Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Willo Steakhouse

The following section has been moved here from the AFD page - it seemed more discussion and so appropriate - feel free to restore to main page if folks think this is inappropriate. The Dissident Aggressor 06:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

begin removed section Comment: I'm gonna chime in with my dislike of "fake" AFDs, that i have shared at a few other AFDs by article creators themselves (different editors than the nominator here). The nomination seems fake, in that the nominator doesn't want it deleted. Perhaps to pre-empt someone else making a real proposal to delete with better reasoned out argument, and/or perhaps as "a passive-aggressive response to criticism" which another editor expresses above, the nominator has made the proposal to delete. Fake AFDs waste editors' time, forcing attention to a process that even the nominator believes invalid, in a trolling-like way seeking validation about the merit of the article. If they result in a "Keep" decision, frankly I think the decision is result of a faulty consensus, a faulty process, so the decision should have zero weight when anyone chooses to immediately renominate it for deletion, for real, IMHO. A way to "punish" the bad behavior of the nomination itself, would be to go ahead and accept the deletion proposal. "Even the article creator believes it should be deleted, so why bother anyone else even considering its merits, just delete!" But this would be passive-aggressive action in response to a perceived passive-aggressive action, perhaps not our best way forward. So, mainly what I want to say is: to User:Missvain, please don't do this again, no "fake" AFDs, please, because they waste editors' time and basically seem not constructive. About whether to keep or delete, i really don't care, am not motivated to really consider the notability of the topic. --doncram 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was a WP:Pointy nomination as I mentioned in my comments above. However, I can't support deletion in an equally POINTy response.

About the concerns of the nominating editor administrator, I think there are more than a few concerns that I've pointed out on my talk page in discussion with this administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i oddly agree with the nomination by the creator. I see it as an admission that their perspective may be biased. I would much rather see a marginally notable article go to AFD than be PRODDED, as AFD doesnt automatically get deleted even if there is no discussion. I myself have de-prodded an article of mine and then taken in to AFD for a debate. I know its a bit passive aggressive, but its also helpful (though canvassing is generally frowned on here). I also dont think its really a waste of time, as no one HAS to comment on an afd, and no action has to be taken aside from a possible relisting and the minimal admin action at the end. i know i have seen "legitimate" AFD's turn into a huge debate, ostensibly somewhat of a waste of time if the artcles not an obvious piece of crap. I imagine people would have some issues with missvain, and i may myself if i read more, but i personally prefer to see more acceptance of divergent approaches than too strict an approach to procedure. god knows if i had been treated at my early editing the way some here (and possibly myself!) treat newcomers, i would have left. granted, she is not a newcomer, but tolerance up to clear disruption is my goal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

end removed section

Doncram, should the pointy/fake AFD be discussed more widely? Maybe ANI or a broader RFC? The Dissident Aggressor 23:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was Talk-page-noticed to come here.

Absolutely not at ANI, which is a) useless IMHO and b) a free-for-all forum for punishment of alleged infractions of rules, not a forum for creating policy/guidelines. There is no rule against "fake AFDs" although I have expressed dislike for them. It's more a topic for discussion perhaps at a Talk page of wp:AFD or one of the AFD guidelines pages. Or an essay. Some collection of more examples, not focusing on just one instance, too. --doncram 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with Mercurywoodrose's comment above in the "section removed from AFD page", that tolerance is good. My issue with "fake AFDs" is more with other ones than this, this one really seems like a good attempt to have some discussion, to address a potential problem, in a sort of creative, well-intentioned way. I would still technically call it a "fake AFD" because, while the nominator is not really against it being deleted, the nominator is posing it as a test of sorts, not really advocating for it to be deleted. There are other "fake AFDs" that I have seen which seem sort of abusive of the Wikipedia processes, while honestly this one does not. So i wouldn't even really want to use this as an example, if I was actually opening a big policy/guidelines discussion, and it could be used arguably as a counter-example to what i object to. How about that for shooting myself in the foot, on something that i have thought about for a while. --doncram 19:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]