Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-07/Deletion controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion controversy

Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Gamaliel

Old Man Murray was a US computer gaming review website begun in the late 1990s by Chet Faliszek and Erik Wolpaw. Harsh, irreverent, and satirical, many in the gaming industry look back on the website as an inspirational classic. Faliszek and Wolpaw went on to work in the industry for Valve Software and were central figures in the creation of Portal, one of the most popular and critically-acclaimed games of the last few years. So, naturally, people in the industry and gaming fans were surprised when the Wikipedia article on Old Man Murray was deleted on March 2. The deletion was overturned the next day at Deletion Review.

Deletion discussions can be one of the most contentious interactions Wikipedians have with those outside Wikipedia, especially when it involves a subculture or fandom with vocal adherents. Perhaps the most notorious of these incidents was the long running conflict regarding the deletion of articles on webcomics, as discussed in this 2007 Wikinews article. Non-Wikipedians often interpret a deletion discussion as an assault on their field of interest and are offended at Wikipedians who are ignorant of it making decisions about it, and some of them respond with uncivil comments or personal attacks. Wikipedians are dismayed when they are the subject of personal attacks during what should be a sober policy discussion, and see the vocal fans who are denouncing them as little better than those who vandalize articles. Needless to say, this isn't a fertile ground for productive discussion between the two groups.

This time was no exception. Gaming blogs and message boards filled with angry messages (a Slashdot article received over 400 comments) and many fans shared their ire by posting to the Wikipedia deletion discussion. Rob Beschizza, Managing Editor of the popular website Boing Boing, wrote about the deletion. About two dozen prominent figures in the gaming industry responded to a call by John Walker from the gaming blog Rock, Paper, Shotgun to testify to the importance of Old Man Murray. Valve co-founder Gabe Newell wrote that "Old Man Murray were the Velvet Underground of post-print journalism" and Bryan Lee O'Malley, creator of the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels which are steeped in gaming culture, wrote "As far as I'm concerned, Old Man Murray invented the internet, and also invented making jokes about video games, two things which are maybe the foundation of everything I hold dear." Walker told the Signpost that he was not surprised by this response. "OMM is something spoken about by people in our industry with hushed tones of reverence. I'd be fairly disappointed to learn a developer was not a fan of their writing."

Much of the ire was focused on the Wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion, User:SchuminWeb. Ben Schumin, who runs a website called The Schumin Web, was alleged by many complaining about the nomination both on and off Wikipedia, including Beschizza and Walker, to have a conflict of interest because of past interactions with Chet Faliszek. Most of the complaints centered around a brief decade old comment mocking The Schumin Web on the website Portal of Evil, founded by Faliszek and K. Thor Jensen. (The Wikipedia article on Portal of Evil was also nominated for deletion by Schumin and deleted on February 5.) For his part, Faliszek, who did not respond to the Signpost before press time, seemed to be baffled about the situation. On the website POE News, he wrote "What the? I actually helped Ben with his site and setting up his Cafe Press store... I don't remember ever been[sic] mean to him. I don't really care about wikipedia but this is bizarre."

Schumin told the Signpost "I do not currently, nor ever did, hold a grudge on either the Portal of Evil or Old Man Murray sites, or their creators for that matter." He said he nominated the articles for deletion "strictly on notability grounds" and only after examining the sources in the article and searching for more potential sources. "I was an 'exhibit' on the Portal of Evil site, and it seems that many people automatically equated being 'exhibited' with wanting revenge" and made those claims "rather than make arguments refuting the sourcing [...] It was an easy argument to make, and so people did, even though it really had nothing to do with the discussion." Schumin told the Signpost that he feels unfairly singled out in what he calls a "case of shooting the messenger." (Schumin said he's no stranger to this sort of thing and recounted how he was similarly targeted after he was denounced as an "anarchist" on the blog of conservative commentator Michelle Malkin for merely documenting an anti-war rally he did not participate in.) Beschizza, for one, is unsympathetic. He told the Signpost that someone who doesn't wish to be the target of such public anger "should probably not initiate public debates in the world's most popular publicly-edited information resource in an attempt to delete an article about a website that just happens to be a legendary and much-loved inspiration for legions of working journalists and bloggers."

Many of the Wikipedians participating in the deletion discussion were focused on sources instead of Schumin. At the time of its deletion, sources in the Old Man Murray article were largely limited to gaming message boards and the OMM website itself. The non-Wikipedians participating who were not focused on Schumin seemed to be confused by the insistence of Wikipedians on sourcing something that everyone in their field already knew or provided sources which merely mentioned the website in passing. On Rock, Paper, Shotgun, John Walker wrote of the difficulty of finding sources for defunct websites. "The issue starts when something was notable in an online form, but in the past. There aren't so many contemporary pieces being written about a website that ended in… oh, hang on, I can't check Wikipedia." However, the controversy surrounding the deletion seems to have spurred editors to find acceptable sources to establish the notability of Old Man Murray. As of this writing the article contains 46 sources, including one book of academic essays. Schumin notes that the deletion discussion he initiated also "led to the creation of articles on gaming-news sites that established that notability. So while the proper sourcing didn't exist before, now it does, and that seems fine to me, and actually a better result than a delete."

Everyone seems to be pleased with the resulting restored and properly sourced article, but still up for debate is what Wikipedia can do to avoid such contentious interactions and controversial deletion discussions. Both Beschizza and Walker expressed concerns to the Signpost about how Wikipedians interact with non-Wikipedians during those discussions. Beschizza said that "the underlying problem is that Wikipedia's editorial culture isn't very diverse. Those outside of it who notice AFD disputes, and who understand the importance of the articles threatened, don't seem to command much respect from established Wikipedians" whom he views as "quite insular." Walker said: "My suggestion for handling similar situations would be to move beyond this peculiar misunderstanding of the presence of new accounts taking part in a debate. It seems fairly obvious that when someone unrelated and uneducated about a subject is attempting to have its page removed, that those who are related and educated about the subject would turn up to defend it. A debate like that should offer an opportunity for acculturation, rather than further building up the walls to keep out the outsiders. It's an opportunity to say, 'You know much about this subject - could you edit the article with this information, correctly cited?' People screaming 'meatpuppet' at every new person does not give the impression of a professional body making the decisions."

Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • What can Wikipedia do "to avoid such contentious interactions and controversial deletion discussions"? The process itself and the outcome indicate to me that we have things about right. The nomination was appropriate given the state of the article at the time of nomination. The AfD close was inappropriate, and our Deletion Review process quickly picked that up and overturned the decision. The net result is a better article, and people involved have learned a little more. We cannot expect people to make the right decision all the time - all we can hope is that people learn, and that we pick up and correct mistakes. Can we stop people getting passionate about topics they are interested in? No. That's life. We have policies and guidelines for conducting ourselves, and mostly we conduct ourselves in an admirable fashion. I am proud of the assume good faith and civility attitudes we have and our collaborative ethos. As a new form of society, we are doing very well. Yes, it is appropriate to question ourselves now and again, but let's not turn a success story into a negative media story tinged with inappropriate melodramatic language. Will Wikipedia attract attention from blogs and forums in future? Yes. It is the nature of the internet. Did we do anything here that suggests we need to make changes? Absolutely not. We did the right thing and for the right reasons. Let's give ourselves a pat on the back, not a mediatastic attempt to whip up a scandal where there is none. SilkTork *YES! 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If WP:BEFORE had been followed, this would not have happened. The current state of an article does not justify its deletion in most cases (copyvio, promotion, and attack being notable exceptions), since if it can be fixed, it should be fixed rather than deleted. OMM was clearly fixable. I'm not a gamer and had never heard of the site, but I was quickly able to find multiple Wired references once it arrived at DRV. This was a high profile black eye for Wikipedia, and even more evidence that WP:BEFORE should be followed at every turn. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I whole heartedly agree. People nominate articles all the time without bothering to check for significant coverage. Some habitually and without any repercussion, which leads to these sorts of disasters. If there were repercussions given for repeatedly listing articles for deletion without following WP:BEFORE people would follow it. Since that's unlikely to happen we'll continue to get "Looks non-notable, guess I'll nominate it." I realize this may not be a perfect case of what I'm trying to say, but it does bring the point up. --Teancum (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, WP:BEFORE on this particular topic wouldn't help much ; given the general amount of effort we'd expect someone to perform, trying to see if there are sources for OMM isn't easy. They existed, but required a bit more effort. That said, before AFD there should have been talk page discussion, which may have prevented the whole mess. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, in a sort of ironic cycle, if this AFD didn't occur, we wouldn't have the big article from Rock Paper Shotgun with quotes from industry leaders to establish the importance of OMM to the gaming community. A lovely Catch-22 situation there. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, I found that to be an interesting turn of events, and kind of a case of "life imitates art" in the sense that a deletion on here on notability grounds led to creation of the third-party coverage in reliable sources that we were looking for and couldn't find. Very strange, but now we have a Wikipedia article where the notability is established. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find this argument to be disingenuous. Sources "that we were looking for and couldn't find"? There were enough sources to establish notability prior to the discussion; the fact that you couldn't find them is a function of you not looking very hard. The implication that there weren't good sources before, and that only during the deletion controversy did people start creating them, is not true and only serves to whitewash what was wrong with the initial deletion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with JClemens. This isn't a case of the system working. It's a case of the system failing loudly enough that people intervened to stop it. I don't think deletionism and the general robotic application of policy is likely to go away (all rule based systems attract such behaviour and people obsessed by them), but this provides a good test case for what policy should be put in place so its robotic application works better. So, I propose this for consideration by the more experienced. Firstly, a mandatory nomination period of a month would be better than seven days (thus widening the field from wikiregulars somewhat. Some people just don't come by that often and they shouldn't have to). Second, some enhancement of WP:BEFORE and WP:PROD should clarify the role of nominator and administrator such that the nominator takes it upon him or herself to demonstrate in exhaustive detail that every attempt has been made to fix the article, including sourcing outside expertise on the subject. The admin's job at this stage is to assess that this task has been done completely. Failure to show proper thoroughness by the nominator means the article stands. Then I suspect for proper due process it's probably necessary to send the case to a second admin for assessemnt at the end of the month to see if the article still warrants deletion. Basically if you think an article that does not fit speedy deletion criteria should be deleted you are taking over responsibility for its improvement first and foremost. If you don't want to do that, don't nominate. There's a few things in there that would need defining, but that's the core of it. MuJoCh (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Walker's comment and suggestion on the matter rings true, but not necessarily of all Wikipedians. Some of the language used on that AfD by Wikipedians seemed to discourage rather than encourage new users to take the reins and help us fix the article (as I'm sure many would have done who are not often on the battlefield of AfD). Of course, this does not absolve the new users or bloggers and such of guilt for doing their own to ratchet the hostility level up. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think SchuminWeb should have avoided the whole conflict of interest here and let someone else nominate it. If there is as much back history here as the article above suggests, his nominating of the article was inappropriate at best. 67.2.41.226 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First they came for the Jews, then the communists. Watch it. They'll be going after Pokemon, next.TCO (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the DRV nominator (and otherwise making sure this didn't descend into attacks against Schumin), my biggest issue was the rationale for closing the AFD as absolute "delete". Notability, as fickle an issue as it is, should be carefully handled and favoring no consensus retention but allowing for appropriate review down the road when there is no clear answer. At worst, a redirect was completely in line to Erik Wolpaw's page. That's what made this an unusual case, and unfortunately not readily apparently under the Schumin accusations and the external input to the discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garbage in, garbage out. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEGIN. It is the immortal battle between good and evil. Inclusionists versus deleletionists. See: {{User AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD}}. This kneejerk "we know better than you" disrespect in some parts of the MediaWiki community extends to some staff at Wikia. Wikia lost nearly all the admins and editors of its largest wiki (in monthly pageviews). 10% of Wikia's pageviews. Talk about stupidity and shooting yourself in the foot. I am referring to the fork of WoWWiki (World of Warcraft wiki) to Wowpedia. Wikipedia only hurts donations by similar rudeness and lack of cooperation. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For more info: http://www.wowwiki.com/Forum:Should_WoWWiki_leave_Wikia? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a definite outsider who was drawn here by an outside site only because of my long interest in the subject matter, but now having digested and figured out how Wikipedia apparently functions, perhaps I could offer some insight. This is a secular, messed up place, unfriendly to newcomers not versed in your ways. Please do not be defensive or perceive this to be an insult, long time contributors may not remember their first edit or certainly their first edit being on such a contentious subject. Wikipedia to outsiders is billed as the online encyclopedia anyone can edit, therefore we think we have that privilege. Whoa! I'm a "meat puppet"? You know what a meat puppet is. I didn't. Sounds offensive though, so my first response is "Fuck You!". Hey, great start! Then I see the infighting, the standing-your-ground, no matter what further sources are brought forth mentality, random checks of Wikipedians with large edit counts revealing very little actual addition of new material, just removal of material undesirable to them(for whatever reason, policy or not), and you start to realise you want no part of this nonsense, let alone financially contribute. Do you want to know what the average person thinks, regardless of layers of policy? WHY delete anything, no matter how obscure? I dont care what the answer is so dont bother answering. Thats what we think, I can only imagine the disheartened feeling someone would get pouring over an article, for hours, full of reliable facts over a band or local artist or something "less notable" to you, but important to them, gone three minutes after it was created. No thanks! I would never contribute here, financially or editorially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.120.19 (talk • contribs)

As a wikipedian and a reader of some of the blogs who picked up this story, one of the things I was most surprised by was the universally low esteem that long term wikipedia editors and particularly administrators are held in by the internet active community. Universally the most common comment found within the gaming community was a belief that wikipedia was ruled by a clique of people more interested in exercising "power" and control rather than developing encyclopaedic content. Truth or fiction this is a significant problem. At best, it reflects a real communication and transparency problem in how wikipedia operates and a poor understanding of its principles by even the most "net-savvy" individuals. At worst it suggests that behaviour of longterm wikipedia contributors in general that is driving away a significant number of potential editors and undermining the structural foundations of the community. Whether this is a perceived or real problem does not really matter, because it suggests that regardless, we need to do much better if we are to continue to attract new and commited editors. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
142.179.120.19 wrote: "Do you want to know what the average person thinks, regardless of layers of policy? WHY delete anything, no matter how obscure?" - Supposedly Wikia was the place to go for articles on all things, but Wikia is also a straitjacket. Especially in its formatting limitations, and lack of private wikis. And without integrated watchlists the wiki farms like Wikia are not the community that Wikipedia is with millions of editors able to edit anything and have it all on one watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately much gets deleted that shouldn't, with all of our deletion mechanisms. And the old old justification, whispered at best, that if something was important it would be recreated, is now moot - as the system defends itself vigorously against re-creation, and the trivially encyclopedic articles are long since created. That is why careful thoughtful closes, that follow the development of the arguments, changing facts over time, reasoning rather than !votes is needed to evaluate consensus. And no consensus means keep. A no-consensus keep is a good result, it's not a failure on behalf of the closer to reach a decision, if it's an accurate reading. And shame on those who try to make a merge and redirect keep a back-door delete by just redirecting. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Looking at that deletion discussion, i can see why the article got deleted. A couple of obnoxious SPA's insulting people and generally missing the point does nothing to help your case. Amazingly, Beschizza seems surprised that these snarky individuals (who have added nothing else to Wikipedia) arent respected. Bonewah (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is an extremely disingenuous reading of the deletion discussion. While insults were certainly flung about, many genuine cites and arguments were dismissed out of hand. Wikipedia guidelines were cited as if they were law, and other guidelines are ignored and even kept out of the discussion entirely. When experienced editors "contribute" to a discussion by trying to hammer down newcomers with endless Wikipedia shorthand instead of argument, while willingly disregarding guidelines that they should be aware of it does a disservice to the ideals of this project overall. Gutsby (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didnt say the discussion was all bad, only that the obnoxious behavior of a few can really hurt. And I think your description of the deletion argument is disingenuous. What arguments do you think were dismissed 'out of hand'? What experienced editors do you think hammered down newcomers? I hasten to note that both Peridon and MelanieN were both fairly tolerant to people who seemed eager to heap abuse on them, hardly the disservice you claim. Bonewah (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What arguments? Schumin and HalfShadow both had Portal of Evil COIs and were both uninterested in hearing any evidence contradicting the deletion. "Given that your edits show you to be nothing more than a single-purpose account/meatpuppet, I feel no compelling urge to explain myself to you. HalfShadow" And here's Schumin's victory lap after the deletion went through. He then went on an edit spree of deleting mentions of Erik and/or Chet from other articles. MelanieN's behavior was fine, but her ideas about notability did not appear to jive with either wikipedia's or reality's. Peridon was rather nice, and I don't say that just because he logged a keep vote. A few others chimed in to dismiss everyone as meatpuppets/SPAs as well. Most of the actual reference content dredged up during the discussion came from the so-called meatpuppets like myself. Entropy Stew (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said many times before, Wikipedia's 'notability' procedures are unbalanced. We define things as worthy of inclusion not by measures of how frequently our users seek information on them (e.g. page view statistics) but rather by whether certain limited information sources (e.g. major news organizations) cover them extensively AND users have provided evidence of that coverage. This is just wrong. It inherently excludes whole topics which those 'approved sources' do not typically cover... no matter how widespread their influence (as in this case). It is also applied very unequally. Elements of popular culture without extensive independent sourcing are vigorously hunted down and eliminated while other topics (e.g. lifeforms, historical battles, human settlements) are treated as having 'inherent notability' even if few sources establishing this are provided or can be found. The only way to avoid these problems in the future is to change our 'notability' standards to reflect things which are actually notable to users... rather than things which an arbitrarily selected group of sources have covered. If thousands of people read our article on something every month it is obviously 'notable'. --CBD 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP's purpose is to be an educational work. That means that there some education value to the topic being present, and notability established a minimum baseline for that. If we were instead look to popularity, we'd basically become a site people go to for entertainment rather than education. This is not to say that some things that are popular that also have intrinsic value to a specific field, but because of the sourcing of that area (whether at that time or due to the like), it may be difficult to show notability objectively through reliable sources. This is why notability is a guideline and common sense exceptions need to be made, and thus why it would never be policy. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP is neither about education or entertainment, but the provision of information What people do with the information it is their concern entirely. ("educational" is a criterion for Commons, but they have special reasons.) If they use a particular book or video or web forum or product for whatever purpose, they will (or at least ought to) want information about it. If the subject is significant enough that this is a substantial want, and good sources of information are available for original writing and updating, and WP is a suitable technical medium for disseminating it, and NPOV editors are available &willing, there is no reason to exclude a topic. I agree with Masem that this is a point to what we call "notability",as setting a minimum level for all of these factors. Whether or not we should devote an article to the topic is another matter. As the world thinks that being in an encyclopedia is a measure of importance or significance, and as the encyclopedia they have in mind for this increasingly is ours, we need to take this into consideration. Popularity is indeed a reason for judging something worth including, & if significant popularity, notable enough for a separate article. The quality of the sources we need depends on what sources are acceptable for discussions of the subject in the real world. that we have rigid rules for them across all subjects is an error. It was well intentioned years ago, to permit the removal of rumor and nonsense, but its turned into a straight-jacket. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the problem is precisely that Wikipedia has grown so much that many editors have little to contribute because every book they have ever read and every film they have ever seen is already covered. So because they cannot add anything of value, they become managers / policemen who concentrate on deleting material they do not like, sometimes under the thinnest of pretenses. This trend has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the Web and has brought some disillusionment with the project. When Wikipedia started, the lofty goal was to eventually include all human knowledge, with a separate article for every star, species, chemical substance, human alive or dead, and so on. Notability requirements were only meant to channel editing towards the standard encyclopedia topics first, to make sure they were covered adequately before branching out further. I don't think the process was meant to blossom into this grotesque management overhead of deletion reviews, reviews of reviews, polls and discussions about reviews, etc. The Wikipedia bureaucracy has grown to such Kafka-esque proportions and yet is so curiously ineffective against actual problems such as large-scale copyright infringements that are more important that having or nor having an article about an obscure topic. --Morn (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We need to remember the mission: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We cannot deny the goal of WP is educational content, but can recognize that what educational content is can be skewed. The article under discussion here is a good example of that: to anyone outside of gaming, OMM may look like yet another default website from the early days of the web, fallen into disuse, but the video game culture recognizes it as having an influence on game design and criticism; e.g. its educational to any student of video games. It, unfortunately, took the fact that its notability was challenged to bring out its clear value. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Little late here, but anyway...It's a problem that would have been much more easily fixed if many of the other websites and gaming news pages from the period still existed. But they don't (of course there's plenty who try to argue being talked about doesn't bestow notability in itself). This fact about internet life, particularly felt around the dotcom collapse, presents a problem for this area of Wikipedia policy. It's something that makes articles in the area of gaming and internet culture a battleground (somewhat exacerbated if you ask me by a great many editors apparently feeling the internet deserves no respect as a source at all and policy seemingly backing them up on this often enough). Constructing a great educational edifice to weather the storms of the 'net will be a waste if everything lost outside suddenly makes much that's inside invalid, if you see what I mean. There will be these cultural blackholes created by disasters and shifts in media in future. It would be a shame if WP has nothing to say about them, or worse deleted what it had to say because some ultimately pointless officiousness held sway. MuJoCh (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • One thing that I discussed when interviewed for this article that didn't make the final article was about policy matters. Specifically, about what makes an AFD "official" (like for an official game in baseball) in the case of low participation after having exhausted the number of relists. My thoughts on this are worth repeating here because policy likely needs to be fleshed out in this area. The reason that the second Old Man Murray AFD occurred was because the closing admin for the first AFD, seeing a discussion that had only one delete !vote (and no other comments) after two relistings, judged the discussion to be insufficient for a full close, and instead treated the discussion as an expired PROD, which was almost immediately challenged, which led to the article's restoration and a speedy renomination at AFD. This seems to be an area where policy needs to be clarified and made more explicit. WP:QUORUM, part of the deletion process, states what to do in the absence of any !votes, but from what I can tell, policy is kind of unclear on how to handle discussions with low participation where the allowed number of relists has been exhausted. On User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 28#Old Man Murray, User:Ron Ritzman indicated what common practice was with AFDs with only a single !vote. However, I could not find any documentation in policy for this common practice. As far as I can tell, there is no guidance on how much participation is required before an AFD can be considered "official" for purposes of a close. In the case of Old Man Murray, one !vote was not enough to make an "official" AFD, but an ANI discussion about Portal of Evil's deletion (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671#Articles for deletion / Portal of Evil) determined that the discussion in that case, also with only one !vote (though not relisted), was "official", and the process ended there. I would like to see some discussion about what standard practice should be for low-participation AFDs, and then document it in policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-07/Deletion_controversy&oldid=1193866270"