Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esquivalience (talk | contribs) at 14:45, 7 February 2016 (→Interchanges (i.e. road junctions)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Malls

As to malls, what was communicated to me by one sysop was that the dividing line was 1 million sf, and a second sysop said he believed it was 500,000 sf, with malls below those sizes generally not being considered inherently notable absent unusual RS coverage. I now have an editor saying that a mall that is far below both those cut-offs, at 333,615 sq ft, is notable.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promenades Drummondville.

As to my allusion to other editors indicating the 500,000 square foot (or higher) cut-off at mall AFDs, consider:

  • Sumter Mall deletion review (see comment by DGG; "There is no fixed rule about malls, but the usual practice is for there to be a cutoff at around 1 million square feet--less in some regions where there are still rare. This is compatible with the definition of super-regional in most lists. In the US have sometimes kept with less, but rarely in recent years with less than 500,000. (this has 345,000) Sometimes there is some special distinction ... The applicability of the GNG to malls is useless--the events reported are usually trivial or in local sources which report anything regardless of significance. (When there is something of significance that's another matter.)"),

Thoughts? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOFEAT... Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GEOFEAT works, but I think there is also a strong consensus that less than 500k sq feet is too small. Whether the dividing line is 600k or 1 million is not settled yet. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that both Sumter Mall and Westwood Mall in Jackson, Michigan still have articles anyway, as the presence of multiple third party sources supercedes size or lack thereof. Brighton Mall was less than 300,000, yet it's been kept twice because of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sumpter Mall was deleted earlier this month at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall and the deletion upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19. It was recreated on 28 May, with additional sources---but the sources were brought up for discussion at the AfD and the consensus was that they were too local to be significant. I have listed it as speedy G4; if the speedy is declined, I will take it to AfD once more. Westwood was deleted at an AfD in 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westwood Mall (Jackson, Michigan), and a later creation speedy deleted as copyvio. That's too old for me to be comfortable using G4, so I will consider what to do with it. Brighton was kept in a 2008 AfD. I consider that also too old to be reliable as an indication of current views, and I will consider whether I want to renominate it. The way the GNG is applied depends on how we consider the sources. (Or , as I have sometimes said, what we decide to do at AfD depends on our global evaluation of notability , and we then interpret the sufficiency of the sources to give the conclusion we want.) Myself, I would prefer a firm cutoff in any but exceptional cases, but I have observed the current practice is rather to manipulate the details of the criteria for sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sumter Mall article has new sourcing, are you checking your facts?  At the DRV and AfD there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG.  The argument that the sources were only local did not stand.  The argument that the sources were not independent was shown to not be consistent with the essay WP:INDY.  I think you could have and could going forward help a lot here by following WP:BEFORE.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the GNG is in conflict with NOT DIRECTORY, which do you think is more important? We'll discuss it at the AfD, if I don't decide the whole topic is not worth the trouble. I am even open to the possibility of abandoning both NOT DIRECTORY and its attempted implementation as WP:N, and concentrate on removing promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, WP:NOT is a policy and supersedes the WP:N guideline.  But I don't see that the definitions that include the word "regional" open us up to indiscriminate coverage.  We know from icsc.org that as of Jan 2014, the U.S. has 680 super-regional malls, and 831 regional malls.  Malls also factor into the gazetteer as venues and regional landmarks.  What do you have in mind to reduce promotionalism?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be the same sort of shortcut as the one used vis-a-vis schools, where primary schools for example are generally deleted, but in extraordinary circumstances (such as unusual (for primary schools) GNG non-local coverage) GNG can lead to the article being kept. But the approach seems to have been adopted by consensus in both schools and malls before I become involved with the two. Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that the size issue was to justify keeping larger malls even if notability was an issue. I disagree that size overrides notability for smaller malls. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how anything can or should override the GNG. Trivial or local coverage of something means just that –it's not notable and shouldn't have it's own article. It can go in a "Shopping malls in X location" article in this case and be redirected. Having a size "rule" allows circumvention of the GNG, which should not be possible. Being arbitarily "big" does not confer notability on any entity.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. It is not a guideline or a policy. It is just a helpful tool to give people an idea of what often happens in AfDs, according to the experiences of some editors (in other words it is anecdotal). The standard is GNG and maybe one can throw in a hat tip towards GEOFEAT, although that has not yet been formally adopted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to this- to defining something's notability based on an arbitrary quantitative value without considering qualitative aspects of why a mall may be notable. In small towns, the 500k (or gasp 800k!) square footage belies the reality that such a mall may be a civic anchor or major landmark, as in the case of the just-deleted Royal City Centre which is the main edifice in Uptown New Westminster in British Columbia, Canada. I haven't looked yet at the notability for shopping centres guideline (not a rule...anyone here remember the Fifth Pillar, "there are no rules"?) but if the same quantitative arguments are made/asserted there, based on urban-scale conceptions of physical size, rather than role in a community or architectural notability of local-landmark status, it's a systemic bias and should be trashed. WP:Hotels has, as stated at the top of List of hotels, notability parameters which include being a landmark, as the RCC definitely is and has been for decades; the "bias for bigger" thing that's around Wikipedia just a bit too much does a disservice to smaller cities and towns. I know of another major landmark in Nelson, British Columbia, whose article was also deleted (name escapes me just now, it's early here) and the Yaohan Centre is a major mall in its area, one of several that form anchors in Golden Village, the modernist "Chinatown" in Richmond, British Columbia; also notable for various news-y reason; Capri Centre was also just deleted. One thing I've noted in looking over other major mall articles in Greater Vancouver is that they nearly all have only the mall's own website as a reference; but they are major civic anchors and landmarks; making them wiki-invisible by deleting them makes their presence in local geography invisible. Some, like the Yaohan, are "four or five star" in quality; if the same standard as on WP:Hotels were applied, it would qualify. Not approaching the local WikiProject directly and doing 7-day deletions, voted on by two, maybe three people, is not, to me, acceptable and is not genuine consensus, as no effort to ask locally was made. That these all come in a row constitute bulk deletions; why is it that people spend more time looking for things to delete instead of looking for ways to improve or expand or reference the article, other than cursory google searches, is quite beyond me. "Improving the encyclopedia" should not mean deleting everything in the path of "rule enforcers" ("there are no rules", remember?).Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "schools"

Recently there have been a flood of new articles concerning non-governmental schools and "institutions of higher learning", particularly in northwestern India and Pakistan.

What is the policy on "private" schools and colleges, as well as religious madrassas (which many of these may be fronts for)?

If there is no policy at present, I think we need one. Pax 03:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast media

I need to raise an issue where this document's section on broadcast media is in conflict with WP:NMEDIA. Specifically, this document asserts a blanket statement that "Satellite radio channels on XM, Sirius or WorldSpace are kept" — but the actual consensus, more correctly documented at NMEDIA, is that satellite radio stations are kept if, and only if, reliable sourcing that's specifically about the station itself can be provided. If the only sourcing you can provide to support an article is a poorly sourced (e.g. a primary source directory listing on the satellite service's own website, a passing acknowledgement of its existence in an article about some other topic, etc.) confirmation that the individual channel exists, however, then the channel does not qualify for a separate standalone article of its own.

Accordingly, I propose the following wording change here:

For the record, I've commented the point in question out of the broadcast media section for the time being, given that it's under dispute. It should be uncommented again once there's a consensus for an appropriate new wording (be it my proposal or a revised version.)

- Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion has been open for three weeks now, with no further discussion taking place and no objections having been raised, I'm going to add the proposed text back into the document. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding United Methodist Church bishops

Would it be reasonable to specifically include in this page indications that United Methodist Church bishops will in general be notable as well? John Carter (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is GNG. Therefore the real question is, based on experience, do most UMC bishops pass GNG? I have some doubts, but I am am not sufficiently familiar with the polity and doings of the Methodist Church to know if their leadership routinely garners in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on whether speedy A7 should apply to senior high schools/sixth form, 6-12 schools, K-12 schools, etc. (schools with upper secondary components)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Articles_on_Schools_exempt_from_WP:A7 WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies on schools should be WP:GNG and WP:ORG, not WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

Using WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a deletion argument, is in essence, an appeal to the majority, a logical fallacy. We should instead insert language that schools are usually kept because they almost always are notable, and that one has to show that news coverage satisfying WP:GNG does not exist or WP:ORG is not satisfied. I'd like to cite Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (an essay stating my opinion) in saying that, even though high schools are commonly presumed to be notable, they must also be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability. Basically, a discussion in 2009 where 3 people participated (see here) has created something that has taken on the level of a policy in AfD discussions. I'm not proposing any sort of notability guideline for schools, but this summary of AfD debates intended to be used as a guideline has somehow been transmuted into a pseudo-policy, which we need to rectify by stating that the primary policies covering schools are WP:GNG and WP:ORG. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is persuasive, but should not be the "be all and end all" when it comes to schools. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have long opposed the more or less presumptive notability for schools. Far too many articles have been created with few or no RS sources and they are being treated as presumptively notable. As of right now the de-facto (if not yet de-jure) reality is that most editors believe that any High School or secondary school that can be proven to exist is presumptively notable. I think this is wrong and and contrary to both the letter and spirit of the guidelines. I also believe it has allowed way too many articles to get on Wikipedia that do not meet GNG. It's time for the blank check to be torn up.-Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Could the OP shorten the rather long thread title please? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is often misused as an argument, mainly when USA-schools are in play. The Banner talk 10:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being bold and adding it. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also talk about the sentence: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. That is of course a massive failure of WP:GNG. And to make it worse, I have seen this sentence being used in combination with a statement that sounded like when you failed to find sources, you did not search hard enough. The Banner talk 21:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classrooms "invariably" deleted

I changed this to "almost invariably". Reason is, some certainly could, the Ether Dome was built as a classroom, surgery was secondary, the purpose of the large structure with its tiers of spectator places was not to operate, but to enable medical students to observe operations. The 1595 Padua anatomic theatre certainly merits an article. No surgery performed here. It was built to enable medical students to observe the dissection of cadavers. The are probably other examples. I suspect that an aritcle on the real classroom where they filmed Indiana Jones giving lectures could pass GNG.15:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the proposition that some 'classrooms' are likely to be notable. James500 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and other religious schools that fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG

Anyone have a good sense of school outcomes for relatively-unknown (that is, they would fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP) "Bible" and other religious post-secondary schools that grant degrees, but where the accrediting agency is so closely tied to the school that it can't really be called independent, or where the accrediting agency and related institutions recognize the degree but the government and the "rest of the world" doesn't recognize the credentials the same as they would a typical college degree (that is, the government might recognize a graduate as being qualified to preach and perform marriages, but would not recognize the school as a degree-granting school for financial aide or other purposes).

I'm asking because this recent AFD about a religious college/university was opened with the comment

non notable school of [a religious group]. If we started giving article space to every [school run by/for that religous group] there will be almost 1 thousand articles created every day for the next ten years FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [edited by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) at 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) to remove the particular religious group, which is not related to THIS discussion]

Nevermind the merits of this particular school (which probably will pass based on WP:GNG or WP:CORP), the issue remains: How have past AFDs for otherwise-non-notable religious schools whose only credential is one recognized by a particular church or religion been resolved? Have there been enough of them in the last few years to even declare that a precedent has been set?

If the answer is "they have NOT been uniformly KEPT" or "there haven't been enough to declare a precedent" then I recommend we explicitly note that otherwise-non-notable religious schools whose accreditation to grant degrees is not recognized outside of the related religious community are not "presumed notable" under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations

Currently, the section on "Rail Transport" doesn't mention railway stations, but points to Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) which basically says to use WP:GNG. However, it was made pretty clear to me here that despite GNG, that "the only time verifiably real rail transport stations end as anything other than "keep" is when articles about a group of stations are merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they're on. For heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) the latter almost always happens only if the stations are simply proposed/planned, or existed only briefly many years ago." Therefore, I am proposing that under rail transport we add a line that says:

  • Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's clear that there are no objections, so I'm going to go ahead and add this. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking

I apologize for the section blanking seen in the edit history. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merle Gordon something went wrong and placed the entire AfD guidelines on the Merle Gordon AfD page. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools

Somethings been bugging me, every high school gets an article, some editors such as Jacona and VMS_Mosaic have gone so far as to say that if a high school is proven to exist then it gets an article (here). What I'm wondering is, are high schools exempt from WP:ENN? If so, why? Is it some sort of WP:IHN thing?

Americanfreedom (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't say anything that is not in line with: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." This is long standing consensus. I wasn't involved in reaching that consensus, but I suspect it was done at least partly to prevent long drawn out arguments over every high school (i.e., it is better to work on improving articles instead of constantly arguing about them). Of course consensus can change over time. But this is only one of a number of areas where only proof of existence is required (see WP:GEOLAND and see primary highways [beyond proof of existence, the article should assert individual notability]). Primary highways only need an assertion of notability as opposed to proof of notability. See any mineral article where only proof (mentioned in one book) of existence is required. Etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danig Party of Australia is a rare case of a registered political party in Austrailia that had practicall zero press coverage as of the time of the AFD.

It is interesting because at least one AFD participant indicated that registered political parties in Austrailia almost always meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines: As a general rule, we've always held that notability goes with registration, and that registered parties have articles when their preferences matter very significantly is a pretty fundamental reason why our coverage of Australian politics is good.

Even if this is true in Austrailia, it's not true everywhere. If "political parties" is ever added to this list, it will have to be on a country-by-country basis or based on whether it or is members have won elections and at what level (e.g. "Political parties in the United States may be presumed notable if their candidates for Congress have won an election, their candidate fot President has received electoral votes, their candidate for governor has won, or enough of their candidates for any house of any state legislate has won enough votes to give them a majority. They may also be presumed notable if ....").

If political parties are added to this list, this AFD can be cited as an example of when the presumption breaks down and the article should not be created or it should be merged or redirected or sent to AFD if it already exists davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely does not apply to UK political parties, which are registered in their hundreds and often inactive or vanity/marketing projects. People have tried to argue for having representation as an indication of notability, but getting a town/parish councillor is like falling off a log. They need in depth coverage from multiple sources. Fences&Windows 11:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are other tests we can apply for United Kingdom parties: a single MP certainly guarantees notability, and we can count the number of councillors they have (one might not suffice, but a large number will), and the number of votes they have received (eg you could infer the Referendum Party was notable from the 812,000 votes they received in 1997), and we can look at whether they actually have had control of any county or district council or unitary authority (ie a majority of councillors on the council). I am under the impression that the United Kingdom has significantly fewer elected representatives per capita than many other countries, as I recall reading that somewhere. Multiple sources are certainly not needed for any purpose, and references to them in notability guidelines can be safely blamed on WP:RANDY. References to "depth coverage" are completely unhelpful because they are subjective and certain sections of the community keep insisting on an unreasonably large quantity of coverage. Minor and "joke" parties do get coverage, and are certainly collectively notable: see for example the article "Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?" by Matthew Parris. James500 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the talk page for "Common outcomes", not the place to establish what should be the notability criteria for political parties. Minor UK political parties have often been deleted or merged, so the suggestion above that registration=notability=kept doesn't apply. Any party with an MP will inevitably pick up ample coverage in reliable sources, but I don't know of any practice of using representation at local level to indicate notability. I didn't say that minor parties or joke parties cannot be notable (and there may be a suitable merge target if they are not), but rather that they are not automatically notable. "Multiple sources are certainly not needed for any purpose": I was restating WP:GNG, which expects significant coverage from sources. Fences&Windows 13:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Do you have a link/reference to that Parris article? I couldn't find what you meant. Fences&Windows 13:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about ambassadors

To editor LibStar: Regarding your edit, what "consensus" was this? The last discussion I saw was here. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that several perhaps over 30 ambassador Articles have been deleted. If they had inherent notability they would have been all kept. There has been no consensus in AfD or that discussion to grant ambassadors inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like to be included on the list there should be some nuance to the subject. Maybe I just haven't been involved in enough ambassador AfDs to know, but there should be something there explaining why it needs to be noted here (i.e. by default, topics are not inherently notable, by default notability is not inherited, and by default additional roles can help a person become notable. What am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the vast majority of AfD discussions in which ambassadors have been deleted have had no more than two or three contributors. Not much of a consensus that they're not notable either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment  WP:N states, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists".  So it is a truism to say that "(x) is not inherently notable".  It is like saying that "(x) does not confer notability", but notability is not bestowed.  The statements are always true, and carry no additional information.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is no consensus for that wording to be added. I have removed the offending text per WP:BRD. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is no 'common outcome' that ambassadors are not generally notable. Thirty counter examples prove nothing because the number is too small, and could consist of outliers. In any event many of those examples should have been closed as no consensus due to there having been no quorum. There is also a problem that editors who !vote against deletion of bilateral relations articles are so regularly subjected to such intense trolling that some editors altogether refuse to participate in any AfD on a diplomat. James500 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interchanges (i.e. road junctions)

Hi. As a result of over 50 AfD discussions over the past 3 months, the consensus was that unless an interchange established that it had met WP:GNG, it would not pass AfD. Only 2 of those discussions ended in Keep results. About 4 were No consensus (although I feel at least one of those was simply a !vote count, and not based on policy), and the other 45 were Delete results. (There are still several open). But even in the keep and no consensus votes, the over-riding rationale was based on notability. In an effort to alleviate some of these problematic discussions in the future, I've added the results of those AfD's to the Road section of the essay. Onel5969 TT me 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is not Bold revert revert discuss.  You already know that there is no consensus for your version, but you require on having it your way to begin the discussion?  Why is that?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you posted is, "Interchanges, while parts of roadways which may be notable, have no inherited, nor inherent, notability. Simply existing does not qualify them as notable. They must pass WP:GNG."  Which part of "duplicative, truisms, not statements, and GNG-centrism" was not clear?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What part of 47 out of 50 discussions pointing to a consensus is difficult for you to understand? I've seen more consensus on issues, but rarely. Regarding your above edit summary: pretty much the fact that your opinion has been thoroughly thought of as invalid during AfD discussions. Your failure to understand how consensus works, and your reluctance to drop the stick is a bit unsettling. But let's wait and see what other editors have to say. I'll ask other editors to AGF my above statement about the # of AfD discussions. But if asked, I will provide links to all 50+ of them. But as I said at the last AfD, there's no point at this stage with discussing this with you. I'll respond to questions/comments/requests from other editors. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I treat you with respect and I have no stick.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating's opinion has not been thoroughly thought of as invalid during AfD discussions. (Nor is such an accusation on topic). Nor has he failed to understand how consensus works. James500 (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • -It's not just the deletions, even in the 2 keeps, and the several no-consensus, the over-riding guideline was notability. In not a single one of the discussions was any other rationale used. That would pretty much invalidate those other rationales. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept that your sample of fifty AfDs over 3 months is large enough. At this stage, your outcome is not common enough and could be a flash in the pan. It might also consist of outliers (it might be that the vast majority of interchanges satisfy GNG, in which case they should be presumed notable to save time, and that the sample consists of 'low hanging fruit'). I would like to see one thousand results evenly spread out over a five year period. Would I also be correct in imagining that these AfDs, which were so well attended that I was not even present at any of them, are mostly the work of the same small group of editors !voting over and over again in all or most of the AfDs? Because that would be a spree, not a trend. James500 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at one of these AfDs, I find that there are only two !votes for deletion. I would call that 'no quorum', and I would probably have closed it as no consensus or relisted it, looking at the arguments as well. I do not think a topic should normally be deleted because two people agree. For crowd-decision-making to work, there has to actually be a crowd. Do the rest have a similar lack of participation? James500 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Participation, as would be expected, varies. Just guessing, but probably at least 20 or so editors participated in the various discussions, although there were about 5 who were pretty consistent in participating. I wasn't questioning your rationale for opposing, I actually understand that. I was speaking to your comment about the other editor's rationale. Which there was, as I've said, a universal consensus (in the AfD decision-making process), that the overriding principle should have been GNG. That's the only point I was trying to make. Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 18:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this page is for common outcomes which are not basically "follow WP:GNG", and as such probably isn't worth adding. ansh666 02:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "most topics should meet GNG" is already inferred advice for topics not mentioned on this list. Saying that "interchanges are usually not notable" will just reduce the amount of research AfD participants do on interchange articles, and we may have a gap in our coverage because of it. Esquivalience t 14:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes&oldid=703767865"