User:Doncram/AFDs
My contributions in AFD area:
1. My AFD percentages are great (arguably). I have focused on finding AFDs where an article might be saveable and making effort to save it: I mostly vote "Keep". This is not because I believe most articles at AFD should be kept; I am not an extreme inclusionist. I just think I provide more value by chiming in on topics where I know something or am interested enough to do research. I am attracted to and take on hard cases. Nonetheless I have an 84.8% success rate in my "Keep" and "SK" votes, as calculated below. And I have a 90% rate in my other votes.
2. I contribute in improving documentation and processes when I see that I can. In AFDs area:
- I refined the salient navigation template:Recent AfDs significantly, adding categories list to it]]. This provides easy navigation between all recent days' AFDs and all topic area AFDs. (This form was adopted into the creation of newish template:AfDs too.)
- To ease linking and improve accessibility of AFDSTATS, I set up soft redirect wp:afdstats (and also all 5 other members of Category:Pointers to WMF tools).
- I have more ideas for improvements to make AFDs "nicer".
3. My AFD participation has been constructive. There are numerous AFDs where my role seemed really helpful in reaching a good decision. My effort was usually around saving the work proposed for deletion. (Each AFD is ideally a cooperative discussion so others also deserve credit for any good outcomes obtained, of course.) See tabulation of selected AFDs in "Constructive Successes" section below.
- Selected AFDs are from AfdStats on my last 500 up to April 6, which covers two years (from April 6, 2016 going back to April 5, 2014). (All of my previous ones, going back to January 15, 2008, are here (within set of less than 500, with overlap of 4).
- Selected ones include two contentious cases: Kirby Delauter and corners of the Isle of Man TT race course.
- Feel free to sample on your own from my last 500 up to April 6
Constructive AFD participations
[edit]Selected AFDs that ended in Keep outcome, where my role seemed constructive. The last two below are AFD's which brought me into long-running hopeless drama/contention areas... which got settled!
Key K0 = Keep vote just after nom, perhaps with comments but no vote preceding (perhaps most valuable/efficient) K1 = Keep vote, despite nom and one delete vote preceding (Harder to achieve "Keep" outcome) K2 = Keep vote, despite nom and two deletes (Harder still) K = Keep vote after one or more Keep votes
| AFD | Date opened |
Type | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFD: 2015 Hwaseong shooting | 3 March 2016 | K2 | Suggested broadened scope which made article acceptable |
| AFD: SS Santhia | 24 March 2016 | K0 | As first voter, identified factors that ended up mattering for most following voters |
| AFD: Uttar Pradesh train accidents | 6 March 2016 | K | Did some "research" and used comparisons to make a good argument (IMHO) |
| AFD: List of potential National Monuments of the United States | 26 February 2016 | K | Suggested rename and refocus that was adopted |
| AFD: Cho La incident | 9 February 2016 | K0 | Substantial response with suggestion that carried (Keep but rename) |
| AFD: Madison, Tennessee | 9 February 2016 | K0 | My "research" documented that the name used for a formal planning area so GEOLAND principle applies |
| AFD: List of marching bands | 9 February 2016 | K0 | Development by me was agreed to be substantial and the reason to Keep |
| AFD: Dream House for Medically Fragile Children (2nd) | 21 November 2015 | K2 | Argued article useful for having a dual topic, then after 3 cumulative D votes gathered 5 K votes (closure kept it only by No Consensus) |
| AFD: A Guide to the PMBOK (2nd) | 7 May 2015 | K0 | Suggested rename which settled once and for all |
| AFD: ʿĀd and AFD: ‘Ad | 26 April 2015 | K | Linked two AFDs and clarified |
| AFD: Signpost Corner, Isle of Man and 9 other AFDs | 10 February 2015 | K | Linked 10 similar AFDs. Settled long-running contention in long followup, by time-consuming development of list-article of named corners of Isle of Man racecourse, patient, excessive discussion at List's Talk page and elsewhere which essentially outlasted all contenders but one. The last was ultimately settled by my determining sock-puppetry was going on, my opening an SPI and an administrator/bureaucrat blocking the last one. |
| AFD: 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) and 14 other AFDs]] | Nov 28, 2014 | K | Provided service of linking together 15 AFDs, in each of the 15. |
| AFD: List of charity songs for Hurricane Katrina relief | 28 April 2014 | K2 | Vote + 2 comments by me. |
| AFD: Kirby Delauter and Talk:Kirby Delauter | 17 March 2015 | K1 after nominator's initial K then a D | Came late to ongoing dramafest started January 8 on possible BLP issue for a Maryland local government councilmember. Starting 17 March I played traffic cop channeling discussion to one location. I reasoned out application of Wikipedia policy for a rules-of-order compliant process moving toward placement of another's new draft to mainspace, which ultimately happened.
Highlights included:
I think my attention and polite persistence during 17 March to 29 April and beyond was helpful in settling this (although of course others deserve credit: working from situation of conflict to one of consensus requires multiple persons cooperating.) All throughout the process it seemed dicey whether consensus could ever be found. |
AFD rate calculations
[edit]As of April 7, 2016 6pm my stats on Keep votes within last 500 votes by me (of which 10 not yet closed) are:
Results
Votes K D SK SD M R T U NC K 200 49 19 2 12 18 0 0 59 D 3 14 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 SK 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 2 3 0 0 13 0 0 0 2 R 3 5 0 0 0 24 0 0 3 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abbreviation key: K = Keep D = Delete SK = Speedy Keep SD = Speedy Delete M = Merge R = Redirect T = Transwiki U = Userfy NC = No Consensus
Where I voted K or SK, performance is arguably 84.8%:
- No consensus results in article being Kept.
- K and SK and NC outcomes for my K and SK votes = 200 + 19 + 59 + 3 + 3 + 0 = 284
- Number of D and SD outcomes = 51
- Leaving out 30 Merge and Redirect results which would require review to see if they represent "success" or "failure". (An example of an arguable "success" was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B2177 road (2nd nomination), in which I voted Keep but suggested Redirect option that carried.)
- 284 / (284 + 51) = 284/335 = 84.8 percent "success" rate when voting K or SK.
In my votes other than Keep and SK, performance is arguably 90%. Derived by:
- 54 correct as on-diagonal (i.e. outcome exactly same as my vote) out of 72 [= 54 + 15 non-diagonal non-NC outcomes + (3 NC outcomes when I voted Delete) => 54/72 = 75.0%.
- And when my vote was D, I was wrong on 6 (= 3 K outcomes + 3 NC outcomes) out of 72 =6/72 =8.3% , unclear on remainder (am not analyzing 15 off-diagonal R, M votes), so arguably my success rate is 75%/(75%+8.3%) = 90.0%.
Notes
[edit]Notes for future efforts perhaps:
- Suggest refinements of AFDSTATS
- Categorize NC outcomes as having success when voting K or SK.
- By the nature of AFDs, in which each voter reads arguments of others before, there is a snowballing effect. So it is harder and harder to Keep from a first Keep vote the later it appears, i.e. after nom and a first delete plus a second delete, etc. If a comeback that happens, that is more substantial. A substantial Keep vote right after a nom is even more constructive, perhaps, for saving more time of editors following, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Cavern. AFDSTATs could report on value-added taking this stuff into account. Less value from "pile-on" late votes.
- Could AFDSTATS do a positive citation count: Keep vote that garners a citation by username in another's Keep vote. Overall citation count would be number of citations of username by others (limited to one citation per other)?
- Seek revision of AFD guidelines to make the AFD process "nicer"
- concern that article creator not be taken badly, esp. for new editor or one for whom the deletion would erase substantial portion of their work
- Put a pause suggestion in, like there is for creating a new article: Suggest noting a concern at Talk page of article creator, personally, instead of starting the AFD. Suggest incorporating the article's material into an already-existing article of larger scope, including possibly adding it as a list-item. This could be "nicely" implemented by pasting the full article text into the list-article in one edit giving credit in the edit summary like "add Topic coverage developed by Contributor at Topic (to be redirected)", then in further edits condensing the material as appropriate for the list. Suggest the creation of a larger-scope article such as a new list-article into which this item could be incorporated. This can be implemented nicely perhaps best by creating the new list and then doing the merge and redirect, or perhaps best by moving the article to the new list-name and then editing there. Offer to advise the contributor on how they can do the edits themselves, or ask if they would prefer for you to do it. Etc.
- Set up a conditional or delayed AFD: create the AFD but put a 90 day pause on it, making it a Draft AFD in draftspace at , until tickler notice given at 90 day point to the AFD nominator. Draft should include the AFD news lookup links to make it convenient to evaluate the AFD go vs. no-go decision. At 90 days, depending on development of the article, AFD nominator can then cancel or go forward with the AFD by copying it to mainspace or perhaps simply by selection of "go ahead" button. Appropriate for non-BLP cases where AFD purpose is gray, like where the sourcing is marginal, or where there is a mild/moderate degree of overlap between this topic and another, or where it is marginally better that the separate article could be merged and redirected to an anchor point in a list-article that includes, or could include, the topic as an item. (Compare to current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valleyview Centennial School (Brandon, Manitoba) for example, with 7-day potential AFD clock with no guarantee it will be kept open 7 days even, and User talk:Coolman207ee )
- and could some perspective on this be programmed into starting any new AFD, pre-starting the AFD
- (easier programming wise) could perspective be reported within each new AFD, e.g. an AFDcheck program call for the current AFD be set up, about what percent of the article creator's work in Wikipedia would be removed if article is deleted, and about Wiki-age of article-creator in years and in number of edits).
- Change Twinkle to make AFD nomination harder and/or to give pause suggestion as above; look for programming ways to prevent AFD within first 4 hours of article creation (suggest personal note to contributor instead, or add option to Twinkle to give a standard notice to Talk page of editor "Are you developing the article right away? If not, please note the article seems deficient and it might be AFD'd 24 hours from now, here are some links.) Require or suggest wp:BEFORE performance (perhaps require at least one URL in the nom?) and to require or suggest the AFDcheck.
- Have suggestions for AFDSTATS report refinement per above comments. E.g. score NC outcome when vote K as success, and as failure when vote D, or perhaps as semi-success .7 and semi-failure .3.
- AFDSTATS could add at bottom a url to the "permalink" of that edition, i.e. set with date and time of current report, like crosstab one provides.
--end--