User:Flatscan/Articles for discussion

Renaming WP:Articles for deletion to Articles for discussion and combining it with merger discussions has been proposed at WT:Articles for deletion.

Previous discussions

 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 49 (January 2009)
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 50 (January 2009)
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53, advertised on Template:Cent (April 2009)

Concerns

 * 1) Renaming existing pages
 * 2) * There are many (over 200,000 as of 2 January 2010) existing AfD subpages and references to them. If they are moved, redirects must be left.
 * 3) * Using Articles for discussion going forward (leaving existing pages alone) will break templates, especially, which may link AfDs from before and after the change. Templates like will need to be forked into before/after versions such as.
 * 4) Increased number of active nominations
 * 5) * Some nominations in AfDeletion are really merge nominations – these are either discussed normally or closed WP:Speedy keep, criterion 1. The SK closures would be valid AfDiscussion nominations.
 * 6) * Regarding additional merger nominations: many increase the load on the process; few reduce the benefits of making the change.
 * 7) Increased complexity and degrees of freedom
 * 8) * The risk of deletion must be made clear to the article's creator, who may be an inexperienced editor.
 * 9) * Depending on the implementation specifics, it may be easy to change a merger nomination to a deletion-focused discussion.
 * 10) * The current list of outcomes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki) must be expanded. It is possible to form a consensus excluding an outcome, but without consensus for a specific outcome.
 * 11) Outcomes will be enforceable, but cannot be final or sacrosanct
 * 12) * Nuance provided by subject editors – especially from merge target articles – is often missed at AfD and provided after the AfD has been closed.
 * 13) * WP:Consensus can change
 * 14) Disconnect between 7-day AfD and indefinite merger discussions
 * 15) * Mergers take weeks to discuss. Intermittent participation causes much of the delay, but more detailed content issues take longer to resolve.
 * 16) * AfDs often fail to reach consensus for mergers within the discussion period.
 * 17) * Current multi-stage discussions help address this: if timed discussion at AfD is insufficient, the issue is relegated to the article Talk page for further discussion.

DGG's reasons
User:DGG wrote a list of reasons in his initial proposal at WT:Articles for deletion (responses interspersed):


 * 1) It will bring disputed matters out to where people in general can see them
 * This is an advantage.
 * 1) it will provide a simple solution to the current complicated multi-place discussions  about the extent to which merges etc. are enforceable at AfD, deletion review, etc.
 * While it is desirable to consolidate these discussions, their lack of quick resolution reflects the complexity of the issue.
 * 1) It will prevent  evading the intention of AfD closes--in any direction.--I've seen all sorts of them.
 * This will be less effective than stated. There are infrequent examples of editors willfully ignoring unambiguous AfD closures backed by consensus. A procedural change will not eliminate this behavior. AfDeletions often fail to distinguish between keep separate and merge, and neither keep nor no consensus dictate that the article must be a separate page. AfDiscussions may similarly fail to reach a specific outcome.
 * 1) It will end the meta discussions at individual AfDs about what the true intent is, and whether AfD has jurisdiction over the proposal--as when a person nominates an AfD and says "delete, or at least merge" and is challenged for taking it to AfD.
 * Eliminating such process wonkery is a minor advantage, but these digressions are more distracting than harmful.
 * 1) It will simplify the repeated and sometimes circular movements of disputes over multiple stages and places. As is, we end up discussing the same thing repeatedly because nobody quite knows where to handle it.
 * It is sometimes appropriate to extend discussion to find a clearer consensus or to iron out specifics. There is a fairly consistent – albeit undocumented – progression from BOLD redirection, to Talk page discussion, to AfD nomination, and back to the article's Talk page. There are repeated disputes over the same articles and topic areas, but unless there is a wide respected consensus on content organization, probing at the margins will be inevitable.
 * 1) It will greatly discourage edit warring over merges & redirects, by providing a place to reach an open decision.
 * Related edit warring will be reduced, but replaced by a quicker nomination at AfD.
 * 1) Particularly important, from other XfDs, I have learned the advisability of keeping all options open at a discussion. It really helps get the best solution, often one not thought of at first. Many such discussions end up with everyone agreeing on a somewhat different proposal.
 * Both merge and redirect are already allowed as recommendations and outcomes. WP:Speedy keep may short-circuit discussion, but it is most often triggered by inexperienced nominators who have unintentionally avoided the correct merger process.
 * 1) Most important, it encourages compromise, which makes consensus much easier to obtain. It's highly desirable that we do reach consensus on things--consensus being defined as something everyone can at least accept. It might even remove a good deal of the incentive for multiple AfDs or re-creations. It will encourage   working together, rather than trying to oppose each other.
 * Compromise is good thing, but "encourages" is an exaggeration over merely "allows".

Questions that a proposal should address
A complete proposal will cover not only the consolidated process, but also details of the transition.


 * 1) Which existing processes are included in the consolidation?
 * 2) * Deletion
 * 3) ** WP:Criteria for speedy deletion
 * 4) ** WP:Proposed deletion
 * 5) ** WP:Articles for deletion
 * 6) * Mergers and splits
 * 7) ** WP:Merging
 * 8) *** WP:Proposed mergers
 * 9) ** WP:Splitting
 * 10) * Moves
 * 11) ** WP:Requested moves
 * 12) Will all existing AfDeletion pages be moved, or will Articles for discussion be used on new pages only?
 * 13) May a merger nomination be changed to a deletion discussion? Will nominations be segregated between deletion and merger?
 * 14) How much (if any) of the existing merger process (Talk page discussion, WP:Proposed mergers) will remain separate?
 * 15) * If AfDiscussion is the only merger process, will it be required for all mergers?
 * 16) Where will decisions be appealed (currently WP:Deletion review)?