Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rough consensus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Consensus decision-making. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rough consensus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no demonstrated notability, and all the sources are primary (which is a weird thing to say about a term, but seems to apply to everything i could find about the ietf). while mentions have been found and presented in the talk page, they're just mentions. the best they prove is that the ietf doesn't own the term. similarly, all i found were scattered mentions and the ietf's work

thus, my suggestion will be to redirect to consensus decision-making, or to the section on the ietf's rough consensus model, with no opposition to deleting and removing that section based on those same concerns, and mild opposition to counting it as a merge since it already says the same stuff with the same sources consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Social science, and Internet. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm hoping that we are able to reach a rough consesus on this one. Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article gives the impression that it's a term of art internal to one organization, which it isn't, and if it were, how would it be a notable phrase? And there's nothing of substance to be said of rough consensuses. The phrase is used, but there isn't going to be any literature focused on rough consensuses as a topic. It's like having an article on "beyond all recognition" or "foregone conclusion" (an article by that name exists, but it's about a fictional rock band). WP:NOTDICDEF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Consensus decision-making. ah the ancient creations of yore. I am always loathe to delete these, but a redirect seems a perfect fit. Metallurgist (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article has a section, "IETF rough consensus model", that includes a link to this page. But this title shouldn't redirect to that section despite the possible temptation to do so simply because the phrase, which predates IETF by well over a century (see [1]), has absolutely nothing to do with IETF other than that IETF has made a big deal about it. I don't even understand why that section's there. Out of all the organizations in the world that have their own processes for decision making why does that one organization's process merit coverage on Wikipedia? Unless there's a good reason someone in this discussion can fill me in on quickly, I'm going to bring my question there and seek a rough consensus on removing it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That link can be removed if this closes redirect. Metallurgist (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I was shocked that indeed rough consensus as a term on the Internet is heavily tied to the IETF and thus some of that link should continue on at the redirect page, but I don't think that there is anything to show that this page has sources to support it as a general encycopaedia page. Moritoriko (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's less that it's heavily tied to the ietf, and more that the ietf seems to really love saying it. the term has seen use before and after in other contexts, they're really just the only ones who made it a catchphrase consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that is what I meant to express but I guess I wasn't clear. Like I expected to find some papers about voting and rough consensus by sociologists or something but it wasn't there. Moritoriko (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally, if closed as redirect, don't redirect the talk page. it's got neat stuff of its own as mentioned before, so making it a redirect would just be a bit of a slog consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to consensus decision-making.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.