Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale/Archive 1
"AfD" or "Article creation"?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The project page is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale, but the text says "The initial community consultation will begin soon at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale." Which is it to be? Scolaire (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Both were described as issues in the case, so my guess is that one will redirect to the other. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, @Scolaire, there are more links in the status box now to help follow the process! Valereee (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- @VersaceSpace and Valereee: Redirects might solve the problem that users clicking the "Talk" tab on this project page will be brought to a different talk page, but it won't solve the problem that the designated talk page doesn't have an associated project page. Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- This here is already a discussion that doesn't appear on the "talk page". You urgently need to move one or the other of the two pages. Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Or at least create a separate Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale page. Scolaire (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- With the current set-up it's only a matter of time before we're going to have overlapping and duplicate discussions at the different talk pages. For example the question asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale could easily have been asked here and would have been equally on topic. This is not going to be conducive to a smooth process, you need to start actively managing things before this gets out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Article creations at scale
For the RfC on article creation at scale, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale
Questions transferred from WP:ACAS
Question 7: Should we adopt a new speedy deletion criterion that relates to mass-created articles that lack any sourced claims of importance?
A12: No reliably sourced indication of importance (mass-created articles).
This criterion applies to any mass-created article that does not have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This would apply to any mass-created article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability. If the sourced claim's importance or significance is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
Question 7A:Should we instead introduce the following speedy deletion criterion:
A12: Unsourced or obviously unreliably sourced mass-created articles.
This criterion applies if the mass-created article has been unsourced in all of its history, or is only sourced to obviously unreliable or deprecated sources in all of its history.
Question 10: add mass-creation as a reason to WP:BUNDLE
Should we add mass-creation of articles by the same editor using substantially the same sources and format as a reason for bundling multiple articles into a single AFD at WP:BUNDLE?
Paraphased deletion issues and possible solutions
This is a scratch pad. I've paraphrased the deletion-related issues and possible solutions from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Archive 1.
- 3) mass nominations for deletion become train wrecks because editors drill down further by taking different positions on the individual articles nominated
- possible solutions:
- define threshold for bulk nomination (3.1)
- bulk nominations should be based on a logical set of criteria, rather than a set of articles (3.2, 3.3)
- a venue should be created to help come up with appropriate criteria before nominations (3.2)
- don't allow piecemeal votes, all-or-nothiung (3.1)
- keeping a bulk nomination will not prevent a re-nomination with a refined criteria (3.1)
- possible solutions:
- 5) simultaneously permitting creations based on SNG and deletions based on GNG will cause an endless stream of AfDs and conflict
- possible solution: harmonize the criteria, SNGs not in accordance with GNG should not be used for mass creation
- 7) presumed notability and what that allows is not consistently interpreted, which causes disagreement
- possible solution: clarify wp:notability to be more explicit when an SNG is supplements, supplants, or is prohibited
- 13) NSPORT actually requires the subjects of articles meet GNG as well as SSG
- 13a some participations are demanding onerous BEFORE searches despite missing SIGCOV
- possible solution below 19
- 13b editors who disagree with the NSPORTS2022 consensus are taking anti-consensus positions and muddying the waters
- 13c editors are adding or quoting noncompliant sources in an attempt to keep articles that don't have SIRS sourcing
- 13d editors who disagree with the NSPORTS2022 consensus are taking the fight to DRV in numbers
- 14) absolutist approach to deletion is unhelpful, redirection, merging, and disambiguation are other options
- possible solution: alternatives to deletion should be engaged first and those who refuse may be topic banned from nominations
- 16) forcing all articles through a strict interpretation of GNG rewrites the notability policy; not all SNGs require GNG to be met
- 19) article creators are not required to do an exhaustive search for sources during creation, which perversely puts the burden on nominators
- possible solution (also to 13a): modify BEFORE to make it clearly a suggestion rather than a requirement and explain the BURDEN rests upon the person(s) wishing to retain the content
Next step to create a set of questions like this for consideration. –xenotalk 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- My replies a bit late but another issue that comes out of 14) is the redirection of articles is reverted without first ensuring that the articles meet GNG/SNG, thereby forcing an AfD discussion. It would help the issues at AfD if there was some clarification about the interaction of WP:BURDEN and undoing redirection of articles not meeting a notability guideline. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 02:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)