Wikipedia talk:Early closure to avoid unnecessary confrontation

Feedback?
I'm hoping to see as much feedback on this policy as possible. Please also add AfDs to the final section if you believe there is / was a clear example of the need for this policy. Nice one,  Dei zio  14:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose; sorry. Well-intentioned response to a real problem; but the wrong kind. No way to tell which horse won the race until the finish line is crossed. John Reid 08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. It is because of this exact concern that a) I have gone to such lengths to point out how important a very clear outcome is, and b) I hope to build up a list of AfDs where this rule could be applied, which will show just how certain we are talking about. I agree with the "mathematical" basis of your comment, but (to pluck numbers out of the air) an AfD with 2 days to run and 20 experienced editors voting "delete" with one angered newbie shouting "keep" and deliberately trying to piss people off is not a race in the first place.  Dei zio  12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The purpose of polling, rather than simply voting, is to obtain a good selection of arguments pro and con, not merely to establish which side has a majority. It is the right of every editor to use their arguments to attempt to forge a new consensus. Early closure on the basis of an initial lopsided tally, turns a poll and a discussion into a vote. --BostonMA 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fear you're missing the point. I'm not advocating revolutionizing AfD, I'm saying that when an article which anyone familiar with the system can see defintely does or doesn't meet the criteria, and a deletion debate on that article has needlessly descended into chaos, it can be closed to stop serious ugliness. Nobody is asking you to define what it says on the tag, we all know the "voting" system on AfD. Please read the policy again, I'll be happy to explain anything. Articles closed under this policy would typically have been open for at least 4-5 days already, well past the point when "new" votes were still appearing with any kind of regularity, rather all the interaction would be coming from people who had already commented, kept it on their watchlists and were now engaging in arguments and slanging matches.  Dei zio  23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno man. What's the hurry to close. If people are getting all snarky with each other, let them type. Let it run its course. It's not the RfD that's the cause of problem, that's just a symptom, it's gonna come out on the article talk page or wherever anyway. Also, the statement "Nobody is going to close an AfD which has been running for 36 hours and has 4 votes one way and 3 votes the other by citing this policy" is kind of naive, I think. Herostratus 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)