Talk:Consensus decision-making/Archive 2

[[talkarchive}}

Attempt to delete Consensus decision-making article

Ephix recently attempted to list this article for deletion. In his reasons, he said that as the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism and referred to the guideline WP:NEO. I have reverted this, since Ephix did not follow the policy on article deletion, WP:DEL. Bottom line is that he did not attempt to discuss this on the article talk page (or elsewhere) prior to listing it at AfD. This is a well established article on a subject of considerable interest. Many editors, including me, have spent a great deal of time collaborating on this article. It is recognized as fairly authoritative coverage of the subject. And the subject, itself, is one of interest to many people who look to Wikipedia for basic information on a given subject. There are over 180,000 uses of the term on the Internet, many books about it, and thousands of people who practice, or attempt to practice it (neologism, or not). I have suggested that Ephix discuss his concerns here. Sunray 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that he doesn't like talk pages. So we'll have to spend time dealing with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making instead. I think it's silly - the process of getting to consensus is different from the idea of consensus (so we shouldn't merge to Consensus), and consensus decision-making is used in quite a few situations that aren't related to democracy (Quakerism is NOT a democracy; neither is the IETF), so a merge to Consensus democracy is totally inappropriate. --Alvestrand 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I might also add that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus decision-making is continually in use here. —Travis ^talk 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray that there are other avenues that should have been explored before nominating this article for deletion. Unfortunately, however, that is an all too common problem at WP:AFD. Please see our conversation on my talk page —Travis ^talk 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with TravisTX on his talk page, I think we have found a serious bug in the Wikipedia program. If, as in this case, editors collectively put in hundreds of hours collaborating on an article and someone can drive by and slap a AfD tag on it in two blinks of a gnat's eye, something is out of whack. The principle of "everything is up for discussion" is fundamental. However, there was no discussion prior to the tagging of this article. The policy on deletion was not followed. If the wrong crowd flocked to the AfD and voted for deletion, the article would be history, just like that. Something is wrong with this picture, IMHO. Sunray 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Consensus decision-making AfD nomination (Closed)

A question has been raised about the nomination of this article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making) as to whether this is a proper nomination or if the nomination should be deleted. Specifically, what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations? 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to this RFC myself as the wikipedian nominating this article for deletion.

Before, reconsidering my position, which I hope you will do fairly, please read any dictionary entry on the word, sit back and think about it. Then think about Wikipedia and due to the overload within it how:

article subjects are actually revolving instead of expanding on the lead paragraph.
article subjects are evolving, becoming something else due to an environment affect.

Back to the subject, consensus is a decision-making making process. No amount of the above two factors should ever change that. Consensus decision-making if you glance back at the dictionaries is clearly a neologism.

There was obviously a point mutation in the evolution of the Consensus article which lead to the creation of this double expression term.

ephix 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A) You did not respond to the central point of the RfC, which was: "Is it proper to nominate an article for deletion without any previous discussion?"

B) Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

C) Consensus is a *result* of a process. Decision-making is a process.

So I guess I disagree with you on all points. --Alvestrand 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alvestrand speaks my mind on this. I too, disagree with ephix on all points. The RfC asks for opinions on the following:

whether this is a proper nomination or if the nomination should be deleted?
what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations?

Whether this is a proper nomination

WP:DEL is the policy governing deletion of articles. The policy, in a nutshell, states:

Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes
There are four processes for deleting items, and one post-deletion review process
Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion

The policy sets out the requirement that other alternatives be considered before listing an article for deletion. Alternatives suggested are: Editing, merging, discussion, other projects, and archiving. None of these alternatives were explored prior to listing the article for deletion.

The policy lists reasons for deletion. These include legal issues such as copyright infringement, problems with content, advertising, lack of reliable sources, and so forth. Among the reasons given is: "newly coined neologisms" [sic]

The stated reason for listing the article for deletion was:

"controversial neologism, a google search seems to indicate that it passes WP:N but they all quote or paste from the WP article. decision making is part and parcel of Consensus even though the Suffrage system is not applied. If this is not so then there should be an article on a form of Consensus lacking any purpose in decision making, not Consensus decision-making. too bad there are already a few such as voting and polls."

Simply put, this says that the article should be deleted because the term "consensus decision-making" is a neologism, and that the term is incorrect, since as he contends in his post on this page, "consensus is a decision-making process."

Assuming that the person listing the article for deletion had explored the alternatives and had asked for discussion over his concern that consensus decision-making should not be an article because it is a neologism, we should, perhaps, consider whether the term is indeed a neologism.

Is the term "consensus decision-making" a neologism?

Neologism is defined as "A new word, expression, or usage." (American Heritage Dictionary[1])

Consider this:

The first published use of the term was, apparently, Building United Judgment: A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making, published by The Center for Conflict Resolution in Madison Wisconsin, in 1981.[2]. Hardly new.
Some organizations claim to have been using consensus decision-making much longer than that (e.g., NATO, since 1949[3]), although it is not clear whether NATO used the term prior to 1981.
The process of consensus decision-making is used by a wide variety of organizations, including governments,[4] businesses,[5] church organizations,[6] and indigenous peoples.[7]
Consensus decision-making has been the subject of scholarly articles.[8][9]

Conclusion: The term is not a neologism.

HOWEVER, WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy. There are many Wikipedia articles that are new terms:

Few of these terms can be found in a dictionary. Does that make them any less valid as articles?

ephix states that "consensus is a decision-making making process. Not in dictionaries that I've seen. It is usually defined as "general agreement." I agree with Alvestrand. "Consensus is a *result* of a process. Decision-making is a process."

My final comment on the question of whether this article should have been listed on AfD is to reiterate: Hundreds of hours have gone into creating this article. It is reasonably well-written and very well-sourced. It is authoritative. That is not to say that it cannot, and will not, be further improved, but the changes will likely be relatively minor, as it is a mature article. In short, "Consensus decision-making" is a good example of what a Wikipedia article should be, IMO.

Since the requirements of the deletion policy were not met, and the reasons for listing the article are highly questionable, this is not a valid AfD.

what is the policy for dealing with potentially malicious AfD nominations?

WP:DEL states:

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page."

Now, I admit that I had not seen this when I first saw the tag (and perhaps others missed it too). I not only deleted the tag, but I blanked the AfD page. I was advised that this caused some problems with the logs. I apologize for the blanking. I shall now do exactly as the policy advises (and no more) and remove the tag from the article ;-) Sunray 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But wait, there's more. I failed to distinguish between a proposed deletion and an article for Deletion and now I'm not only confused by this complex nuance of policy and procedure, but am back to thinking that we do have a bug in the system (i.e., attempts to delete established articles). This may just be in that category. I shall restore the tag and await further discussion. Sunray 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution(s)

One possible solution to attempts to delete established articles: It has been suggested, on the article deletion page, that WP:SK could be used in such cases. The current guideline doesn't allow for this—SK can only be applied if it is a case of vandalism or the author withdraws the nomination. However, this case could be added as a criterion for SK. WP:DEL could also be modified to permit this action. Thoughts? Sunray 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. Determining whether an AfD nomination is "proper" or not is done through the AfD itself; a nomination by itself doesn't mean much. Nifboy 16:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)