Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 1

message: Is there a reason to keep the subpage if something like Milk was put up for AfD? Why would we even note it? If it is obviously in bad-faith, why keep the subpage around? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 20:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For more controversial articles like George W. Bush having a pre-existing already closed sub-page will potentially deter the casual vandal from going further with the nomination, given the extra hassle that they would need to go to. The less fanatical of the POV merchants will see that the article has been speedily kept already and is thus likely to be speedily kept again. It wont stop the more determined people, but then we have lost nothing by keeping it. For something like Milk it is unlikely to be nominated more than once, and so it wont be seen - but people get fanatical about the strangest things. I am not about to try and draw the boundary between controversial and non-controversial. Having the pages around is also evidence against cabalism and trying to hide things. Thryduulf 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. Simply wondering. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It could also become useful in the RFC or RFA proceedings of someone who was disrupting Wikipedia with inappropriate AFDs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why keep subpage? 

message: An intriguing idea, but is this necessary?  It seems as if most of the times this is expected to be used is when an obviously bad-faith AfD occurs, but isn't that already 'fixable' under current admin rules?  I may be mistaken, but I don't recall seeing George W. Bush remaining in AfD for a week at a time.  The other main use cited is when there are 0 (zero) Delete votes, but doesn't the good-faith nomination of the article imply that at least one person (the editor who inserted ) is suggesting this is a delete?  Finally, I wish to note a concern that this might short-circuit the process of gaining consensus by allowing an admin to summarily override a good-faith AfD that he or she personally disagrees with.  I don't mean to be contrarian, but I hope I have communicated my concerns clearly. - CHAIRBOY (?) 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that it will be abused, but no more so than WP:CSD. For the reasons why I feel it is necessary take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2 and the fallout over Snowspinner's actions in speedy-keeping articles. Thryduulf 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I wondered if this was neccessary also, but for a different reason:  Speedy keeps are already done, without benefit of a formalized proposal.  I patrol Afd quite a bit and I see speedy keeps sometimes.  I don't recall seeing any that were controversial.  As I read it, the matter discussed in the RFC was not closing the Afds as a speedy keep, it was outright deletion of the Afd pages.  I don't see that a problem exists, so I don't know what this proposal is trying to solve.  Friday (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, many see the speedy keeping as nearly as bad as the deletion. And it is, in the same way that an admin closing an AFD with 99 "delete" votes as a "keep" even after 5 days is bad. ~~ N (t/c) 21:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really can't see how the two are comparable.  A speedily kept Afd is kept around where people can see it.  If someone disagreed, they could easily undo it and/or register their objection.  The deletion of the Afds was an altogether more extreme action, undoable only by admins.  If speedy keeps are done by common sense and with consensus (as I believe they currently are in most cases), I don't see why a formal guideline is neccessary.   Friday (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be nice to have a formal guideline just for the purpose of saying "you can't speedy keep just because you feel like it". I mean, even though it's undoable by anyone, it's highly disruptive - just like the example I gave of mass-closing "delete" AFDs as "keep" at the end of 5 days (which is explicitly against policy). ~~ N (t/c) 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no objections to this, but little enthusiasm either. It seems to me to be fixing a problem that isn't there, and will have no real affect on afd's main problems. This is re-aranging the deckchairs, when what we need is some form of change of direction. However, I see no reason to oppose it either (other than being instruction creep that serves little puspose). --Doc (?) 22:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you're right. It would be nice to have a policy saying "you CAN'T speedy keep for these reasons", but it's not necessary. ~~ N (t/c) 00:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this necessary? 

message: The last proposed guideline reads:
:Articles meeting either criterion can be kept if the discussion has not been linked to the appropriate AfD day page within 30 minutes of the sub-page being created.
Why is this being proposed?  In my (admittedly limited) experience, unlinked AfD subpages are usually a result of honest mistakes or inexperienced nominators.  I feel that one should assume good faith and simply add the missing entry to the appropriate AfD page (and maybe notify the nominator on their talk page).  The AfD process can then proceed as usual, possibly even resulting in a speedy keep if the nomination is inappropriate or done in bad faith.
Maybe I'm missing something, and there really is a good reason for this guideline.  But it strikes me as an unnecessary complication on an otherwise good proposal, and I feel that its inclusion may even reduce the likelihood of the proposal reaching sufficient consensus for approval. —Ilmari Karonen 22:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I wasn't reading carefully and didn't notice the meeting either criterion part.  Sorry.  I'm still not sure if this guideline is actually necessary, but I'm no longer opposed to its inclusion. Ilmari Karonen 22:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline #6 

message: I have two objections to this proposal. First, it is entirely too long (as in complex, verbose and bureaucratese). Complex rules lead to misinterpretation and arguments over their scope. Speedy deletion criteria are extremely short for that precise reason. And second, the vote "speedy keep - bad faith nomination" appears quite often on VFD in places where it is entirely inappropriate (and not infrequently on articles that end up deleted). Just because someone vehemently disagrees with a nomination does not make it bad faith. Thus, I'm afraid that this proposed rule will be abused, and will lead to disruptive arguments on whether or not a speedy keep was valid, with potential revert warring on the reopening/closing of the discussion page.
We already speedily-keep the (extremely rare) obvious disruption cases, and we have guidelines for that (e.g. WP:VAND). If some nomination is an obvious keep, the net effect is that the article will have a VFD tag on it for a grand total of five days. If speedily kept, that is reduced to two days. I'd say that three extra days of having a tag on an article is far less inconvenient than this additional and complex rule. Radiant_>|< 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in my experience, it seems that speedy keeps are accepted in cases where the nominator withdraws and there's no objection.  You also see speedy deletes and speedy redirects of things listed on Afd.  As long as there's consensus and visibility (Afds are quite visible to those who look for them), I don't see that hurrying things along in obvious cases is a bad thing.  In fact, I'd say it helps, as there's a lot of stuff being sent through Afd.  Friday (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arguably the fact taht it already happens is an argument for adopting the policy. I think this proposal is a good way of formalising what's 'already happening', open the door to more Speedy Keeps to keep AfD manageable, and clarifying where some of the boundaries are. The Land 17:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Formalising what is already happening was one of my main objectives. I don't think what I've proposed goes further than this? Thryduulf 19:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection, your honor 

message: I support the idea behind this proposal 100%, but it really needs to be simplified.  Something like...
"A speedy keep should only occur when there is a consensus among the first few voters do so.  The resulting AfD page should be kept as a record and not deleted."
...should pretty well cover the whole thing.
There's no need to seperate "obvious bad faith" nominations into a seperate category, as they'll gather Speedy Keep votes very quickly anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support the idea, but too verbose 

message: I assume Jesus or Milk would get four "Speedy Keeps" fairly quickly.  Criterion 1 is redundant if my assumption is true, and eliminating it reduces complexity and potential for abuse (eg. by an admin who is absolutely convinced Old Elf Inn is fundamental to an encyclopedia.) Xoloz 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the point, but I don't think that articles like either of the two you mention should have to wait for 4 votes. The only way around that I can think of introduces more complexity - i.e. by defining articles that it is applicable to. As to which articles, I suggest articles on the list (on meta) of articles every Wikipedia should have and articles on current events that have had 100 or more edits in the last 24 hours. Both are easy to check and objective. I haven't actually checked all the articles on the list though so I don't know what the state of them is (the links on meta go to :simple:). Thryduulf 19:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not just eliminate Criterion One?

message: Nominations that have been withdrawn by the orginal nominator have been mentioned above. These have been speedily kept in the past, but do not fit either of the criteria. I think therefore that a third criterion is the only way to allow this. It would be along the lines of 
::"If the orginal nominator withdraws the nomination the article can be speedily-kept 24 hours later if there have been no objections to a speedy-keep, and no votes other than to keep the article subsequent to the withdrawal." 
This is phrased very badly though, so if you can come up with a better wording or a better way of allowing them then please suggest them. Thryduulf 19:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you need such protections for a withdrawn nomination, as it's going to be kept instead of deleted and someone can just nominate it again. I would say that it should be speedily kept if there are no delete, merge or redirect votes before it is withdrawn, regardless of the time. I also think, in this case, only first choice votes should be counted (someone who votes "keep or merge", would be counted as a keep). I think there's to much focus on procedure on AfD. Some users complete other people's nominations even when they are non-sensical (no reason or nonsense reason and an obvious keep). -- Kjkolb 08:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawn nominations

message: I think this is a good idea in spirit. Also, I would love to see this expanded to speedy actions in general. For instance, often articles are brought to AfD where the obvious solution is to redirect. Sometimes people go ahead and do this to no objection, but it is awkward that this is officially outside policy—it often comes with an apology of "being bold".
On the other hand, I think the proposal could be simplified substantially. What about something more along these lines:
* An AfD nomination that has reached unanimous consensus among three eligible voters for the outcomes keep, redirect or merge can be speedily closed and the tag removed. This does not apply to articles with a recent nomination that has been speedily closed.
Because we're not talking about deleting pages (something that is difficult to undo for non-administrators), there is little harm in not giving the article its "due process"--if it is unfairly kept, redirected, or merged, it can be relisted or the redirect/merge undone through the normal wiki system. A relist can't be speedied, so if there is actual contention, then there is an easy way to make sure the article stays on AfD for the full period.
Dealing with bad faith nominations should probably be done through the vandalism policy.
Generally speaking, I think it's better to give editors and administrators leeway to "do the right thing" when it's obvious, as long as we can minimize the potential for abuse. — brighterorange (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the simplicity of it.  I also most certainly agree with the notion that having leeway to use common sense and do the right thing is preferable to having exact, rigid rules.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Friday (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple and unambiguous, just as a policy should be. No scope for abuse. I like it! --Celestianpower hablamé 12:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * Sorry, I didn't actually mean that it should be removed from the AfD page, but that the tag be removed from the article (I guess I am using jargon incorrectly). I changed the wording. You're right that it does happen (usually from delete to keep after something like a rewrite), but again observe that very little harm is done if an article is speedily kept (or redirected, or merged) since the actions can be undone by regular users (by re-nominating, or regular editing). But unanimous AfDs are the norm, so I still think it makes sense to streamline the process. — brighterorange (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the simplification and common sense, but I'm uncomfortable using only three votes for anything but speedy keep, at least for now. You have keep, merge and redirect in the proposal, but that's a lot different than a speedy keep. If regular keeps, merges and redirects are added to the criteria, I suggest getting four or five votes, with the administrator using his/her judgment. There's always a few editors who vote to keep, merge or redirect almost anything. Three speedy keeps with no objections should be enough to close a nomination. Also, it must be made clear that speedy keep isn't the same as strong keep, though. Perhaps it should be seen as improper to vote speedy keep when it isn't warranted. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, the number of votes isn't really what's important, so I'd support a proposal where the count was higher. (Or was specified that the consensus must be "obvious" or something.) But again, I'd like to remark that there is very little harm if a discussion is speedily kept/redirected/merged prematurely. Redirects and merges can already be carried out and undone by any user without voting on AfD, and a premature keep can be re-nominated for the full AfD. — brighterorange (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea; here's an idea to simplify 

message: I have to oppose this speedy keep policy for a number of reasons.  Firstly, anything that qualifies for criterion 1 can most often be deemed in bad faith or vandalism quite quickly, and if it is not so will most often be promptly revoked by the nominator upon receiving a message on their talk page.  And that, is on the rare occaision that this high-profile articles are nominated for deletion.
Secondly, this is an unnecessary policy.  Unnecessary policies should not exist.  This has not been a huge problem on AfD, and I have little problem with an article having the AfD tag for a few extra days.  The speedy deletion criterion are very clearly and concisely laid out, and there is a clear need for them.  An article that is voted to be kept isn't going anywhere sitting on the AfD for a few extra days.
Thirdly, I believe this policy is too easily misconstrued, and will be subject to abuse.  
Ardent†∈ 09:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: There is a new proposal for deletion reform at Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Proposals/Uncontested deletions --Doc (?) 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal  

message: An article that I made Planes of Existence (talker) was nominated for deletion the second that it was created.  It then passed with a keep vote of 7/3 (all 3 delete votes being in the first 10 minutes of nomination).  Less than a week later, it was renominated for deletion by newly created accounts with the aim to try to prove that their talker was better, and to justify vandalism, personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour.  Yet it wasn't speedy kept.  Why not?  Because they used sock puppets/meat puppets to vote delete?  Its a bad faith nomination and falls in to the category of WP:POINT yet I see it on its 3rd day of nomination, with nobody disregarding comments made by meat puppets with no editing history outside of vandalising that page and the one on "their talker", which they turned from a neutral article in to being an advertisement, without referencing any sources or having any attempt at neutrality - Crystal Palace (chat site).  Why is this permitted?  Surely it should be an automatic speedy keep in such situations. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 01:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem to be being followed 

message: I just discovered this guideline (this might be because it is not mentioned in a lot of places and I do wonder how this got elevated to guideline status). I am wondering what people here think about speedy keeping AfDs that are clearly going to be kept, even if there is no suggestion that nomination was in bad faith. I did this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boolean logic. It does seem against the guideline, but I think that the practice is fairly widespread and I don't feel bad about it. Should I? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. It's more a WP:SNOW than WP:SK, but the distinction is academic for most. Stifle (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy keeping clear keeps 

message: Guidelines tend to be about behaviour and community standards. Policies tend to be about rules that should be followed. This looks more like a policy than a rule to me. Stevage 11:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A policy should reflect the consensus. As I say in the section above, I have been using speedy keeps more liberally than Wikipedia:Speedy keep allows, unaware of that page but following what I think to be common practice, so I don't think the page reflects the consensus. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jitse Niesen, I think the guidelines listed are too rigid. I note a lot of people vote speedy keep when they see an article that just obviously needs to be kept and there are no delete votes. I do not believe these guidelines reflect consensus. Ifnord 13:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this not be a policy?

message: "the nomination was clear-cut vandalism or WP:POINT and nobody disputes this or votes to delete it anyway"
:I interpret this as meaning that if someone other than the nominator has recommended delete, then Speedy keep cannot thereafter be recommended and also if a Speedy keep had been recommended prior to the delete recommendation that the AfD cannot be closed as a Speedy keep.  A delete recommendation is by itself an indication that the person making that recommendation thought that the nomination was not vandalism or POINT (unless it is itself also vandalism or POINT).
:It has been argued that Speedy keeps can be recommended even if there are one or more delete recommendations beyond the one of the original nominator.  I don't understand how that interpretation can come out of the above text.  What do other people understand it to mean? ??????? 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the original form of the guideline diff I think my interpretation is correct. ??????? 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability 1.4

message: What if the six month ban only kicked in after the second AFD?  That would address both concerns.  It would stop silly distracting AFDs, but it would allow a genuine mistake to be fixed without having a six-month "get out of jail free" card. BigDT 19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely against it, but my issue is that, again, a "genuine mistake" can be fixed by existing deletion policy.  A third AfD is such a rare occasion, I'm not even sure it'd make a difference.  But I'm not completely against it at the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of shocked here, no offense. :-) I had this wrong. I thought you were trying to cut down on 5th, 6th and etc. nominations being done a month or two after the last. It seemed unnecessary since only a few articles are so nominated. However, in your comment above, you acknowledge that third AfDs are rare occasions and limiting them probably wouldn't make much difference. Then, the policy is intended to delay second AfD nominations for 6 months! That's just crazy with all the crap that happens at AfD, like lack of participation, sock puppets, bad nominations on awful articles (like "nn", which sometimes get kept out of principle rather than the article's merits) and new information that come in too late to influence the discussion or comes in after the nomination has closed. Articles that should have been deleted the first time with have to wait 6 months for a renomination and they'll probably end up waiting even longer, unless we get some kind of system for tracking bad articles that got kept at a flawed AfD nomination (many editor's careers are shorter than 6 months). Besides the embarrassment of some of these articles being kept, when combined, there is also a ton of wasted work. People who created an article on a non-notable topic or others who are interested in the topic will get back to work on them for 6 months or more, only to have them deleted. Other people, who are indifferent or even think that the article should be deleted may even decide to work on the article so that it isn't so terrible before it is eventually deleted. Frankly, the crap that comes down the pike at :Category:Articles that need to be wikified and Category:Wikipedia cleanup is bad enough without AfD rejects being added (I'm not angry, you try wikifying the last 50 articles in a particular month). Your comment mentioned that a genuine mistake can be fixed by existing deletion policy. Do you mean sending all of the articles with flawed nominations to Deletion Review? That's slightly less crazy, but Deletion Review has enough articles to deal with as it is and is more vicious and less efficient than AfD. A second, or even third, AfD nomination is much simpler process than this. -- Kjkolb 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My rpoposal only dealt with consensus keeps, not with any article being AfD'd twice.  Flawed nominations, no consensus, deletes, none of those would qualify. And DRV isn't backlogged at all, --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the problem is, you're attempting to objectively enforce subjective criteria.  If we could know for a fact that 12 non-sock, unbiased editors all looked at an article, all did their due diligence, and that 7 or 8 of them concluded keep, I don't think anyone would have a problem with disallowing another AFD discussion for six months.  But the problem is that if there is contention on the issue, there will be four sock/meat puppets who show up just for the debate, have redlinked names, and single-digit edit counts.  There will be five people who say "keep and improve" even though in 99% of cases, nobody actually cares enough to improve, or, if they do care, there's an edit war between POV-pushing sides who just want to advance propaganda and don't care one bit about what's encyclopedic and so the article never actually will be improved.  BigDT 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we don't trust deletion policy, in other words.  Or, more to the point, we trust them when it ends in a result that we favor?  I completely understnad what you're saying - really, I do - but another quick nomination really shouldn't be the answer, should it?  I ask again - what's wrong with DRV in that case?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, the three people who actually read the article all say delete and point out ten WP: guidelines or policies that the article doesn't meet.  Shazam, you've got 9 keeps, and three deletes - the article is a consensus keep.  This proposal now gives this article six months of life, even though it's unencyclopedic garbage.  I'm not talking about any article in particular, but you can see the pattern in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (third nomination) / (1), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid (disambiguation) and all of the AFDs for the related WP:POINT articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WrestleCrap/(2), etc. BigDT 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in violation of numerous policies, it shouldn't be closed a consensus keep.  If it is, we have a problem with the closing admin, and, yet again, we have avenues available to appeal them.  For the record, Lightsaber combat should have gone to DRV, and I guarantee it would have been overturned, instead we'll likely see a no consensus here.  Aparthied was a no consensus, and wouldn't have ended up under this umbrella, and Wrestlecrap isn't even done yet, and should be a keep anyway.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It happens all the time.  Junk gets kept, despite clearly being in violation of the relevant notability guideline or some other policy. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."  As dangerous as I think it is to have that blanket of a statement, something like it needs to be there.  If an article is unverifiable, unsourced trash, it needs to be dealt with in some fashion.  If this guideline is going to keep trash from getting a second look, that's a problem. BigDT 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, again, your problem is with a) the closing admins, and b) your interest in renominating to get the desired result instead of trying the available processes.  This guideline does NOT get in the way of allowing a second look anywhere, nor is it intended to keep anyone from reviewing deletions, contrary to apparent myth.  If something is out of process, that's something that obviously needs to be dealt with, and is not contrary to this change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you put "Israel", "Democrat", or "Republican" in the title of an article, you will instantly get people to show up to an AFD and, no matter how ludicrous the topic is or how badly written the article is, vote keep or delete not on its merits, but on its agreement with their POV.  I don't think that administrators should just blatantly ignore a consensus and I think that any controversial closure needs more than just a sentence or two explaining it, but there needs to be some willingness at times to say, "no, this article violates the policy - the arguments were never refuted, 'I like it' isn't a reason to keep an article, it goes bye bye". BigDT 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  100% agree.  Note how often I take deletions to DRV because of it.  It's not going to make you any friends, but that's not the point, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said at the beginning of this long essay, you're attempting to enforce subjective criteria objectively.  When "consensus keep" is the subjective opinion of an administrator about what the subjective opinions of those participating were, enforcing the opinion objectively with a hard six-month ban just doesn't make sense. BigDT 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we disagree on this.  It's a 6 month ban on renominating for AfD, not going through any other myriad of appeals that are available for review.  It's not like AfD is the only way to get a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are ways that AFD could be fixed so that it would make sense ... but as long as effective meat puppetry, if not actual meat puppetry, continues to have an influence on the outcome, a hard rule would not work well. BigDT 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see above about the admins. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust the policy.  I don't even mind that much when the consensus goes against my opinion.  I don't necessarilly like it, but I respect it.  I trust most admins.  There are a few who just do whatever they feel like, ignoring all rules.  The userbox situation, for example, was silly.  You had administrators vandalizing userboxes and then saying, "see, our vandalism proves that they are divisive and inflammatory - look what they made us do."  But that's the exception, rather than the rule.  In general, I think there is good faith both on the part of those participating in the discussions and the administrators closing them.  On the part of the administrators, I think lack of time is a factor.  If there are eleventy billion AFDs, nobody wants to read every word.  I kinda wonder if part of that problem could be solved by making a formal rule for snowy deletes.  For example, if it stays up for 2 days and is unanimous delete, allow any user to close the debate, remove all links to the article, and tag it with a speedy delete tag.  That would save an administrator from having to mess with the AFD at all - all of the work is done and it's just a button to push.  But I digress.  I think that most of the time, the users participating are acting in good faith as well, but sometimes, there are policy issues that are obviously being ignored by one side or the other and in those cases, there needs to be some recourse.  WP:DRV is primarily for reviewing process, not for reconsidering the same issues reviewed the first time.  Think of the second AFD as an automatic appeal.  In Virginia, if you are charged with a misdemeanor, you have your initial trial, then you have your automatic appeal and get another trial on demand.  No grounds are necessary - you just do it.  Then, after the automatic appeal, you go to the appeals court (DRV).  I kinda think that this is a solution looking for a problem.  If the second AFD is obviously without merit, is just creating an annoyance, and is running 100-1 in favor of keep, any admin can always close it as WP:SNOW.  It's not a policy, but it's widely accepted.  The only thing this policy could do is to stop an otherwise meaningful second AFD.  BigDT 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm uncomfortable with what some people may consider consensus keeps, like lack of participation (reasoning that if people wanted it deleted, they would have commented, but there are 150 + or - 50 articles a day on AfD and people tend to comment on what most concerns them), no consensus resulting in a keep and suspected sockpuppeting resulting in a keep. It has a potential for abuse by supporters of the article. Also, if an AfD is improper, it can be reversed at Deletion Review, so what's the big deal? Finally, if an article is truly receives a consensus keep (about 75% or more keep "votes"), it is unlikely that it will be immediately renominated. If done properly, this type of speedy keep would be extraordinarily rare. It is better to let such things be decided on a case by case basis. -- Kjkolb 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "unliklihood" is more likely than I think you realize.  Or, let's put it another way - if it didn't happen often, I would have never proposed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have examples? -- Kjkolb 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The 6 month delay is m:instruction creep. WP:POINT and WP:BP#Disruption adequately deal with someone vexatiously AFDing something. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's instructuion creep, then why is it bad in this case? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a slightly different 6 month proposal? 

message: I reinserted the cato reference for the rapid renomination rule. It's generally a good idea to reference where you're getting your best practice from. 
Of course, using a reference to an SPQR senator who last spoke 2100 years ago is somewhat outrageous. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, so it's actually the kind of cool thing you just might expect us to do! <grin>
On a related note: I am strongly opposed to boringizing the wikipedia: (project) namespace. People don't read boringized stuff, but they'll easily remember things that are somewhat funny, smart, odd, or interesting. Guidelines[1] are not intended to be a big stick to whack people with, so having them bone-dry and closed up is not so handy. Rather, guidelines are our living procedures which we use and need to put up with every day. So they should be light, sparkling, and fun to work with, besides being useful. (Actually, having fun is a great measure for any ruleset!)
Kim Bruning 09:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this even enforcable? The idea behind speedy keep criteria was that they were concrete and not subject to interpretation and bending around, so they could applied uncontroversially. They either applied and it was a speedy keep, or they didn't apply and it wasn't. This current incarnation seems highly subjective. --W.marsh 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I wasn't trying to "boringize" the page, I just thought that the ":P" at the end of the sentence made the whole thing look rather silly. Aside from that, I agree with W.marsh that this new criteria is far too subjective. "Some regular schedule" doesn't mean anything concrete, and furthermore there is great debate (see above) over whether or not prior decisions of "keep" warrant a speedy keep, and if so, for how long after the keep consensus was reached. "Speedy" decisions especially need to be based on clear, black and white criteria, which this is not. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's tyoo subjective, it's also closer to what's currently occurring out of process.  Keep in mind, attempts at making an objective rationale were recently shouted down. This is an okay, but not great, compromise.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid renomination