User:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like any waxing or waning Moon, you know it when you see it. The soulless darkness of an awkward Keep roughly nudging aside the light of deletion.

Summary: If a well-attended deletion discussion has two valid points of view, even the slightest discernible shadow of Keep after adequate comments (and surely after one relisting) then the nomination should either be courteously withdrawn by the nominator or speedily Kept with the judge's thumb on the scale. If a large percentage of experienced commenting editors find value within an article, category, or the projects other forms of transmitting information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value.

Wikipedians shape language into "just the facts, ma'am", and excel at focusing societal and civilizational reality into articles and images. So first and foremost, or second and kind-of important, the nominator and the closer should keep in mind that fellow Wikipedians put their attention, interest, and sense of initiative into either creating or editing the nominated page. Most WP:BEFORE-adherent nominations end in delete after going unopposed, as they should. Yet many well-contested deletion discussions occur. WP:GNG claimed or denied, viewpoints presented and arm-wrestled into submission, editors diligently working to improve or disprove the page.

"Keep" arguments often achieve merit and credible adherents, reaching either a primary or a strong alternate point-of-view agreed to by other editors. Some do this rather quickly, others after discussion and additional sources clarify a logical "Keep" viewpoint. Rule of thumb maintains that the discussion should end there, no questions asked, the page Kept, and the article allowed to roam free to encyclopedically educate the reading public.

What's obvious to the goose is another obvious to the gander, Vincent van Gnome, 1626. A closer, hoping to earn eternal respect like Solomon, opts for a meaningless one sentence merge even though many editors cry and rent garments for a Keep. Don't be like Solomon, but more like David, who at least got the girl.

Recognizing a shadow of keep can often save an enormous amount of unneeded bickering, nitpicking, and time sinks which may accompany such discussions. Editors might fight like wild animals (or sugared-up children) when a deletion nomination goes on too long or has one or more relistings (usually indications that the Shadow of Keep exists). The nominator should then kindly withdraw their good-faith nomination, or a closer might consider stepping in early and Keeping it. A closer may receive complaints that they have put their thumb on the scale, but everyone knows when the shadow of Keep exists, and an appeal of a properly done rule of thumb closing would likely fail.

Until next time, when the article is nominated for a second, third, or even a fourth deletion attempt. After being saved more often than Rapunzel or Rasputin, by the time a page survives a first relisting or a second dog and pony show the Shadow of of Keep and Rule of Thumb should mix with WP:COMMONSENSE to not allow a third or fourth bite of the apple...unless a very good reason emerges. Should triple jeopardy exist on Wikipedia? Rarely.

See also[edit]