 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In progress
This essay discusses the recommended way for admins to close AFDs. The views contained in this essay will not reflect every admins' approach and preferences but it is hoped that through editing a wider consensus to how to do this should emerge.
 | This page in a nutshell: Admins are supposed to approach closing AFDs in a semi-judicial manner, parsing arguments against policy and trying to avoid allowing personal preferences to over-ride the consensus of the discussion. (supervoting). |
Closing AFDs can be a difficult and stressful area for administrators to work in, not just because of the difficulty of weighing competing arguments but also because AFD is caught right in the middle of an internecine battle between those that want to keep crappy articles come what may and those vandals who hate content and want to delete everything. Okay the descriptions are a joke but demonstrate how polarised the divide is becoming. Of course there is a middle way of just closing everything as "no-consensus" or taking the easy way out of counting noses in the discussion but this generally doesn't adhere to what we consider to be a consensus in Wikipedia.