Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism

Comment here
I see that there has been an attempt to separate commentary from votes. I think that this was well-intended. I'm also sure it was wrong. If people have added comments in sensible places, that's where those comments should stay.

However, there's no reason why new commentary should not be added elsewhere. Indeed, it seems an excellent idea, and I'm kicking off discussion on this talk page. -- Hoary 09:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this meta-discussion. Please note, however, that the comments that I had refactored to the bottom of the page were not related to the votes. They were a single thread of discussion about the identity of the nominator. They had little to do with the merits of the VfD, but whether the person was a particular sockpuppet. Smack in the middle of the voting, the section of comments was a disruption to the voting process; whatever their basis in fact, the thread was more appropriate elsewhere. Thus, no-- the comments were not in a sensible place. I merely moved the thread to the bottom, to keep the continuity of the votes. That thread could easily be moved here with a link from the main page. As I've noted in a User_Talk discussion with the person who reverted the refactor, Wikipedia Policy does appear to favor maintenance of comments, when the intent is to improve readability and logical consistency. (See also my comment in that user's archive)

In particular, From Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance:
 * "Dozens of articles are listed for deletion every day, making Votes for deletion one of the busiest places on Wikipedia. The way VfD is currently set up, including all of the discussion on a single page, makes it one of the largest pages on Wikipedia, too. This results in a long page that can be difficult to navigate. More importantly, it results in long page load times, especially for Wikipedians with slower connections. It is a waste of both time, bandwidth and server resources.


 * Fortunately, the page bloat can be reduced. Certain types of discussion can be safely "un-included" from the main page, but still referenced by a link. This reduces the page size while keeping the discussions close at hand."

--LeFlyman 11:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Flamebait, and highly effective
Everything about this nomination suggests to me that it was flamebait. I'm one of several people who have pointed this out, but our voices have been drowned by the din over whether or not the article deserves deletion. Even if the nomination wasn't intended as flamebait, flamebait is what it has become.

Here's my tentative suggestion, which I invite the cool-headed to improve on. The VfD should be stopped as probable flamebait, and anyway as generating far more heat than light. This should not be understood as preventing another VfD on the same article, or as in any way prejudging the result of such a later VfD. However, no new VfD should be allowed for a certain period (two weeks?) judged long enough to let people cool down, and any new VfD on this particular article (about which the feelings of even the best intentioned are likely to run high) should follow rather stricter rules than are usual, notably that any commentary on or speculation about the identity or motives of the participants should be limited to the talk page. -- Hoary 09:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason for this being flamebait was discovered and quickly beaten with a stick untill senseless. I think it can safely be voted on, though I admit I would have agreed with you a week ago. --LouieS 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)