User:Mako001/Don't nominate pages on current events for deletion

This is an essay on the deletion policy.

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.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Avoid WP:RAPIDLY nominating pages on current events for deletion

When a new "big" story appears in the news, it is often not very long before a Wikipedia article is created. It is also often not very long before another editor decides that it was WP:HASTY, WP:TOOSOON or violates WP:NOTNEWS, and nominates it for deletion. The latter two are valid reasons to delete a page, and it isn't actually against policy to AfD a page on a subject which is experiencing high levels of media coverage. But, just because it isn't against the rules, does not mean that it is a good idea. For brevity, when this essay refers to a "current event" it is referring to a broader definition of "any subject which is currently experiencing high levels of media coverage".

Why it may be a bad idea

High media attention drives high traffic to a page. This drives high traffic to the AfD which isn't necessarily a good thing, as most readers (and subsequent AfD participants) do not understand the deletion process or the policies and guidelines around it.

Off-wiki canvassing of votes is more likely and more effective when the subject is currently "in the news", due to the way that social media algorithms tend to work.

!Votes provided by casual readers who find the AfD are usually low quality and usually aren't based on policies or guidelines.

Casual readers who participate in the AfD are often unfamiliar with the way that AfDs function, and may disrupt the process (even if in good faith), or behave in a manner which, whilst suitable elsewhere on the internet, isn't suitable for an AfD.

People often have strong feelings about current events. This can translate into strong feelings at the AfD, which if not controlled or channelled adequately, can cause a toxic and emotionally charged atmosphere at the AfD.

Toxic, emotionally charged or cluttered AfDs can repel more experienced editors, exacerbating the problem.

The signal-to-noise ratio is usually not very good, with high levels of lower quality participation, and (comparatively) suppressed levels of higher quality participation. This makes it more difficult to close the AfD.

As event or situation develops, the original rationale for deletion, and earlier !votes may lose relevance, further complicating both the discussion and the closer's work.

In the early stages of many such pages lives, they may rapidly change title as the situation progresses. ^[1]

An example of many of the above points is this AfD.

In short: Nominating pages on current events for deletion risks precipitating an emotionally charged, messy and toxic AfD.

But what about TOOSOON and HASTY?

These are perfectly valid arguments to delete a page, and to refrain from creating one respectively. However, they do not say when it should be deleted. If it isn't a speedy deletion candidate, will it really harm the encyclopedia to wait a while until the heat and emotion dies off a little before starting an AfD?

Although the root cause of a WP:RAPID nomination is a WP:HASTY creation, you can't do anything about that. However, you ultimately make the decision to nominate an article for deletion. Furthermore, basing a nomination on WP:HASTY isn't a good idea anyway, since it is not a rationale for deletion.

What should you do instead?

Wait for things to stabilise. There is no deadline.

As a general guide, wait a for a week before nominating a newly-created page on a current event for deletion (though more or less may be suitable, depending on the context). This is generally enough time for things to mostly settle down again.

Pageviews can also be a good indicator of whether the situation has stabilised. Usually, pageviews to an article on a current event will start at a peak and then drop off to a steady pace later on as the situation becomes more stable.

Editors can add content and refine the article as the situation unfolds. Once the situation has stabilised the article can be either left, nominated for deletion, or merged.

By nominating after the heat and emotions have died off and the situation has stabilised, the AfD can have a clearer consensus and it is more likely that participants will provide proper arguments.

What this essay is not

This essay does not support a "wait and see if it becomes notable" approach. The difference is in what is being waited for. This essay advocates waiting for stability. This will usually come fairly soon, after the immediate media frenzy dies off. The "wait and see" approach is looking for notability. This may never come, and will often take longer to appear than stability.

Broader application

This essay primarily deals with the specific issue of recently-created articles about current events. However, many of the same principles still apply to long-standing articles which are first "noticed" to be non-notable after the subject attracts intense media attention. For instance, a non-notable BLP article might be created but escapes notice for an extended time, the subject may then gather media attention for a single event, causing an editor to "notice" the lack of notability and nominate it for deletion per WP:BLP1E. This may trigger a similar situation.

Conclusion

WP:RAPID nominations for deletion on articles about current events can often be disruptive (even if not intentionally so), and should be avoided wherever possible. They can result in an AfD which becomes overwhelmed with high-quantity low-quality participation, is a major headache for anyone involved, and is difficult to close. This is about taking things more carefully, avoiding unnecessary drama, and keeping the admins and participants at AfD sane.