Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 9

Archive of "what to do when there's no consensus?"

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Currently, if there's no rough consensus on keeping or deleting, we keep. But this isn't very satisfying to those who genuinely feel that some material shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. I think a wikipedia:inclusion dispute header would help in some of these cases. It may also provide a slightly softer way for people to question whether an article should be included in Wikipedia, without resorting to VfD, which may provide m:more heat than light. Martin 14:43, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be a unilateral way for someone to say, on the record, "I think this article should/shouldn't be included", with 40 chars of explanatory text. Then someday an upgraded w'pedia could
(1) have a little green square in the upper-right-hand side of each article, which on mouseover lists positive opinions; similarly, next to it, a little red square, which on mouseover lists negative opinions;
(2) run weekly scripts which pore over the db of such feedback and suggest articles for cleanup, conflict resolution, etc. based on this information.
(3) allow people to say "when I visit a page on Angela's or Maveric's bad-list, add a red line across the top so I know without mouseover to be wary of it".
(4) allow for targeted "come join this VfD" nots to be posted to the personal talk pages of everyone who has expressed an opinion about a page. +sj+ 20:41, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
I certainly don't think it should replace VfD, but it could be used for articles where there is no rough consensus to delete yet people still feel strongly about its inclusion. Angela. 08:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
One issue I have with the idea is that for some (many?) such articles, there would be no way to ever resolve the dispute (short of waiting for the voting population to change). In that case, the tag becomes permanent. This is unlike the disputed facts or POV labels, where (in theory) the article can be changed in some way to eliminate the objections. I would hate to see Wikipedia with skads of articles with a permanent disputed inclusion label attached.
I am also unsure of what adding such a label would accomplish. It does not suggest that any action is pending, or is necessary. As much as I'm in favor of having standards for inclusion, I don't think this is the right approach. -Anthropos 08:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think is is a great idea. Wiki is much more than an encyclopaedia it is a place where stubs (which may be nothing more than a post by an individual curious about a subject) grow into articles with comprehensive info from otherwise obscure or foreign language references compiled by many individuals. Sometimes all that needs doing is for an article to be named more accurately or the info moved to a more appropriate place (as in the case of the late Transiaxartesia article which I wish I could read again). A new kind of stub label on an article pointing out that the article is of highly disputed, obscure or apochryphal nature would save a lot of time worrying for others to deal with improving those articles which are not under any form of question. There could also be an equivalent VfD in votes for the removal of the label. If the number of votes becomes not insignificant then it might be removed.
On second thoughts, I'm not sure it will work as those who don't dispute it will just keep removing the tag. Angela. 05:35, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible to set something up whereby it cannot be manually removed until it has passed a certain number of votes for removal? Likewise automatic removal once it has passed that quota?Zestauferov 12:39, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see Angela and Zestauferov's point, but a similar kind of approach seems to work reasonably for neutrality disputes - people generally refrain from removing dispute markers until the dispute is resolved somehow, or until everyone from one side of the dispute has given up on Wikipedia as <insert epithet here>. I'd see this tying in with the oft-mentioned "version 1.0" in due course.

Sometimes adding facts or changing titles can resolve an inclusion dispute - especially articles that "can never be more than dictionary definitions" [sic] or are "no content stubs", but others too.

I don't see the benefit in a parallel to VfD for removing dispute tags - unlike article deletion, editing an article is a universally reversible change, so they don't need such a heavy level of peer review and due process - either in adding them or removing them.

Thanks for the responses. Martin 19:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see the need for an anti-{{msg:inclusion}} tag (otherwise, how can I indicate that I feel that such a marked article is indeed appropriate for the Wikipedia?). I could just use plaintext, but surly a plethora of such "meta-markup" is itself injurious to the readability of an article. Bevo 23:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Articles are, by default, suitable for inclusion. It is only the minority where agreement can not be reached over whether to delete a page that a notice is needed. Angela. 23:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
You can indicate your support on the Talk page. If you think inclusion is warranted, and someone else thinks it is not, then there is a dispute, no? Martin 00:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By policy, is the mark permanent? Bevo 00:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, I expect it can act like the other dispute notices (accuracy and NPOV) and could be removed when there is no longer a dispute. Angela. 00:20, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. There's no obvious way to resolve such a dispute, so these marks will stick around forever. That pollutes the article space and confuses newcomers. I have removed all of these tags, if someone wants to restore them, we should vote here first.—Eloquence 20:02, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to concur with Eloquence. This is a horrible idea and will do nothing to resolve the issue of generating "more heat than light". VfD isn't the best solution, but for articles which survive multiple VfD's this only further insults the original contributor(s) in question. As we've seen countless times on VfD already, there is an innumerable number of subjects and completely valid articles which many of us feel divided on whether or not they're "noteworthy enough" for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that we should begin censoring those articles because 50% of the community doesn't like them, or worse yet put up little flags on each article further polluting what otherwise could be a great community effort. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I've reverted your removals. If you want to re-remove them, you should vote here first.
I think this is a good idea for the reasons I have given above. Unlike Eloquence, I feel that inclusion disputes can be resolved in some cases, and are no harder than many neutrality disputes, where the tag is equally long-term. Martin 20:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
These dispute headers are like a disease spreading to virtually all controversial articles on Wikipedia. They are useless and annoying, and they do not help to address the issues that caused them. Given that these two positions are apparently irreconcilable, I hereby call for a vote on this matter.—Eloquence
Are you allowed to just randomly call for a vote? I thought we were meant to discuss the matter first? Perhaps if you would allow me to explain why I feel they are useful, and helpful? By all means call a vote if we fail to come to some sort of agreement. Martin
I have read the discussion above, and I have commented on the matter. I do not feel inclined to discuss such a trivial issue to death, and yes, I can call for a poll, if you pledge to accept the result of the poll. Of course you can play baby and insist that we go through a 10 day discussion period first, counting on me getting tired of the subject by then, but I would prefer it if we could settle this issue within the next few hours.—Eloquence
"play baby"? *raised eyebrow*.
I'll have that ten day discussion period then, if that's what I'm entitled to. I don't know whether you'll get tired, you seem to be quite adamant about this. All I'm asking is that, if you don't like this solution, then you provide a better solution. How do we solve inclusion disputes, if not like this? Martin 21:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For headers such as this, the first impression is often the most important. If a majority of people feel that they are annoying, that's reason enough to get rid of them. That doesn't mean that you haven't touched upon a valid problem, and my proposal for deletion reorganization (which has received majority support and will therefore be implemented) addresses some of them by providing a two-stage process that should settle these questions once and for all.—Eloquence