Wikipedia talk:Renominating for deletion

Comment
This is one of the wiser essays I've read, Smokey. Good insight and fair tone. czar  &middot;   &middot;  03:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reconsidering the "no consensus" guideline
Hi! I would like to suggest a reduction to the "no consensus" guideline of two months in this essay. I recently renominated an article just a few weeks after its first AfD closed (Articles for deletion/Matthew Lynn (2nd nomination)) and ran into questions about it being "too soon" to renominate, on the basis of this essay, which I should note is not accepted policy. I have recently discovered that WikiProject Notability has an 11+ year backlog of articles that are tagged for notability concerns, which just seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I think that if something is tagged for 11 years and nobody can get the article past WP:SIGCOV in that amount of time, then it's time to have a serious discussion about deletion. Really it should be a 1 year time limit at most. In the case of this particular article, just three editors participated in the initial discussion - the nominator, one "keep", and one "delete". For "discussions" of this nature where there is virtually no participation (and yes I recognize that many AfDs these days have very few participants) I think having to wait another two months to take action is too long. It would be different if there were a more significant number of editors split down the middle. For cases like this it is as if the discussion didn't really even happen. I'm fairly confident I could find 10 editors in short order who would agree that the subject of the article fails WP:SIGCOV and should be deleted. So in any case I think it's fine to have the two month threshold for discussions with, say, 5 participants or more, where no consensus is reached, but the threshold should not be observed for cases with less participation. On a related note I think the standard time window for an AfD should probably be extended, given the number of articles that get relisted currently. I don't have exact figures but I know it's a decent number. Moreover, the "seven days" rule has been in place for at least ten years, probably longer, and the size of Wikipedia has doubled in that time, meaning more articles get nominated more often. If we had twice as many participants in AfDs then maybe seven days would still make sense but I don't think that's the case. Anyway - hopefully someone reads this at some point. Always happy to discuss and would love to hear some counterpoints. Cheers, Paradox  society  01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)