![]() | Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that this page is important advice not currently well documented elsewhere. I think it describe common good practice. Discussions are generally closed per rough consensus, not consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is good for what it is, but it is limited to admins closing deletion discussions. In practice, admins and non admins must make reasonable rough consensus calls to close many discussions, including WP:RMs and WP:RFCs. The content is based on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, and I think it contains nothing contentious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Why? Historically, calling a rough consensus was role limited to admins. That has most definitely changed, years ago. This page affirms that change.
It is also important to maintain clarity between consensus and rough consensus. Relatively new Wikipedians observe non admin closes applied and respected where there is not quite a full consensus, and this can be confusing to their understanding of consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; I can't say I agree with much of what the proposer has said here. Greenrd has put it quite neatly. Sometimes rough consensus must be refuted if it's based on misconceptions. 95.44.233.103 (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Support If I'm understanding correctly, the 2 "opposes" misunderstood the current situation as they seem to be taking issue with the wording itself. . (or maybe I'm confused). As I understand it, this text is an exact copy of what is currently under administrator guidelines. In reality it applies to all closers, not just administrators, and SmokeyJoe is proposing copying (and presumably eventually moving) it into a separate place that applies to all closers rather than just administrators. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose The essay is redundant and badly written. The guidelines for closing deletion discussions are already exactly that - guidelines. I don't see why we need to add more documentation on top of what's already written clearly elsewhere. If we're going to change the guidelines for closing RFCs, we should change them there, not here. KrakatoaKatie 04:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Qualified Support I appreciate that the thrust of the proposal is to document current practice. In doing so it seeks to generalise an existing guideline for deleting articles, applying the same principle of rough consensus, which seems eminently sensible. However, much of the actual text of the page still reflects its origins as dealing principally or solely with deletion, and in its present form is unsuitable to describe the operation of rough consensus to other proposals, such as move, merge etc. It's simply not ready yet for use as a guideline with the intended scope. I'd suggest the proposer thoroughly edit the page to provide a usable guideline for rough consensus that specifically mentions and deals with each of its intended scopes. Such a page would receive my unqualified support. yoyo (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)