Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rough consensus

The rough consensus guideline is set out in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. This MfD listed page has been a redirect to the rough consensus guideline since April 2006,[1]. What Links Here shows many pages that rely on Wikipedia:Rough consensus being a redirect to the rough consensus guideline. The page was changed in August 2013. More than one editor edited the changed page and there is a formally closed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus about the page. The Wikipedia:Rough consensus page should be delete and turned back into a redirect to the rough consensus guideline set out in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move - If the information on the page is deleted, it makes the discussion on the talk page unintelligible. If the page title "Rough consensus" is needed as a redirect, could not the proposal (which was not exactly turned down) and its discussion be moved to a subpage or another title such as "Rough consensus proposal" rather than being deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong - Apparently, the redirect was changed because Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus uses the term "administrator" and not a term that applies on its face to admins and non-admins whose close discussions, such as closer "closer." The standards at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators have always been applied to admins and non-admins whose close discussions and the way to address the administrator/closer term discrepancy is on the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and not in a fork to create separate rough consensus standards for admins and non-admins. Per your suggestion, Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus can be merged into Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators and the text of Wikipedia:Rough consensus can be posted on Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators above Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus to provide context. The rough consensus information can be preserved, but kept in one place. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
Yes, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS --> Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is in the deletion guidelines for administrators, and has been for most of the life of the project.
The old redirect Wikipedia:Rough consensus pointing to the same place is inappropriate because it implies that "rough consensus" on Wikipedia is a term of art limited to administrators in deciding whether to delete. Since the writing of Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, non-admin closures have become commonplace and accepted, and the term rough consensus is applicable far more broadly.
"WP:Rough consensus" was never listed as an explicit shortcut. If there are important incoming links, they should be expanded to the full link or corrected to the official shortcut "WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS".
The current page contains policy related discussion and so should not be deleted. While there are some surprisingly strong statements of opposition on the talk page, they generally appear to be along the lines that the proposal doesn't sit well with all places it may affect, and do not appear to say that the attempted improvement is inherently wrong. More work is needed. It's not an urgent problem, but I do mean to return to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standards at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators have always been applied to admins and non-admins whose close discussions. Creating a separate rough consensus closing standards for non-admins is not the way to address the administrator/closer term discrepancy at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. The rough consensus information at Wikipedia:Rough consensus can be preserved, but kept in one place by merging it into Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators as noted above. Whether Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus implies that "rough consensus" on Wikipedia is a term of art limited only to administrators in deciding whether to delete can be raised on Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The standards at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators have always been applied to admins and non-admins whose close discussions."

Have they? Where is this documented? Do you oppose documentation of practice? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standards at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators have always been applied to admins and non-admins whose close discussions at Deletion Review. I've iVoted there many times (I think you are there often, too and have not see NAC closures treated different from Admin closures. When either closure is reviewed on the merits, both are held to the same standard at DRV. If you have an example of something different, I would be happy to look into it for you. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating a separate rough consensus closing standards for non-admins is not the way to address the administrator/closer term discrepancy at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus."

Yes, the talk page reflects that opinion. Note, however, that different standards were not being created, but generalized standards completely consistent with the old WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS while encompassing NACs common and widespread for years now. The several opposing opinions on the talk page appear to me to very much miss the intended purpose, and so I am slowly considering the intended purpose and how to better communicate it.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The rough consensus information at Wikipedia:Rough consensus can be preserved, but kept in one place by merging it into Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators as noted above."

That's possible. I think it is a bad idea because the concept of "rough consensus" exceed the scope of a guideline focused on decisions to delete.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus implies that "rough consensus" on Wikipedia is a term of art limited only to administrators in deciding whether to delete can be raised on Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators."

My reading of practice is that the above statement is unequivocally false. I see no one asserting that it is true, certainly not in recent years. "Rough consensus" is a concept with widespread meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I try to apply the "looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)" standard to any discussion I close, whether it is deletion or RFC, etc. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at the Deletion guidelines for administrators page again and better see what SmokeyJoe is getting at. There are at least two issues with the Deletion guidelines for administrators page: (1) deletion guidelines applying to more than just admins and (2) rough consensus not being limited to deletions. I think we can handle the "rough consensus not being limited to deletions" part via this MfD, but we need to do it by starting with a clean slate. First, delete Wikipedia:Rough consensus and its talk page per this MfD. Second, copy the exact text of WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS and post it at Wikipedia:Rough consensus WITH the guideline header template since it is a guideline. 3. Transclude Wikipedia:Rough consensus back into Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators so that page remains exactly the same after the close of this MfD. In the paste edit summary, the editor can note that attribution for the copied text is in the Deletion guidelines for administrators page history. With the rough consensus guideline finally separated from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, it can be revised per consensus to apply to any formally closed discussion, deletion, RFC, etc. The deletion guidelines applying to more than just admins would need to be addressed separate from this MfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a formal deletion is not needed. SmokeyJoe suggested on my talk page a Move or Userfy.[2] I'm fine with whatever the closer determines as consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read the WP:MFD main page. "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darkwind closed the proposal discussion here on 12 November 2013. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody updated the page, so I wasn't aware of that, but anyway the final sentence of what I said is relevant to a failed proposal. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.