User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes

The principle of an afdbox is essentially that of a stopgap measure until categorization of AfD entries becomes implementable: for motivation, see AfD reform. By entering some key parameters into a template at, or shortly after, nomination, each discussion about deletion of an article or group of related articles can be classified by the type of content and reasons for deletion. Classes of related nomination could be browsed using a Whatlinkshere link, or even be used in the construction of bot-generated summaries such as User:Dragons flight/AFD summary. For a mock-up of the system in action, see /Mock.

Classifications are quite broad and do not reflect the distribution of all of Wikipedia's content. Although many of Wikipedia's articles are about mathematics, it is rare for any to be nominated at WP:AfD. Far more common are "vanity" and "spam" articles: music, animations, commercial products, and web-based articles are disproportionately likely to be listed at AfD, and this is reflected in the classification. Inclusion in all potentially relevant classes is encouraged. For example, a conceptual artist whose existence can't be verified by the nominator (who may suspect a hoax), and whose notability is at any rate contested, may be tagged with fict to produce:

Note that fiction and the arts have been combined as one class (due to their high cross-over on AfD), and are referred to by the tag "fict". Since both "bio" and "fict" apply, the nomination is classed as both; similarly, it is tagged with both suggested grounds for deletion. Other nominations may only use one topic and one reason tag, but there should be at least one for both. On the other hand, as many as six classes are possible.

Disabling the template on closure
The template would have to be "turned off" (e.g. by outright deletion, or surrounding with tags) once a nomination has closed, or else old debates will appear in the Whatlinkshere listings. If classification was an integral part of the AfD process, this could be the task of the closing admin, but this need not be the case.

Optional measure
If this was introduced as a purely optional measure, it would involve less disruption to existing processes. There would be one less element of bureaucracy in making or closing an AfD nomination, and the template could be left in the nomination's talk page, making the discussion "cleaner".

Disadvantages include substantial duplication of effort with WikiProject Deletion sorting, incompleteness of the generated topical and reasons lists, and the need for somebody to "switch off" the templates for a closed debate.

Compulsory for 7 day AfD period to start
Only starting the 7 day countdown once the nomination is classifed, but not rejecting the nomination outright, would make it easier for people to nominate articles for deletion. Unclassified articles would be initially transcluded into an "unclassified" subpage of AfD, and only moved to one of the dated subpages once classification templates are added. This would rely on AfD-watchers to act as AfD-taggers, and would risk some nominations lingering for over 7 days if a backlog built up.

Compulsory at nomination stage
Rejecting nominations that remain unclassified after a certain grace period (a couple of hours to one day, perhaps) as malformed would eliminate the problem of a backlog of unclassified articles. It may also make AfD nomination harder, and hence discourage the deletion of articles that really should be removed.

Using the existing AfD templates
The existing templates, in particular, may be edited to incorporate this proposal, especially if it becomes a compulsory element of AfD. In particular, if no topic or reason is given initially, it would be helpful if it could render as, to give:

Changing classification during a debate
Various editors may wish to change the original classification during a debate. Suggested guidance on this issue would be:
 * Adding extra classes if it is believed they are relevant should be encouraged.
 * Classes should only be removed if they are clearly unreasonable or irrelevant. If an editor states, in good faith, why they are believed to be relevant they should almost always stay.
 * In particular, if a reason for deletion is asserted during the debate or in the original nomination, the class for that ground should only be removed in exceptional circumstances (e.g. the sole editor to raise that concern was accidentally commenting in the wrong discussion, or was clearly a vandal).

Creating new afd-boxes
The creation of new afd-boxes (for example, a schools afd-box or a sci-fi and fantasy afd-box) may be seen as an attempt at vote-rigging; it may also be needless duplication of effort at WikiProject Deletion sorting. Concerns have been expressed that very "fine" divisions of AfD may result in nominations not recieving sufficiently wide review. On the other hand, it has been suggested that more specific classes would increase expert input. If afd-boxes acquire compulsory status then there may need to be a centralized location for debate about amending and adding to the afd-boxes, with proposed alterations requiring a consensus to implement.

Usage guidance

 * Names: these boxes are referred to as "media", "org", "bio", "soc", "web", "game", "sci", "fict", "place" and "?".
 * Multiple topics are allowed, for instance an online computer game would be under "web" and "game".
 * The boxes have "include" guides to help. For instance, a school is a place ("place") and an educational organization. Education is listed as included under "soc", and schools are listed as included under "org", so a school is in all three of "place", "soc" and "org".
 * There are also "exclude" guides. For example, a band is an organization but is excluded from "org" and included under "bio". Music may be one of the arts, but it is excluded from the "fiction or arts" box (although a "musician and visual artist" would qualify) and included under "media". So a typical band will be listed under "bio" and "media".
 * Biographies should also be sorted with their subject's notable field. For instance, a creator of internet flash animations would be sorted under "bio", "media" (for their animations), and "web".
 * Some results may appear odd. For example, a particular model of automobile is a transportation-related product, so is sorted under "org" and "place". Similarly, a band is not counted as an organization, but their CDs are commercial products, so do come under the "organization/company/product" class: hence a band is not tagged "org" but their CD is. This does not mean the nomination been incorrectly sorted.
 * Some articles make insufficient sense for them to be sorted, or are on a topic so odd it is impossible to classify them reasonably . In this case, "?" will usually suffice, although a nonsensical article with a human name as the title may also have "bio" added.

Expected relative frequencies
Given the number of active AfD discussions at any time is somewhere in the region of 1000-2000, all of these units will be just-about browsable in a reasonable period of time.

Usage guidance

 * Names: these boxes are referred to as "nn", "not", "v", "mal", "cls", and "fork".
 * Multiple reasons are allowed, for instance an article that reads as a POV fork essay would come under "fork" and "v" (since it breaches No original research).
 * The boxes have "include" guides to help. For instance, Wikipedia is not a dictionary is included under "not", so mere dictionary definitions should be listed there.
 * There are also "exclude" guides. For example, No original research is considered part of WP:NOT, but AfD nominations on suspected original research are usually resolved on the basis of whether or not the entry can be verified as a valid (but possibly obscure) term or phenomenon. For that reason, they are explicitly excluded from "not" and included under the "v" box.
 * Some articles are malformed due to nonsensical contents, a lack of context in the entry, or a misspelt title. For these articles "mal" can be used. Often the notability or verifiability of the topic they are meant to be on can not be judged.
 * Lists nominated for deletion are likely to come under one or both of "not" and "cls". If the rationale is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then "not" is appropriate. If the rationale is that a list would be better categorized or reduced to a template, as per the guidance at Categories, lists, and series boxes, then "cls" is appropriate. Some nominations may come under both, but if a list is so indiscrimate (for instance, a "List of murderers with blue eyes") that categorization is disregarded as a serious option, then "not" alone will suffice.

Expected relative frequencies
Given the number of articles nominated for deletion, it will be hard to browse the "nn" nominations, although the others are feasibly browsable.