Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article of the week


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was tag as rejected (and delete less crucial pages). --  tariq abjotu  14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Article of the week and Article of the Month
This is a suggested procedure for selecting the "best" featured article among articles featured each week (and month), via majority voting. It is an overly bureaucratic idea, that encourages strife between editors and contests that "my article is better than yours". It would also cause significant extra work that is better spent in other areas, and all for a matter that is completely subjective.

The purpose of this has not been explained anywhere, and there are many strong objections to this red tape on the talk page. It would be easier to simply reject it, but people object to that and want to start it anyway regardless of what consensus thinks,  because "nobody objected at the village pump" , so we're better off deleting it outright.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no "red tape" involved in this idea. It is a totally voluntary activity, not a bureaucratic process. The talk page doesn't really reflect any concensus yet -- to date the questions I have asked about other editors' concerns haven't been answered. (N.B.: "Article of the week" wasn't my idea. If it had been, I would have called it, "Wikipedian Idol" or possibly, "Most popular newly featured article of the week". But then again, I love the concept of popularity contests!) (Sdsds - Talk) 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Extraneous process with no benefits, agree that this should have been tagged rejected and forgotten about. All due respect to Sdsds but this process is nothing but red tape, you won't win that argument. IvoShandor 11:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's like an RfA for featured articles, completely unnecessary. IvoShandor 11:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete- the above user's comment about it being "completely voluntary" call into question whether the proposal can ever become widely accepted enough to not be a frequent location where a given group can solicit for votes for a given week, etc., thereby completely prejudicing the results. Request that the templates, including WAWnom and WAMnom, be included in the deletion. John Carter 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep main pages tagging them as rejected proposals. Delete all related templates and other documents, as they do not have any value for the rejection, and could be misused in the future if they were kept. John Carter 15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh... things are getting creepy around here. >.> —— Eagle 101  Need help? 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete both. I don't see any reasoning supporting the idea that this helps create a better encyclopedia.  I just see one user whose interests (I love the concept of popularity contests!) run counter to the project's basic goal and methods (see WP:NOT), and who is willing to disregard process and lack-of-consensus as per the second link in the nomination.  Barno 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete overly bureaucratic process with very little benefit. Hut 8.5 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes! The purpose of Featured articles is to recognise high-quality articles based on the merits of the articles and irrespective (hopefully) of any popularity contests. These new proposals seem to have little to do with the quality of the content of the articles. Also, we already have multiple levels for rating articles (stub, start, B, GA, A, FA), we don't need "plusfeatured" and "doubleplusfeatured". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also delete the 10 subpages here and here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - bloat, doesn't actually improve any featured article ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is the most compelling logic: "Article of the week" doesn't directly result in improved articles. And the hypothetical benefit (of it improving editors) is at best unproven. At most this concept should be reformulated to focus on its ability to do that, without any implication it might improve the articles involved. Perhaps Wikipedia has other ways of helping editors understand how to write articles that appeal to the broader populace, and not just to their elite fellow editors? (Sdsds - Talk) 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only think of experience and Strunk & White. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yes, experience is the best teacher. And editors get great experience as they go through the various review processes (peer review, GA, FA, etc.) But isn't there also a place for feedback after-the-fact from the "customer", so to speak? A popularity contest, for all it may offend some, is a great way to see if the other processes are actually leading to better articles from the perspective of the general population of readers, rather than just from the perspective of elite editors. (Or at least, if a popularity contest can't be used to do this, Wikipedia "should" find a better way to do it! Rather than just tearing down a well-intentioned attempt, the most effective use of effort would be to help improve the suggestion! 'Cause in case some folks hadn't noticed: Wikipedia is good, but it isn't yet great. There's still plenty of room for improvement of "process".) (Sdsds - Talk) 23:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Each featured article receives a thorough grilling from readers when it is featured on the Main Page. A popularity contest would only expose such articles to review by editors that already participate in the peer review/GA/FA processes. I don't see how an article of the week/month/whatever contest would bring in uninvolved contributors. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on the assertion, "Each featured article [...] is featured on the Main Page"? Twenty-three articles were promoted to featured status last week, yet last week had only seven days. Given the trend in promotions per week (and the lack of a corresponding trend in days per week ;-), won't most promoted articles never reach the main page? (Sdsds - Talk) 03:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Diez2 made this point previously, on Wikipedia talk:Article of the week, in this edit on 30 April 2007. (Sdsds - Talk) 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, TFA has a sizable backlog. As for the constructive potential of the proposed process, I remain unconvinced. Identifying high-quality static versions and working with multiple drafts seem like much better methods for polishing up current FAs than constructing an altar for a select few. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Black Falcon makes an excellent and (for me) convincing argument. I think that these should be deleted (and not historified/esperanify-d/etc).  --Iamunknown 22:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whats the differance between this and featured articles? Flubeca 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The current article rating system seems sufficient. I echo John Carter's request that the associated templates be deleted as well. Chiros Sunrider 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tag as rejected if it is, but there is no reason not to leave this for when someone else comes up with the idea. -Amarkov moo! 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  Joe  I  04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with rejected per Amarkov. ShadowHalo 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete as noted by Amarkov but there seems to be a solid consensus from the talk page and this MfD that the whole proposal is rejected. Still, it's good to keep a record of bad ideas that have already been deemed bad ideas. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reject for the reasons stated by others above.--Danaman5 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, at the risk of making my input appear to be just a mere vote. You can reject a proposed guideline or project without deleting the page. -- llywrch 02:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as rejected. Waggers 07:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would change to reject but I can't, mostly because this: Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is still being used despite the fact that it was supposed to be tagged as rejected, yeah something got tagged (WP:BAP) but this exists now. IvoShandor 15:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Not strictly necessary; complicates the featured article process more than is needed. Or keep and tag as rejected; no harm in that.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.