable event.

The timing here is irrelevant - many such articles could arguably be removed by application of WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E can still be reasonably argued in the case where additional coverage of an individual's biography is made relatively soon after an event, since the coverage will be related to the event so notability is afforded only by the single event, which is what WP:ONEEVENT is all about. This also doesn't take into account the possibility of applying WP:SBST, which is the aspect of the general notability guideline relating to exactly the kind of short-burst of news stories that this addition refers to.

The most pertinent point in this case is that this kind of article has discussions that have consensus both for keep and for delete, or have no consensus at all. There is no clear consensus that arises over and over again as there might be with inhabited places. Since this page documents common outcomes, intended to be pointed out to a nominators to allow us to prevent a pointless AfD discussion, the fact that there is no common outcome to all of these suggests that this should not be included here.

To be clear, I do not have a particularly strong opinion on the sentiment of the included piece (although I am unhappy with the fact that this does not acknowledge even our most basic policies) but rather with its inclusion in this list specifically. Perhaps take it to WP:BLP or WP:BIO for inclusion as part of the guidelines? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To see the discussion that spawned this, see Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Premature_BLP1E_AfD.27s. This started at WT:BLP based on my concerns that AfD's of people currently in the news (e.g., Susan Boyle) make us look silly, and the change was made here because there was a consensus that RS coverage beyond the event eliminates ONEEVENT concerns, but no consensus on what happens in the mean time--speedy merge or allow a grace period for the person to fall out of the news. Per WP:CCC, NOT#NEWS and ONEEVENT seem to be applied in practice (that is, articles being actually deleted on these bases) more and more sparingly.

I'd love to hear from others on...

• Some recent examples where the rule of thumb does NOT represent an actual AfD outcome. I'm not aware of any in the last, say, six months, but my knowledge is far from complete.
• An alternate wording, perhaps more narrowly constructed, which captures the sentiment that even if a person's done nothing particularly enduring, if RS's cover facets of their lives outside the context of the event for which they were propelled into the news, then N is satisfied and ONEEVENT is moot. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'l have a crack at this later (I'm about to head off), but this sounds more like it would benefit as an implementation note at WP:AFD so that it is properly codified. This is just an essay, after all. I'll have a look through my AfDs for ones I've closed where ONEEVENT was applied. But there doesn't seem to be much consensus for this addition at the talk page you cite above: I just see you suggest it, someone say maybe, and you say you've put it here. I think the discussion is worth having - I think putting it here is premature and a little pointless, since it will have little effect. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The present wording is "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, while fewer than 15% have actually been deleted. Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools in most cases being kept. Schools which do get deleted are frequently, although not always, redirected to the school district which operates them." The 2005 data is now well out of date and the wording no longer reflects the common outcomes. I have participated in every school AfD in the last couple of years and reviewing them I think that the following wording better reflects the outcomes:

"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools which do get merged are generally redirected to the school district which operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere)."

I should welcome comments, please. TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I believe you should make the change. If anybody objects, we can talk about it. Maybe you should put in the date of your observation. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Make the change. I saw one high school deleted, because there was no verified source. Anyone creating a new high school article should make sure to have proper sources, especially if the school is brand new, rather than established for several years and producing graduates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that "School districts, once verified, are inherently notable."

This statement, in the 'Media' section offers no definition of "major network" or "major studio", nor any context for determining notability on a case-by-case basis. What size of "major network" or "major studio" was this precedent based upon?

Further, the statement appears to contradict WP:NME#Programming, which places primacy on RSes rather than audience size in determining notability. ("In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.") Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "major" may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by AfD participants, but seems explicitly intended to exclude local public access cable channels. If any show, whatever venue, meets the GNG, then the guideline wouldn't limit its inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If the definition of the precedent "may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis" then it lacks any value as a precedent (whose value is due to its certainty). The purported precedent may have been 'created' on the basis of very large "major" networks or studios (e.g. networks that have near-ubiquitous coverage in the US, or studios covered in Major film studio), but be applied "on a case-by-case basis" to far smaller networks/studios than provided the basis for its creation. This would be the equivalent of stating "big companies are notable" on the basis of The Walt Disney Company and General Motors, and then attempting to apply this precedent "on a case-by-case basis" to the 'biggest company in our small town'. Hence my original follow-up question: What size of "major network" or "major studio" was this precedent based upon? To which I'd like to add second a follow-up question: is there any indication that it was the size of the network/studio that was the determining factor, or was it (as WP:NME#Programming suggests it should be) the level of RS? To put it another way, is this precedent merely the legitimisation of an irrelevant WP:BIG argument? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:OUTCOMES--it's intent is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It is a collection describing how past decisions have tended to be concluded in AfD. I'm not sure an abstract question is appropriately answerable here. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I don't think that I do "misunderstand" it in the least. Your use of it here (expanded here) looks pretty darn "prescriptive".
2. I would further point out that a 'description' that fails to 'describe' the most pertinent detail (hardly an 'abstraction') -- i.e. how "major" the network/studio has to be in order for their programming to be "notable" is descriptively worthless.
3. I would therefore conclude that, your claim notwithstanding, this statement has little "descriptive" value, but that its main value is "prescriptive", to be used to push an agenda at AfDs, regardless of whether the the AfDs underlying this precedent actually support such a view.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of this statement

Given:

1. the failure to define "major network" or "major studio" so as to provide meaningful guidance;
2. the failure to establish any strong relationship between network/studio size & notability of individual programs (rendering this a spurious WP:BIGNUMBER claim); and
3. the potential and actual (including by Jclemens themselves, see difs above) "case by case" misuse of this statement as a "prescriptive" argument against deletion.

I am recommending that this statement be removed from this pseudo-guideline. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Hrafn cites not one single case of an AfD improperly closed and overturned at DRV which cited this particular clause. Until and unless such happens, this remains an accurate description of community consensus, despite the wishes of a self-described precisionist that it be made more black and white. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: what a completely spurious counter-argument. Is any purported "common [pattern of] outcome", no matter how vague, irrelevant, coincidental (or even frivolous) to be kept, unless and until a DRV has reversed an AfD on that exact point? Then I would therefore like to propose a 'common outcome' of my own: that articles whose title is related to the colour red are generally notable (commentors in AfDs may of course decide "on a case-by-case basis" what constitutes a relationship to the colour red, and what level of relationship is needed). As I'm sure no DRV has reversed on this point, it should be an obvious pick under Jclemens' criteria. I would also point out that Jclemens clearly "misunderstand" [sic] himself -- as his criteria for rejecting a 'common outcome' is blatantly based on its "prescriptive" use, not a "descriptive" use. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to interefe with your line of argumentation, but you were the one who brought up "prescriptive" argument as a cause of action in your point #3. Furthermore, your proposed new criteria lacks one critical element: a consensus that addition is appropriate based on a trend in previous AfD outcomes that supports its documentation as an expected outcome. If you want to add or change WP:OUTCOMES, feel free to first collect a series of AfD outcomes that document where the existing wording is deficient. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. You brought "prescriptive" up first: "it's intent is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive" -- I was merely rebutting your claim which is contradicted by (i) your own actions & (ii) by your argument above. It is therefore entirely reasonable that I bring up its prescriptive misuse as a supporting reason for removing it.
2. Your demand for documentation stands policy on its head: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I am not suggesting the addition/restoration of material, I am challenging whether existing material is (i) substantiated & (ii) sufficiently well-defined as provide any legitimate guidance. The burden of evidence lies upon those defending its retention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a policy page, not an article. If you want it changed, the burden is on you to find a consensus. Absent such a consensus, the policy doesn't change. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not "a policy page" (hence the lack of a ((policy)) on it. Nor is it a formal guideline (it's, currently undefined, formal status would most probably be closest to an essay). It is a page that purports to document existing WP:CONSENSUS. As such, the burden is upon those claiming that such consenses exist to substantiate their existence (and demonstrate that they have not been misrepresented or extrapolated/expanded from). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying it twice doesn't make it true. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Well, nobody else seems to want to take this request on Wikipedia:Third opinion, so I'll give it a shot.

• This isn't a policy document. It isn't even a guideline. It's a record of typical outcomes to AfD discussions.
• Given that, I see nothing wrong with such a record describing an outcome to keep or delete an article based on the size of a media outlet.
• There is no need to define what constitutes a "major" media outlet. That's splitting hairs, and irrelevant to whether the sentence should be deleted. The definition would reasonably adapt to the context of an article. For example, college football players are described in media having nationwide scope, but that doesn't mean that every college football player is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; the player needs to have more than the standard coverage for his vocation to meet criteria for inclusion. However, that same college-football-player-level of coverage when applied to, say, an elementary-school tiddlywinks champion, would be something significant to warrant keeping an article.
• Nevertheless, Hrafn is correct. The burden of proof does not lie with the person claiming a negative. Hrafn makes a negative claim that AfD outcomes aren't based on how "major" a media outlet is. Jclemens makes a positive claim that the contentious sentence in this article is supported by consensus reached through multiple AfD discussions. One cannot prove a negative, so it's up to Jclemens to find supporting sources to keep this sentence. If there is no record of AfD outcomes that depend on perception of how major a media outlet is, then the sentence should go.

That's my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if WP:BURDEN doesn't apply, then WP:BRD does, does it not? Furthermore, this opinion presupposes that I added the clause, which I did not. It's been around, uncontested, for 13 months, and reflects prior guidance elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I presupposed nothing, and I apologize if it came off seeming so. I did not check the edit history to determine if there was edit warring going on. The discussion above was sufficient for me to form an opinion.

I also did not say WP:BURDEN doesn't apply. The sentence makes an assertion that is supposedly supported by multiple AfD discussions. If there is disagreement on that point, then it is up to the person who restores (or wants to keep) that sentence to provide evidence that such discussions took place. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think various coaching institutes getting students prepare for entrance examinations(specially in India) serve no purpose here.Being hardly notifiable they deserve for quick deletion. For example this one:FIITJEE.--Shashankgupta (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to post this. Once a lot of them have been deleted in AfD's, adding that information to the page may be beneficial, but trends are catalogued here, not started. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like for the watchers of this page to please comment on a related discussion at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Google_is_not_the_be-all_and_end-all_of_notability_for_an_article. -- œ^™ 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the changes here reverted by User:Jclemens here, calling in edit summary for the user to discuss his position. When User:Sancho Mandoval reinserted the changes here, I incorrectly reverted the changes as vandalism here. While I stand by my choice to revert the user's latest change, I apologize for the incorrect use of my automated tools. I also immediately applied a sincere apology to the user's talk page.

All that said, user seems to want to discuss this, but on my talk page, making this personal with me, so I've created this thread for discussion appropriate to the changes mentioned. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, BusterD edited the page to indicate that "Google is an indicator of reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Search engine test" (oddly enough, Wikipedia:Search engine test says the opposite). But since he put the claim back in there, I'll let him defend this odd take on the inherent value of Google search results. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The analysis you've decided to highlight on your user page badly misinterprets the position taken by User:Jclemens or by myself in reverting your edits. In the context given on the page, under the section which relates to Internet, the bullet point "Programming languages are acceptable if widely used; Google is an indicator of reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Search engine test" is hardly controversial, and doesn't remotely translate as "If a term gets a lot of google hits, that means there are reliable sources" as you have written. BusterD (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think "Google is an indicator of reliable sources" means? It really isn't even a coherent phrase in the first place... Google... the company? The search engine? The number? is an indicator of reliable sources? It means there are reliable sources? It's confusing wording, I'd really like to know why you insist on including it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BusterD is now asking JClemens to help deal with this, I guess Buster never imagined he'd be alone here... is it that hard to admit you added back in indefensible nonsense just because we can't have "new users" making corrections? Apparently so. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I wasn't aware of why Google would be an indicator of reliable sources for programming languages. Google can help show something is popular, but it can't really given any evidence of notability. While Google can certainly help find sources, I'm not sure why ghits should matter any more for programming languages than any other subject. While I agree that popular languages are likely to be notable, I'm not sure we can say popular = notable, which is what this page currently appears to say. (Which would appear to go against WP:GNG). Perhaps this should be re-written for clarity? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That a term gets a lot of Google results doesn't automatically mean there are reliable sources, but indeed this page currently seems to imply the opposite. A programming language would likely only be kept at AFD nowadays if it met WP:GNG.. this page gives people the wrong idea. It needs to be changed, but BusterD has put a stop to that. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you were originally reverted for not discussing first. I'm not sure why you would need to (since this isn't policy, WP:BRD should apply) but in any case, we're discussing it now. I've removed the parts that seemed contradictory to me, but I'm happy to go with whatever version makes the most sense to people. Best, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES is a summary of the common outcomes at WP:Articles for Deletion. Some editors erroneously believe that it is a policy or guideline. Should it be changed to clarify its role as a source of information instead of rules? Brief summary added for RfC page by WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem Statement

WP:OUTCOMES is not an official guideline, but it is erroneously treated like one by many editors, who cite it in AfD debates: "Keep as per WP:OUTCOMES." This page is supposed to describe the outcomes of the most common types of articles nominated for deletion. However, because of all the advice given on the page, as well as use of the term "precedent," the page has a more proscriptive than descriptive tone, which adds to the confusion. Simply put, WP:OUTCOMES tells us what to do and what not to do, when it is supposed to be summarizing what has been done and what has not been done. This has resulted in "guidelines" which are in conflict with official guidelines, and the citation of false consensus in AfD debates in contravention with established policy. To quote Shereth here:

Solution

I have overhauled WP:OUTCOMES to make it what it purports to be: a description of common outcomes. I have altered the language so that it is truly descriptive of outcomes and does not appear to guide or proscribe behavior. I have removed references to precedents. I have changed language so that "X is notable," which can appear to be a guideline, now says "In the past, X has survived AfD as notable," which is truly descriptive of an outcome. I have left the tips at the end of the article, as they are clearly labeled as tips and so will not be confused with guidelines or policies.

All "guidelines" that are true guidelines can be found under their respective article titles in the WP: namespace.

This solution is designed to refocus AfD debate onto actual policies, reduce irrational arguments (citing WP:OUTCOMES as sole rationale for a keep or delete), and stop WP:OUTCOMES from contradicting existing policy, since some editors (especially new ones) do not recognize that WP:N takes precedence over WP:OUTCOMES.

Reversion

If you disagree with a couple of my edits in this overhaul, please edit the article rather than reverting everything.

Sorry, but no. Whole thing gets reverted per WP:BRD. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:BRD is an essay, not a guideline or policy. I want to start there. Secondly, according to WP:BRD it is most appropriate for use "when other methods have failed, when cooperation has broken down, when it is not clear that a talk page request for discussion will generate any significant response, or when no editor is willing to make changes which might be perceived as controversial." None of these are the case now, as you have not attempted other methods, nor cooperating, and did not attempt a talk page request for discussion, or even notice one had already been started. Thirdly, if you're going to use WP:BRD as a process, you need to use the process, not just cite it as a convenient reason to revert someone's edit. As per WP:BRD: "Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert," which you did ("Reverting per WP:BRD"), and "Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion:" there is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page." Your edit summary was your only "discussion" until I contacted you. Lastly, and related to my last point, as per the article you cited, WP:BRD "requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so...In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve." Is "Sorry, but no," all your tact? Come on. WP:BRD is a good essay, and it is a viable process when used appropriately, but the key words are "used" (you're not really using it), and "appropriately" (this isn't an appropriate use, when other methods have not been tried and the talk page has not been used to discuss).

I think all this stems from the fact that you, in my opinion, according to WP:BRD are not a Most Interested Person, having found my edit on a Recent Changes Patrol. As per WP:BRD "the assumption is that Most Interested Persons will have a page watchlisted and will quickly discover if a particular page is changed." WP:BRD clearly states that the BRD process generally fails if "Individuals who are disinterested revert bold changes." HOWEVER, I think that discussion and consensus are necessary to a big change like this, so I'll put up an RFC and bring some interested people who are knowledgeable about this issue in for comment. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be more succinct? Fact is, policy and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive so the entire premise of your change is invalid. OUTCOMES not being a guideline, or BRD not being one for that matter, are irrelevant to whether your change is a positive or negative revision to the page. Jclemens (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Jclemens has chosen not to answer any of my points regarding his alleged misuse of WP:BRD. He simply asked me to be "more succinct." ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Neither policy nor guidelines, which are set by consensus, are descriptive. Why didn't you respond to Noraft's criticism of your approach? I reverted your reversion. Follow WP:BRD the way it is written, which you are not doing. Or even better, follow WP:ROWN117.132.24.245 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think *I* can be more succinct, since you (Jclemens) can't be arsed to answer the points Noraft brings up.

• You are citing WP:BRD as reason for reversion, but you aren't following the process of WP:BRD (you aren't following WP:REVERT or WP:DRNC either)
• WP:BRD is not appropriate in this case, anyway. See WP:BRD misuse.

To add my own point:

• You're not looking at the bigger picture. There's a big problem here that this guy is trying to fix. You yourself said his/her edits were "mostly good." If you don't like the one sentence about how it shouldn't be cited in AfD debates, take it out. Even if you disagree with that, the point about how WP:OUTCOMES is descriptive, not proscriptive stands, and the changes will solve lots of problems we currently have in AfD. What is it you're trying to defend? 123.124.225.63 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly well-versed enough in policy to WP:AGF, and your assertions of BRD misuse are way off base. In BRD, discussion moves forward from the revision prior to B. I don't see the point in addressing any points that stem from a fatally flawed starting point, and yes, as I stated, once we hash that out, there's probably a lot of the revisions that can be incorporated into a new version. Please sign in or create an account to help facilitate discussion. IPs swooping in and reverting, RFC or not, looks suspiciously like meat or sockpuppetry, so it's in everyone's best interest to avoid such appearances. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentary/Debate

If you wish to comment or disagree, I have provided this space for you. Please assume good faith. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So this entire change assumes the value, usefulness, and citability of this page without discussion. Citing WP:OUTCOMES in AfD discussions is a perfectly fine and logical thing to do. To that extent, and since most of the rest of the changes to the document appear to be intertwined with that assumption, I've reverted it. No bad faith assumption here--if anything, I'm sorry you went to all that work without stopping to check consensus beforehand. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did check consensus beforehand. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE. Also see #Inherent_flaws on this talk page. Further, #Concerns, #Conclusion_about_concert_tour_articles_was_incorrect, and #Transportation on this talk page are all examples of confusion because of the [inappropriately, IMO] proscriptive nature of this page. And #Reverted:_addition_of_an_outcome_in_apparent_contravention_of_policy is an example of where a reported outcome contravened a policy, causing a big debate and wasting a lot of people's time. This page says it lists "Common Outcomes" so it needs to do that, and only that. Anything else is overstepping its authority. I have a toaster to toast my bread, and an oven to bake my bread. I do not need my toaster to start baking bread. Similarly, Wikipedia already has an established place for guidelines, and WP:OUTCOMES is duplicating services with WP:N and other guidelines and policies. Not as well, and not in a complimentary way. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that Jclemens chose not to answer the points raised in the above reply to his rv rationale. How can we have a full discussion if people selectively ignore each others' points? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You mention that "Citing WP:OUTCOMES in AfD discussions is a perfectly fine and logical thing to do. To that extent, and since most of the rest of the changes to the document appear to be intertwined with that assumption, I've reverted it." Most of the rest of the changes to the document are not intertwined with that assumption. The changes are based on the idea that WP:OUTCOMES is supposed to describe common outcomes, period; not tell people what to do. People can draw their own conclusions and WP:N tells them what is notable and what is not. We don't need WP:OUTCOMES doing that, especially because it does a worse job (sometimes conflicting with policy/guidelines). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's how things should actually go:

1) Existing consensus on a topic within or facet of AfD

2) Someone makes an argument that upsets that consensus (WP:CCC) in one case.

3) That case may become normative, cited in changing the community's feelings about that topic or facet, and consensus begins to change.

4) The change in step 3 becomes described in WP:OUTCOMES, often with a review of the evidence of changing consensus.

5) Eventually, notability or other guidelines may be modified per OUTCOMES.

So you see, if there's a disconnect between reality and OUTCOMES, it's likely (50-70%?) that OUTCOMES simply hasn't been updated as consensus has moved on, but in some significant minority of cases (30-50%?) OUTCOMES is actually leading a pending change to e.g. a SNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that Jclemens did not answer the assertion that most of the rest of the changes to the document are not intertwined with the assumption. Instead, he just stated how he thought the process should work. I feel like I'm discussing (two way) but he is lecturing (one way). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not many edits from him lately, it may just be that he's too busy at the moment. It's a busy time of the year for some people in RL. That said, it's difficult to conceive of a logical argument to defend the project page in its current state; without references it is an indicator only of things which might be or might have at one time been common outcomes but which in either case would have to be verified, and as such is next to useless. In article space, WP:NOTOPINION and I think this ought to apply to Wikipedia: space to at least some degree as well. It would be unfair to overapply it in regard to essays, but for things which purport to be objective statements of fact it needs to be WP:V. WP:NOT#ESSAY states "Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them." That applies to article space, but should apply to Wikipedia: space more than at present. We should not mistake the opinions given on this project page for a compilation of knowledge. If it actually compiled knowledge rather than opinion, that would be more appropriate. Another aspect of NOTOPINION is "authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete," and I think this should be true of Wikipedia: space as well. Maintain it, or archive it. It's also an aspect of WP:RS and WP:OR that "Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles." WP:Citing Wikipedia states with regard to article space "As with any source, especially one of unknown authorship, you should be wary and independently verify the accuracy of Wikipedia information if possible. For many purposes, but particularly in academia, Wikipedia may not be an acceptable source; indeed, some professors and teachers may reject Wikipedia-sourced material completely. This is especially true when it is used without corroboration. However, much of the content on Wikipedia is itself referenced, so an alternative is to cite the reliable source rather than the article itself." Again, ought to be true of Wikipedia: namespace. In the absence of any external reliable source reviewing AfD outcomes, the only possible reliable source for corroboration in this case is AfDs themselves; the only self-published source guideline I think Common outcomes could meet if it were applied to WP: namespace is if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." It's not an impossible project if people sign on. If not here, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia would be a good place to organize, but that appears to be an inactive WikiProject. Шизомби (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Noraft's changes as per his/her rationale. 123.124.225.63 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what kind of comment is being asked for here. I agree WP:OUTCOMES should not be cited in AfDs, and it is odd sometimes when it is e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Sameh_Farid ought to be citing the policy or guideline regarding notability of academics, rather than Outcomes, I think. However, the solution isn't better than the problem. One big problem is, as I noted in another section above, that Common outcomes doesn't present any evidence that these really are in fact the common outcomes, and thus it has no value. It ought to thoroughly document, and if it can't do that should perhaps be deleted. In any case, where Common outcomes is mentioned in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it should perhaps say instead that it shouldn't ever be cited because apart from the issue of whether precedents should be followed or not, there is no evidence that Common outcomes really does accurately represent trends of prior AfDs. Шизомби (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think another problem is that a lot of the stuff here becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that it's cited instead of attempting to see if the actual requirement has been met. Subguidelines to notability have the same problem to a large degree—some people erroneously believe that passing a subguideline eliminates the requirement to also pass sourcing requirements, rather than their actual purpose, which is to point to areas where those requirements are more likely to be met. The fact that a flood of people happened to keep a few articles that weren't actually notable shouldn't be used to encourage doing so in the future, it just makes the inevitable cleanup more work to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I really haven't seen that. However, if policies and guidelines are really descriptive, rather than prescriptive... how is the change in consensus over time to be measured? That is, if we're going to change an SNG, does the conversation take place ex nihilo on the SNG talk page, or should it instead be an evolving process seen through the local consensus in AFDs and catalogued here? Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for this article Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents had some people saying policy and guidelines are a reflection of AfDs. I think there's some Circular cause and consequence going on there, but I think to some extent could be a mixture: guidelines people theoretically attempt to follow that are adjusted per AfD if they're unsatisfactory. Likewise, I think subject notability guidelines (had to look that acronym up) may be adjusted ex nihilo if there are good arguments to be made and consensus or through AfD or a combination thereof. I think one of the most problematic aspects of consensus is that so few are typically involved and they're biased samples. Шизомби (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the biased sampling is one good reason that "precedents" should have some intermediate step before any codification as a guideline is attempted. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be interesting if there could be some random assigning of editors to articles and AfDs, if that would have an effect. There are no doubt ones I don't take the initiative on out of lack of interest or particular expertise that I conceivably could participate in, TV shows I don't watch or religions I've never read about that I could quickly read up on (essentially this is true of some of the ones I edit already), although some things like the finer points of astrophysics I'd probably be lost. But people might resent the imposition, even if it were optional. Шизомби (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that this page ought to stick to describing common outcomes of discussion and not try to lay down the law, and I agree that it needs to be grounded in evidence rather than being received wisdom. Fences&Windows 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the original version is the best one. Whole sale deletion of articles does not help Wikipedia and schools ARE notable. Manticore55 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which version do you mean? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES, is fully titled "Articles for Deletion/Common Outcomes" Thus, by its very title, it lists the common outcomes of AfDs. "XYZ usually happens" is the report of an outcome. "You should do ABC" is not the report of an outcome. My edit made it what its title says it is, because right now, it is not a list of outcomes. It is a list of guidelines, and inappropriately so. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I have started this section to gauge where consensus is at this time. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We Have Consensus

This is my case for consensus to make the change I made originally. Emphasis you may see in these quotes is mine.

1. In response to my statement that The common outcomes listed here do not constitute a de facto general consensus and should not be used as arguments for or against a deletion in an AfD debate should be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, a user says:

2.

3.

4. This unregistered user commented under multiple IP addresses (as per user's own admission):

5.

6.

7.

8.

We Have No Consensus

Here, please place statements from the discussion that you think indicates there is no consensus to implement the proposed changes.

Discussion

Discuss consensus here.

• While there may be support for a number of Noraft's proposed changes, none of the statements cited above can be reasonably construed as an unequivocal endorsement by an identified editor of Noraft's sweeping changes. As such, the best step forward is clearly to begin making individual changes for which there exists consensus, rather than trying to claim blanket consensus for a huge revision which clearly does not exist. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Identified editor? Unregistered editors have just as many rights and just as much standing to edit wikipedia, participate in consensus building, etc. as registered users, as per WP:HUMAN. In addition, Fences & Windows' statement "I agree that this page ought to stick to describing common outcomes of discussion and not try to lay down the law, and I agree that it needs to be grounded in evidence rather than being received wisdom." is a pretty clear endorsement as well, considering my edit had WP:OUTCOMES describing common outcomes of discussion and removed all the "laying down of law." Further, I'm going to say this again: You are not the arbiter of consensus. There is not consensus for the current page (which you erroneously call the "consensus version" in one of your edit summaries), as shown by all the statements made above. You have not yet produced a single user who supports the page in its current form or supports anything you've said. Further, none of these editors have come back and said "That's not what I meant," or "I don't support the suggested changes." From what I see, there is a unanimous minus one consensus to make the changes. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 10:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As part of the recent discussion an ((unreferenced)) tag was added to the article. That's not appropriate for non-article space, since we're never going to be able to add reliable sources to document Wikipedia policy. If desired, please look through WP:TC and find something else that might be more appropriate... or just bring up the issues here for discussion. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's correct that it's unreferenced though, but it does appear that that tag is for article space only. Comprehensive links to AfDs could constitute reliable sources, but going about doing that would be cumbersome (but unless it is done, I could not support a page of this kind). Something from Category:Wikipedia header templates (how do you link that without adding the category?) would seem to be what is needed. ((Nutshell)) maybe (if we could agree how to summarize what the page is/is not), ((Essay)) (the opinions of some editors for which there is not broad consensus or evidence), ((Failed)), ((Historical)), and certainly ((Underdiscussion)). And/or rewording the page with qualified statements, e.g. from "This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD, offering quick, easy-to-follow indications to users who are new to the deletion process" to something like "This page summarizes the past impressions of some editors regarding how they thought various types of articles, subjects, and issues were dealt with on AfD. It does not offer indications on how current or future AfDs should be dealt with, nor instructions that should be followed." Also, remove it from WP:ONLYGUIDELINE or qualify the statement there too and remove it from ((Precedents)). Шизомби (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of those you mention, essay seems the most applicable. Reconstructing the precedents would be pretty time consuming, but I'd certainly be in favor of those who contest the current wording having the freedom to disprove the precedents listed; that seems a far more positive way than the wholesale rewrite that the IP meatpuppet(s) seem to prefer. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the Meat Puppets, meatpuppets not so much. I suppose I'm fine with an essay tag, since it does frame it as opinion, but they're still rather dodgy opinions. I don't agree with the IP's last edit, e.g. "If outcomes trend in a different direction, this page may not have updated information on current consensus." I take the stance that the problem is not just that the page is not necessarily keeping pace with any changes in consensus that may have occurred, but that it didn't have a handle on consensus to begin with. Constructing the precedents could indeed be pretty time consuming, though actually I'm not finding as many AfDs on a given topic as I had expected. I'm not sure if my search terms aren't good enough, or if that would also remain true for other topics. When we observe something happening, it can be easy to overestimate how often it's happening.[1] The burden of proof regarding identifying common outcomes was on the editors who created the project page. Negative evidence, disproving something for which no evidence was given, is not logically how things work. Шизомби (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel bad, because I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but it may look that way (would it help if I mentioned I like Buffy, Douglas Adams, and regularly donate blood?)... your edit to the article [2] doesn't change the problem one bit. Going from "notable" to "generally kept" and "generally not notable" to "only rarely kept" leaves us in the same place we started; there's no more attestation to the allegation that they're "generally kept" or "only rarely kept" than there was to "notable" or "generally not notable." Шизомби (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your own essay Wikipedia:What is one event is more like what I think a WP:AfD/Common outcomes page should be. I think there are probably enough editors that enjoy finding sources and helping Wikipedia that there would be enough people to make Common outcomes an exemplary page? Шизомби (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly don't take offense to changing this essay, even drastically. As I said above, many of the changes have merit. The unilateral pushing of major changes, especially in ways that seem overtly suspicious, is what I have a problem with. To your point, Yes, I like me "one event" essay much better than the format here, and think that adding examples for each assertion is a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One more bit: the changes I did make weren't my call as far as sufficient changes, just the ones that I saw as being unequivocally supported by discussion here. Let's make those changes we agree on to take them off the table and focus discussion on areas of disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1)I don't think the changes are "unilateral." I do however think the reverts are, since nobody has supported the status quo page. 2)I understand that you think the IP edits/reverts are suspicious. Everyone else who reads this discussion also understands that you think the IP edits/reverts are suspicious. Now that everyone knows what you think, can you please stop impugning my reputation? You followed me onto the editor assistance page and implied I was a sockpuppet. You filed a sockpuppet investigation. The investigation came out in my favor. You then switched to meatpuppet allegations. I don't live in Beijing. I don't have friends there. I've now asked you repeatedly to please let this go. It is bordering on incivility. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new template specifically to address issues like the ones raised here. Please comment about the template on its talk page. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens, please note that as per WP:BRD "Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion:" there is no way for others to respond." This is not the first time you've done this. Please respect the process you purport to follow. Now, I'll post your edit summary here, for response: Remove unique template. There's no consensus that such statements need to be supported by evidence. Consider the discussion on whether an "essay" tag is more appropriate.

I'd like to start by citing WP:BRD again: "Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert," and "There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version." As per those lines, I think you, good sir, are out of order in this revert. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That last sentence wasn't needed. Anyhow, when I read that edit summary I wasn't sure what particular consensus was being referred to: consensus among whom, consensus where. There does appear to be a lot of support at least here regarding verifying and sourcing the claims, though I have not done any tallying. WP:OWN (just an essay) says "Get consensus before you make such huge changes" is a statement of ownership, and various other essays say similar things Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", Wikipedia:Reverting, etc. Whether it is even that big a change is perhaps debatable, because it is consistent with major Wikipedia policies regarding WP:V and so on: there is broad consensus that statements need to be sourced. There is possibly just a question as to whether Wikipedia: namespace project pages need to be sourced; WP:V and others don't explicitly exclude Wikipedia:Project namespace unless I'm missing where it does (show me if I'm wrong). One could argue that it implicitly excludes it because only WP:Articles are explicitly mentioned; but that's an interpretation. Likewise the project page Wikipedia:Project namespace does not explicitly or implicitly exempt the space from those requirements. But to return to the original point, even if one supposes that the broad unstated, undiscussed (AFAIK?) consensus across all Wikipedians is that Wikipedia: space is exempt, there is the question of what is the consensus right here, right now with regard to this page. Шизомби (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How do people feel about adding the essay tag? It's not the best fit, but it's better than nothing for the time being. Additionally, I note the title of the page is a bit odd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes looks like an AfD on an article named Common outcomes. Are there other subpages of WP:AfD that are also so named? On the topic of what there is consensus on this project page and talk page to do, it had seemed clear to me, but since it is not to everyone, I'm not sure how to proceed. I had thought about posting some neutrally-worded notice to everyone who has ever posted on the pp or tp; that doesn't seem like canvassing since it would include everyone, but maybe it would be problematic. It doesn't necessarily even make sense to bring back people who haven't edited the pages in months or years; their lack of involvement may indicate a lack of interest. Шизомби (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Essay is better than nothing, but if the Unreferenced WP template survives TfD, then that will be better than the essay tag. You're right, it isn't canvassing, as you're just trying to get more input. Why not just contact people who have posted in the last six months? Regarding it "not being clear to everyone," why don't you tell us exactly what was clear to you that we do with the page? Part of the reason we're in this situation is because people expressed their opinions without using Support and Oppose which has left the door open for someone to say that "I agree that the page should stick to describing outcomes and not lay down the law," is in fact NOT an endorsement of an edit that makes the page stick to describing outcomes and not lay down the law. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Noraft, if you want to put an essay tag on this, feel free to do so. There is no consensus for what you've done, although you are free to attempt to gain consensus for it. Do not edit war once you've been reverted. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not every page needs a tag. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it not being tagged, in fact, I'd prefer it. I will not oppose an essay tag, but a tag which attempts to further deprecate the value and applicability of this page is both inappropriate and redundant to the text. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, several users have said on this talk page that they would be fine with an essay tag. I think the tag was suggested by you after I created the new header (as an alternative to it). Further, essay tags have been added in the past, which shows there is support from other users. Nobody (until this section was started) said they opposed one. So why did you revert the essay tag that I added? I'm a little confused. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dishonesty neither helps your cause nor demonstrates good faith. Please provide a diff where you added ((essay)) to this page in the past day or two. Unless such conduct has been oversighted (which would have made it impossible for me to have reverted you), there isn't any such diff. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

((Essay)) is not the only possible method of tagging a page as being an essay. ((Supplement)), whose text begins "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself..." is a valid method of tagging some kinds of essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is exactly what I was talking about. Jclemens, please assume good faith. I never said I applied ((essay)) I said I applied an essay tag. And ((supplement)) is an essay tag, as outlined by WhatamIdoing. You've accused me of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and now dishonesty. Please stop. And furthermore, WhatamIdoing provides further evidence that there is a consensus to apply this tag. Please stop reverting. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I always have assumed good faith, even in the face of your tenditious editing, editwarring, refusal to get the point, and assumed ownership of this project page. Fact is, you know or should have known precisely what I meant:

• you added a non-essay tag
• I reverted, at which point YOU are expected to start the discussion
• You revert, calling the non-essay template an essay. Again, you fail to start a conversation here.
• I revert again and state my explanation of the reversion by starting this thread.

So you might be right that you are clueless, but the fact remains that a reasonable person reading the exchange will know that ((supplement)) isn't ((essay)). Further, you again attempted to manufacture consensus and shortcut discussion by assuming that one additional support for your pointlessly aggressive tag constitutes consensus. In fact, WhatamIdoing's own reference, WP:WES lists four types of essay tags, including ((essay)) but NOT including ((supplement)).

Now, feel free to sit down and wait for other people to weigh in on the matter, or be reported for your tenditious editing. Nothing is so wrong with this essay being untagged that it justifies your edit warring, and 3RR is not a license to revert 3x in a 24 hour period. There's plenty of evidence you've been informed of appropriate guidelines and continued to ignore them for no good reason. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't currently have an opinion about how this page gets tagged.

I do have an opinion about whether ((supplement)) is a type of essay tag (IMO, it is).

This is all that I say above: Tagging something with Template:Supplement is one way to tag it as an essay. Noraft doesn't say above that she tagged it with ((essay)), or that any previous discussions settled on the use of Template:Essay instead of one of the other, equally valid templates for identifying essays. Jclemens, if the use of specifically Template:Essay is important to you, please stop discussing Noraft's behavior and tell me why you think that Template:Essay is better than one of the other essay tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing that in some broad sense ((supplement)) is a form of tag that goes on essays. I only agreed to ((essay)), not ((supplement)) and consenting to ((essay)) is not the same thing as consenting to anything anyone somewhere might possibly construe as some sort of an essay tag. The real issue is Noraft's intentionally, repeatedly, and consistently misconstruing consensus in his favor. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that WP:OUTCOMES now includes ALL the changes I wanted to make pretty much shows where consensus was. Whatamidoing ended up rewording my changes to the intro, but they had the same impact/effect, so that's good enough. Consensus is served. Please stop accusing me of things. I've asked you now over a half dozen times. You can have a civil discussion by sticking to the issues. If you think I'm violating a policy or guideline, please report me on the relevant noticeboard and we'll take it up there, rather than continuing accusations on talk pages. This really isn't the place. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good that consensus is arriving. Bad that you've repeatedly acted badly in the discussion to get to this point. I have on no occasion been incivil to you. You might not like the fact that I pointed out various misbehaviors, but that isn't incivility per se, and certainly not incivil as it was conducted. Had you not engaged in your disruptive behaviors--such as edit-warring, claiming WP:BRD did not apply to you, insisting that your changes be accepted, and making obviously false statements about your editing activity, then consensus could probably have been achieved much more smoothly. Oh, and does "ALL the changes I wanted to make" include tagging the article? Your !vote below seems to be in direct contradiction to that. Feel free to clarify your statement or !vote accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page, as it has nothing to do with WP:OUTCOMES. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I came here because I'm watching WP:Wikipedia essays and saw this. It seems obvious to me that ((supplement)) tags a page as an essay. ((supplement)) is not the ((essay)) tag, but it still calls pages essays, and categories them that way, too. If that's the whole objection (I haven't read the whole talk page or examined history, so maybe there are other problems I'm not aware of), I think it's silly, and getting into Wikilawyering territory. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting us know you were canvassed. No, that's not the whole dispute, but your input is appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Canvassing" generally means when people with known views are contacted who are expected to push a debate in a specific direction. A post to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia essays doesn't count as canvassing, although the message left there was not neutrally worded. But I'm capable of looking past that and weighing in with my independent views.

I personally would agree with WP:NOTAG on this page. Its content straddles what typically appears in the essay category and pages that are strictly informative. I don't really see it as a "supplement" to any policy, for the specific reason that precedent is not binding on Wikipedia, and a page that merely states what the precedent has been should not even indirectly suggest that it carries any authority. ((Supplement)) is generally used to mean "this expands on the thoughts laid out on policy page x"; this page does not do that.--Father Goose (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree Noraft is guilty of tenditious editing, editwarring, refusal to get the point, and assumed ownership, but if he is, there's two in that tango, and if he's not, well then somebody likely still is. As far as the value of the page: it has next to none at present and it's perhaps deceptive to claim otherwise. The page can't really be "deprecated": it's more a matter of removing the fool's gold foil wrapping a turd, or getting people to take off their rose-colored glasses. The lede and "Citing this page in AfD" sections still don't accurately describe what the page is at present. It has the potential to be valuable, even very much so, but there's a lot of distance to travel to get there. Persistent mischaracterization and deep-seated opposition to (or apathy regarding) improving Wikipedia are puzzling, though admittedly endemic and not limited to this page or anyone involved here. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Since certain editors have been asserting consensus, it seems appropriate to measure what consensus actually exists for tagging this project page.

No tag

Support

• Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• -- Quiddity (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm for "essay" tags on essay pages; this page isn't quite an essay, and works fine without a tag.--Father Goose (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposed

• ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

"No tag" seems like a perfectly appropriate state; not everything needs to have a tag, and the first paragraphs (as stated now) clearly delineate a verbose discussion on how this should be used. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a collection of opinions. When the page says "All X are generally kept," that's someone's opinion. Maybe the opinion of a lot of people, but it is an opinion nonetheless. An opinion piece is an essay. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

((essay))

Support

• Weak support. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Second choice. It's not really an essay, but it'd be fairly harmless to label it as such.--Father Goose (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also second choice, after ((supplement)). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposed

• This is not an essay; the contents are added/modified after discussion and consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's more than that. The common closures here are widely accepted in my view. I've never seen a commune deleted; usually it's a SNOW keep. Etc. Pcap ping 18:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

If there is consensus that some sort of tag is needed, then "essay" is a good, general purpose tag that is common, well known, and appears on several other pages. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Not all the time. Sometimes the contents are modified by one person and nobody says boo. 2) Essays are also modified after discussion and consensus. 3) WP:OUTCOMES is a collection of opinions. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

((supplement))

Support

• Support This page has on at least 3 separate occasions provided information that contradicted WP guidelines or procedures. Having a tag that advises people what to do when that happens prevents arguments, by demarcating "right of way." ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposed

• Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• As I stated above, ((supplement)) is generally used on pages that expand upon the ideas laid out in a policy or guideline. This page, while a "supplement" to discussion/documentation of the deletion process, does not seem to be a supplement of deletion policy, so it's not the appropriate tag. IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• There's no obvious guideline or policy on which this expands. Rather it records common closures on sub-topics for which broader guidelines have generally failed to be adopted. Pcap ping 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Supplement seems to be a rather pointed attempt to deprecate the usage of this page, which I contest. Noraft's history of edits to this page has included making up a new template from whole cloth to attempt the same thing, and his motivation for supporting this tag is perfectly clear. What is not clear, however, is that consensus supports such deprecation.

If there is to be a "supplement" tag, it should be in line with the other uses of the actual tag. WP:BRD, WP:NOTOR, and WP:CREEP list specific other policies and guidelines which can be pointed to as supporting their respective pages. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a supplement of all the guidelines people use as arguments in Afd, because deletions occur after a policy or guideline is cited, and the most typical outcomes are recorded here (at WP:OUTCOMES). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose, I think that it might be reasonable to interpret this page as a supplement to the WP:N guidelines -- sort of "If you didn't understand how to apply the actual notability guidelines, then here's a cheat sheet for specific types of articles." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

((infopage))

Support

• This is what I would suggest because it is edited according to a higher level of consensus than an essay. (I suspect ((supplement)) is too controversial given the failure to adopt guidelines for geographical places and such, which this page more or less resolves for narrow topics). Pcap ping 17:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I can live with this one too, and probably prefer it to essay, if we must have a tag. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perfect for this type of page —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposed

• It's a collection of opinions: an essay. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Overall Discussion

I think not every page needs a tag, so that would be my first choice. I agree with Jclemens‎ that the intro explains what this page is pretty well. Wikipedia tries to avoid being a bureaucracy. Pages about practices and processes should be descriptive, not prescriptive. So as long as this page reflects consensus, we're good. No tag needed.

If I had to tag this page, it would be with ((infopage)): A page which reflects and amplifies policies and guidelines, without being one itself.

If I had to tag this page as an essay, it would be with the ((supplement)) tag. I don't see that as deprecating this page. Quite the opposite, in fact. I see ((essay)) as saying "This could mean anything"; basically a disclaimer. I see supplement ((supplement)) as saying it's an essay that reflects consensus on policies and guidelines; a stronger position. In other words, my personal scale of authority is: ((essay)) < ((supplement)) < ((infopage)) < ((guideline)) < ((policy)) < WP:Foundation issues < WP:JIMBO.

Respectfully submitted, —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the average editor will interpret ((supplement))'s comments about P&Gs as representing a much stronger position than ((essay))'s wording about being cautious about minority views. I'm not sure that I'd put ((infopage)) in the same scale, but I certainly think ((essay)) < ((supplement)). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I was just thinking that, too. The other content marked with ((supplement)) seem to be well-respected pages. I'm considering switching my position on that tag. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ((infopage)) is right here either; precedent and consensus don't have a 1-to-1 correlation. AfD in particular is a very shabby stand-in for consensus as we normally define it, being not only a form of polling, but overseen by admins acting as arbitrators of content disputes.--Father Goose (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what the consensus is about in editing this page: it's about recording how certain types of pages (usually narrowly defined, e.g. communes) have been commonly closed, not necessarily how they should be closed according to a yet-to-be-found consensus on broader topics (e.g. geographical articles in general.) Pcap ping 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add that my own experience involved my bringing a tiny, apparently insignificant radio station to AfD, to be firmly told that this page mandated a keep. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

How long do participants want to wait before implementing an option? Right now, essay (3 to 0) is slightly ahead of no tag (3 to 1). Does anyone feel the need to notify additional interested people of this discussion? Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept ((essay)) at this moment, if it'll resolve the issue.--Father Goose (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:CCC and it appears to have done so. TerriersFan's !votes now put "no tag" in the "lead", but indicate that consensus is still forming rather than gel'ing. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This page has been accepted as a case by WP:MEDCAB. I would appreciate it if any editors who would like to have input in the outcome of said mediation would please go to the case page Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/WP:OUTCOMES and sign on to mediation. Thank you. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

All tags should remain off the page until the mediation has been settled to avoid suggestions of pre-judging the outcome. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If the editors involved in the mediation aren't able to see past the current state of the page, then the mediation is absolutely doomed. It would be just as reasonable to demand that tags be added "to avoid suggestions of pre-judging the outcome" in favor of no tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is mediation being sought when consensus is developing in the above discussion? Sounds like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the request was made about a month ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it might be just a newbie mistake, but I just found out about it on the basis of this post here. Noraft, in order for mediation to work, all parties have to agree that there's an impasse that would benefit from an uninvolved mediator. I don't even agree that there's an impasse. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to admit my surprise when it was announced that mediation was starting, as it seemed like things were progressing reasonably well on this talk page. On the other hand, I'm a new party to this particular dispute, so I'm somewhat ignorant of the month(s?) of tussling that has led up to this.

For what it's worth, reading Noraft's statement on the mediation page helped fill me in on the background here, and I find myself agreeing with his central point: that a page named "common outcomes" should describe, not prescribe such outcomes.--Father Goose (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And you'll find that the changes to the page have substantially dealt with his objections, however poorly raised. The record of such discussions is above. Noraft's chief contribution has been to raise issues; other editors have had discussions around them and essentially resolved them. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TerriersFan, about this reversion: It's not "the accepted wording", because I don't accept it. You need to give a common-sense or policy-based reason for reversions, not merely an erroneous assertion that "consensus can't change."

Here's how the two compare for content:

I don't understand what your actual concern is. Do you object to pointing people to WP:ORG, which is the only applicable notability guideline for schools that has ever been in force (and which has specifically named educational institutions for some three years now)? Do you object to the reminder that "non-notable" doesn't mean "please remove every mention from the entire encyclopedia"? Do you think that "Most, but not all" is too precise? That connecting the outcomes to whether it meets the long-standing guidelines for that decision is inappropriate? Or something else? I'm willing to hear whatever your real reasons are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of recording these outcomes is just that; as a record of what AfDs have determined. The wording that I reinstated reflects the determination of AfDs and was consulted on here before its insertion. What you have done is produced what you would like to see as a notability standard. Nothing wrong with that; simply this is not the forum. Your wording, as a standard, has much merit but it does not reflect the outcome of AfDs. TerriersFan (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}

I don't see the difference in "the determination of AfDs", and it certainly wasn't my intention to change the data described here. Both columns in the third row say that "most" of this type is kept and "most" of that type is not kept... Do you see something different? Does it seem to you that the first column says that more or fewer articles are kept than the second column?

Or is your complaint with some other line? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A key difference (not highlighted in your table) is that the existing wording states "with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability." with your phrasing stating "Most, but not all, high schools and other secondary schools are able to meet the standard and are therefore frequently kept at AfD discussions" which is clearly different. If you review all the high school AfDs over the last couple of years it is clear which is the more accurate. OTOH if you consider that the AfDs show a different picture then please present the data. TerriersFan (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So you don't object to everything that you removed, e.g., that WP:ORG is the relevant notability guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I don't see where this is going. Sure WP:ORG is the relevant notability guideline but we are not developing a notability standard here; simply recording the common outcome of AfDs and, for example, high schools are kept whether or not they strictly meet WP:ORG. In this they are not alone; a whole tranche of subjects are considered notable by their nature: fauna and flora, numbered highways, named bridges, railway stations, airports, high court judges, peers of the realm, super-regional malls, inhabited settlements, and so on. TerriersFan (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So I take it that you wouldn't mind restoring a pointer to ORG so that people know to look there for further information? Several items in the list contain similar pointers, so I thought that this would be consistent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is particularly useful but I've added the WP:ORG link to the entry to resolve matters. TerriersFan (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you now tell me your objection to the phrase "rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia"? Do you object to emphasizing that "doesn't get its own, separate, dedicated article" is not the same as "don't WP:PRESERVE accurate information"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that a lack of response means that you don't actually have an objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made this change, which also corrects the grammar.

Is there a specific objection to the sentence in the third row, or was it just a casualty of a total revert? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any reply, I've made this change. If, for any reason, someone thinks that these changes are wrong, please feel free to explain here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple; it doesn't reflect actual outcomes. For example, high school pages that don't currently meet WP:ORG are being kept. What you have done is produce what you would like to see as a notability standard; not the purpose of this project. TerriersFan (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the change that TerriersFan has made to the page. WP:OUTCOMES reflects what is actually happening (hence the term "outcome"). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

TerriersFan, can you give me an example of a non-ORG-compliant high school whose article was kept at AfD? I haven't been able to find one -- but I have seen articles about high schools that were deleted (including several that have since been re-created because more sources were found and compliance with ORG was demonstrated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Please list any high school that has has been deleted in the last say, 18 months, other than for failing verifiability? TerriersFan (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm catching up after being off wiki for a couple of days, so now is not the time for me to trawl through the AfDs to find examples that comply with your arbitrary time limit.

OK, so select your own period - 6 months? 9 months? 12 months? 15 months? or -- if none is available -- please withdraw your assertion. TerriersFan (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't care about the timing, then see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbor View High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windward High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Hills High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keira High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickinson High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keller Junior High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stearns High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castlehead High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airedale High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysart High School... an old list, to be sure, but irrefutable proof that Wikipedia has deleted articles about high schools (including articles that IMO and per ORG should never have been deleted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You have asserted that "high school pages that don't currently meet WP:ORG are being kept." Please provide an example, or -- if none is available -- please withdraw your assertion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptist Park Schoolis a recent example. TerriersFan (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Here's a story about the principal, who just published a book of poetry.[3] It looks like the students attended a prayer breakfast with an ex-Mafioso,[4] and were involved in a service project.[5]

The girls' basketball team was doing pretty well,[6] until they met InterCity,[7] at least. The boys' team seems to have a bit of a reputation,[8] but they lost in the playoffs.[9] The volleyball team won the division title,[10] and a volleyball student earned all-league honors.[11]

I've limited me search to the last six months and stories that are freely available online: If editors couldn't find sources, it's because they didn't look any further than Google News.

Additionally, they've been mentioned in The Detroit News, which certainly counts as "reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". I don't see any violation of ORG here. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you have carried out a splendid search for sources and I will add some of those to the page in due course. However, the key point is that the page didn't meet WP:ORG at the time that it was kept; the fact that sources were subsequently findable underlines the point that for high schools, with sufficient research, sources can invariable be found. TerriersFan (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) No, the key point is that the subject met ORG the very day that these sources were published. ORG requires sources to exist -- anywhere in the world, in any language, in any media. A subject may comply with ORG even when the article is 100% ((unref))'d.

I agree that it is extremely rare for any American or Canadian school with a sports team to fail the (rather low) standard set by ORG. (A school without any sports teams is less likely to be mentioned by a non-local source.) These articles are correctly kept because they comply with ORG, not because they happen to enroll teenagers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nonfactual Facts in Wikipedia Namespace was jointly penned last month by me and another editor. I just moved it into WP namespace. Anyone who wants a perspective on why WP:OUTCOMES has changed more in the last month than it had in the previous three years, and why it needs to continue to evolve to have value to the community at large may wish to read this essay. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just pop in again briefly to note I continue to see WP:OUTCOMES as a problem page. If "This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD" could be changed to "This page attempts to summarize how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD. However, there is no guarantee the summaries were correct at the time they were written. Likewise, there is no guarantee that if they once were correct that the summaries have been kept up to date with any changes in outcomes," that might help resolve the problem.

I continue to find the URL being a subpage of Articles for Deletion problematic as well both because it follows the name format of an AfD on an article named "Common outcomes" and because without being marked as an essay or something like, it appears to have some official status within WP as a whole, which it does not in fact have by a longshot.

I still like the idea of "citation needed" on WP space pages, or an equivalent, although the "Nonfactual Facts in Wikipedia Namespace" essay name I find awkward and apt to confuse people. "Unverified claims in Wikipedia namespace" might work. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When we released the essay "to the wild" (read: WP namespace), I relinquished any and all ownership of said essay. Feel free to update it as you feel appropriate. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, it definitely has merit, so I will get around to it sometime! University has a higher demand on me right now. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• MfD'ed as a disruptive attempt to rewrite consensus after your failure to obtain your desired outcome in OUTCOMES. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • First of all, essays have tags that say they don't necessarily represent consensus. Second, essays are not disruptive. Third, I'd like to quote Father Goose and yourself:

For what it's worth, reading Noraft's statement on the mediation page helped fill me in on the background here, and I find myself agreeing with his central point: that a page named "common outcomes" should describe, not prescribe such outcomes.--Father Goose (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And you'll find that the changes to the page have substantially dealt with his objections, however poorly raised. The record of such discussions is above. Noraft's chief contribution has been to raise issues; other editors have had discussions around them and essentially resolved them. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You yourself state that my objections have been resolved. And you were right! I completely agree with you (on Jan. 18) when you said that my objections were resolved. In other words, I got my desired outcome in OUTCOMES, which means that your statement about my "failure to obtain your desired outcome in OUTCOMES" is in error. Let things go, man. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If indeed everything was resolved, why try and write a potential guideline about it? Hence, MfD'ed as a solution in search of a problem. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "try and write a potential guideline." I wrote an essay. And the reason I wrote said essay is because (1) I can forsee this happening on other pages besides WP:OUTCOMES and I'd like to be able to cite something already written rather than start from scratch; and (2) because consensus can change, and I want this around in case it does. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I remain curious as to why anyone defends this page? What quality or qualities do its defenders find that I am somehow missing? What reason or reasons are there to believe the claims made were and remain accurate? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I remain curious as to why anyone is talking about this here, instead of at the essay's own talk page, or at the MfD page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

MfD Failed with unanimous decision to keep. Thanks to everyone who expressed an opinion. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that a consensus has emerged, over the course of very many deletion discussions over the past year or so, that the bilateral relations of two large or medium-sized nation-states usually results in a keep. I would like to add that to WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would object to this. Each of these has to be shown individually that they are encyclopedic, doing otherwise is a resort to the "inherent notability" fallacy. We need less of these catch-all rules for notability, not more. ThemFromSpace 00:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Because this page is a sub page of AfD, the [!vote] link is now showing against each section.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is exactly the same as the page about Notability, it doesn't point out the outcomes of why a page would be deleted other than notability, such as Vandalism (like attack pages or pages of utter nonesense) which would be far more common outcomes than pages that just don't have sufficient third-party reliable sources/significant coverage or anything alike. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion — Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there somewhere a list with outcomes of Michelin starred restaurants that were nominated for deletion. I can only find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant) (mostly because I have written this). But I guess that there are more closed nomination-processes in relation to Michelin stars. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you would have to visit the talk page of each and every related article, and see whether there was a note at the top about a previous deletion effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ow, great... (not) Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I researched for the terms - restaurant michelin deletion - under an "Everything" tab search, to identify the relevant AfDs. It appears that being Michelin-rated has regularly carried the day at AfD many times since 2005 (with no deletions I can find so far), see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant) (July 2011); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafferano (May 2010 - kept as no consensus due to lack of discussion, no delete votes except nom); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagatelle restaurant (October 2008); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Laundry (April 2008 - here you may pause and wonder who the hell in their right mind would nominate that one); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masa (restaurant) (July 2007); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Bec Fin (December 2005); see also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20#Michelin-starred_restaurants (June 2009); Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56#Restaurant_notability_proposed_guideline and Wikipedia talk:Notability (restaurants) (October 2008). So its fair to say that Michelin stars are strong evidence of notability, and has been a de facto indicaton of notability in practice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)