Wikipedia talk:Deletion to Quality Award/Archive 1

Archive 1

Created

Created.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Notes on silly AFD nominations

I don't think Language or Hamlet count.

Language appears to have been a bad-faith nomination, and Hamlet an "April Fools" nomination.

Otherwise, I'm willing to be relatively lenient about what qualifies, basically just the two criteria: (1) AFD, and (2) GA/FA/FL.

— Cirt (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Couple of road articles

• Brockway Mountain Drive: AfD in 2007, expanded by Stratosphere (talk · contribs), but I took it through GAN and FAC.
• H-58 (Michigan county highway): AfD in 2011, taken through GAN and FAC in 2012.
• H-63 (Michigan county highway): AfD in 2011 and GAN in 2012

I'll let you guys figure out what's next. Imzadi 1979 → 13:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Imzadi1979/Imzadi1979 (public) - I've given you those 3 awards, Congratulations ! Please can you add yourself to our Hall of Fame, at Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it just amounts to discretion - if you think the AfD was serious and could have put the article at risk, and that you put in a substantial amount of work to get it to GA / FA, then add it. So those three are fine. I personally didn't put myself down for Ipswich Road, Colchester as I raised the original AfD, then withdrew it when I found a nugget of sources and with Dr. Blofeld we whipped the article into shape. But Blofeld voted keep on the AfD and added the GA nomination, so I'm happy for him to have it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of roads, I took Watford Gap services to GA which has been sent to AfD a few times - does that count? I had nothing to do with the AfDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, seeing as how the AFD was before the GA. And someone should combine those 3 events into the {{Article History}} template on the talk page for that article. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about a mass AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files) listed quite a few articles for deletion at the same time. A fair amount of the discussion mentioned that this prevented meaningful comment on each individually, so I'm not sure whether you would like to consider it a valid AFD for each one. If it counts, then I'd like to put forward The Blessing Way (The X-Files), Paper Clip, 2Shy, 731 (The X-Files), Piper Maru, Apocrypha (The X-Files) and Talitha Cumi (The X-Files). If it doesn't, ah well. GRAPPLE ^X 14:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Grapple X, I definitely would say that counts. It was a deletion debate which considered deleting pages that were later brought to much higher levels of quality. Perfect example. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Grapple X - I've given you those 7 awards, Congratulations ! Please can you add yourself to our Hall of Fame, at Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. I'm going to ping @Gen. Quon: and @Glimmer721: as they worked on several others in that list. GRAPPLE ^X 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grapple X:You're welcome ! Don't forget to add yourself to Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Very cool! It's been almost four years, though, and I can't remember which ones I did. EDIT: It looks like I did: "The List", "Revelations", "War of the Coprophages", "Syzygy", "Pusher", "Teso Dos Bichos", "Hell Money", "Jose Chung's From Outer Space", "Avatar", "Quagmire", and "Wetwired".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

WOW, Gen. Quon, I am truly impressed, that is remarkable !!! Congratulations !!! Please add yourself to our Hall of Fame, at Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award/Hall of Fame. — Cirt (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I had a ton of free time back then (perhaps too much free time).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So, Gen. Quon, was that a collaborative WP:GA Drive, in response to a deletion debate from WP:AFD ? — Cirt (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya know, I'm not really sure how it all happened. I got into The X-Files around October of 2011, and near the end of the year, I decided to work on some of the articles. Around the same time Grapple X, Glimmer721, igordebraga, and myself all kind of came together and just got every X-Files episode up to GA standard within about a year. We are all members of The X-Files Project, and while I can't really remember if our collective drive was explicitly organized around the AfD, I don't think it was. Perhaps @Grapple X: remembers better than I do.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's awesome !!! I've been involved with similar quality improvement drives in the past, at WP:WikiProject The Simpsons and WP:WikiProject South Park. :) — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Better name?

Excellent idea, but for a snappier name how about "Heymann Award", after WP:HEYMANN? JohnCD (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, JohnCD, for the compliment on the idea, most appreciated !!! I'd rather keep it at this, as specifically descriptive. I read problems and complaints from people about that page, at its talk page, Wikipedia talk:The Heymann Standard. — Cirt (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Plus, I'd very much rather avoid using internal-Wikipedia-jargon as part of the title of the Award. — Cirt (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I first thought of Heymann also, but as you say that is Wiki-jargon. On the other hand, "deletion to quality" is unclear; I found the award on my talk page this morning and wondered what the heck it meant. What it is trying to say is, transition from "threatened deletion" to "good quality". How do we say that? Personally I have always used the term "rescue" but that doesn't go far enough. "Straw into gold," maybe - or is that fairy tale reference too obscure? Maybe some more common expression meaning, from junk to treasure? I'll keep thinking about it. Thank you for recognizing and encouraging this kind of accomplishment. I know some people that will deserve a dozen of these awards. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, MelanieN, I"m glad you like the idea ! Yeah, I think the name, plus the first couple sentences at the top of the page, explain it pretty well. I wanted to keep the name relatively short, but avoid Wikipedia-jargon. :) "Deletion" in the title essentially does actually imply threatened deletion. — Cirt (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The key issue is that everything has "quality", even poor articles. Perhaps something like "Endangered to established"? isaacl (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nah, thanks for the idea, but that's more vague wording. WP:GA and WP:FA are known on Wikipedia as the two highest levels of Quality. Saying everything has quality even poor articles -- that's subjective. Saying an article that has been through third-party review and is rated as WP:GA or WP:FA has quality -- that is simply a descriptive statement of our review process here. — Cirt (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, from an English language perspective, everything has quality, be it poor quality or good quality. Using "quality" as a shorthand to mean good quality is jargon. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:QUALITY. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with this table, having linked to it often. Nonetheless, it lists quality grades and does not redefine the word "quality" (and if it did, that is the definition of jargon). isaacl (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Not jargon. Wrong. See for example the article on Quality improvement. — Cirt (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article uses "quality" exactly as I mentioned: it is a property of an item. This award name is using it as a shorthand for an article that has passed the criteria for a certain level of quality, which is not the same. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have two suggestions: "The Deleted? No, Quality! Award", and "The Zero to Hero Award". LjL (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The first suggestion is nice, but I'm not sure about those punctuation marks, that might come across as POV, and so might the second one. If it helps, people can just refer to it by its shortcut = WP:DQUAL. — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What might come across as POV? The punctuation? O.o "Punctuation Overly Vilified"? LjL (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

At present, nothing could be disputed from the description on the Award page. It is objective that there was historically in the past a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion, and it is objective that at some point the article was successfully promoted to WP:GA, WP:FA, or WP:FL status. I'd like to keep it that way. — Cirt (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Maybe "Endangered to Quality" is the only other thing that makes sense based on an amalgamation of suggestions, above. But again, the first word "Deletion" does not mean "was deleted" but rather is just shorthand reference to "Articles for Deletion". — Cirt (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Maria Radner

The article Maria Radner was not actually taken to deletion discussion, but her notability was questioned (see talk archive), and I bet would have landed up for deletion had she not tragically died. Is that eligible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think we should stick to those that were actually at risk of deletion from Articles for Deletion, and rule out Prods, Speedy tags that were declined, etc. It's good to have an objective metric on the Award, eg, WP:AFD --> WP:GA/WP:FA. But I'm quite pleased that this particular article is now WP:GA and its notability will hopefully not be questioned in the future !!! :) — Cirt (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do merge candidates count?

Would merge discussions count, or only deletion discussions? If the former, you might be interested in Menacer, which went from a merge candidate to FA.  czar 16:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Czar, that's an awesome accomplishment in Quality improvement -- but it would only count if the merge discussion took place during an ongoing WP:AFD. — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware of a potential misuse of the AfD process

I initially MFDed this project page, but on advice of @SmokeyJoe withdrew it. I'm opening the discussion here on this talk page and hope for people's input.

I suspect that this project has led (or at least has the potential) to a misuse of process by needlessly placing AfD onto reasonable articles. An example of this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox opened by @Ritchie333. Regardless of the outcome of this particular AfD, it might be useful to make some note on this project page that clearly states that people should not abuse the AfD process. I encourage everyone to look here and state your opinion in terms of possible misuse of the AfD process without necessarily discussing the merits of keeping or not that article.

Many thanks for your consideration and thoughtful input! Mootros (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I will echo SmokeyJoe's comment: I don't see any connection between this page and the article for deletion discussion you are referring to. Do you have any evidence of editors nominating pages for deletion and then subsequently being a major contributor to achieving Good Article or Featured Article status? Is there any indication that anyone values having their name appear on this page to an extent that they would submit insincere requests for deletion? isaacl (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)