Anybody in the world can add an AfD tag to an article and put it up for deletion. Go ahead, try it: you can get DHH or Paul Graham listed right now. But without a clear consensus to delete, the article isn't going anywhere. Moreover, once the article survives an AfD, it is harder to delete in the future.
This article is running 2-1 keep. I've never seen an AfD succeed with half that opposition. All you can do at this point is piss the WP hobbyists off, have the delete discussion devolve into an argument about "voting versus debating", and make the discussion that much harder for the deleting admin to assess.
Sorry, I know it's a slow news day, but this doesn't count.
Thanks for the heads up on how this works. Not knowing wikipedia's process at all, I would have thought that why's entry was about to be deleted as well.
Now we know that it's not as big a deal as it seems.
| Not knowing wikipedia's process at all, I would have thought that why's entry was about to be deleted as well.
From the big note at the top of the page:
"This article is being considered for deletion ... Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page."
There's nothing there to suggest that it's about to be deleted, and getting more information about the process of article deletion is as easy as following the links posted in the note at the top of the page. Wikipedia tries to be fairly transparent about this sort of thing.
Also, note that this article was considered for deletion about a year and a half ago, and the overall consensus was to keep it. It's probably gonna be sticking around, although it needs some heavy cleaning up.
without a clear consensus to delete, the article isn't going anywhere
This isn't true. A blog I like got deleted from wikipedia a while back (IMAO.US back when it was only Frank J) on the charge of not being notable. There wasn't a consensus to delete. There was a huge argument, then they just deleted him.
WP has a "special" definition of "consensus". It isn't a vote. The way it's supposed to work is, the closing admin reads every bulleted "keep" or "delete" argument, makes a spot decision about whether the arguments are valid, and then keeps unless there's an overwhelming number of "deletes".
WP has a "special" definition of "valid", which is codified in the 8043734897 pages in the WP: namespace that document the valid and invalid arguments. If you care --- and as your attorney in this matter I'm obligated to advise you not to --- you could start by reading WP:ATA.
This is frustrating because if you're not an AfD lawyer, you're left wondering why the closing admin ignored you but paid attention to the "WP:NN"! "WP:RS!" "WP:V!" codes other people used. But that's how the system worked.
In this case, there are keep votes pointing to reliable sourcing in the article. O'Reilly definitely counts. Nobody is going to delete it; it'd wind up in WP:DRV, wasting everyone's time some more.
This got deleted because, if you read the "keep" votes, the only arguments were that (a) it had been nominated for several awards, and (b) that it got lots of traffic. Neither are strong arguments.
It definitely didn't help that the blog was conservative and wikilawyers tend either towards shrieky Green Party turboliberalism or, worse, Paulbotism.
Edit: Oh hell, they deleted some of the keep arguments. I think they deleted keep arguments by people with recently created accounts, or which were not formatted properly.
I am absolutely certain of this. For example, my keep argument isn't there. I don't remember what it said, but I do remember that I posted one. Also there used to be significant vertical scrolling.
Not a single comment was removed from that AfD. Not only would that be completely against policy and instantly reverted, but I just checked every edit to it. (Yes, I need a life.) The article was deleted because the subject wasn't considered notable, not because there's some conspiracy against conservative blogs.
Anybody in the world can add an AfD tag to an article and put it up for deletion. Go ahead, try it: you can get DHH or Paul Graham listed right now. But without a clear consensus to delete, the article isn't going anywhere. Moreover, once the article survives an AfD, it is harder to delete in the future.
This article is running 2-1 keep. I've never seen an AfD succeed with half that opposition. All you can do at this point is piss the WP hobbyists off, have the delete discussion devolve into an argument about "voting versus debating", and make the discussion that much harder for the deleting admin to assess.
Sorry, I know it's a slow news day, but this doesn't count.