User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/4.9
Question 4.9[edit]
I believe that it is acceptable to IAR in regards to CSD:
Survey Results[edit]
| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Virtually NEVER: If the article doesn't fit one of the criteria, then it should be prodded or sent to AFD. | 28 | 45.2 |
| On Occassion. | 26 | 41.9 |
| Routinely: That's why they made me an admin, to make that decision. | 8 | 12.9 |
- I've gotten more open to deleting things on my own over the years. It is simple enough to restore.
- The only exception is hoaxes, which aren't clearly deletable by any criteria. Non-admins should send these to AfD, admins are free to IAR. There should actually be a separate category for hoaxes, perhaps with a holding pen for review by multiple users.
- The whole point of having a set of stringent criteria is that there are no exceptions. IAR makes the concept moot
- I know that there are admins who disagree - Fritz
- Examples do exist, but they are NOT common.
- Incredibly blatent hoaxes are one example.
- But rarely. Peope are screamy about CSD deletions.
- I would say on occasion, but with the added "That's why they made me an admin."
- if it's clearly not appropriate for WP, but it doesn't fall under a specific criteria, then IAR.
- particularly regarding BLPs
- There are cases where AfD would use the snowball clause. When I find something like that, IAR is more efficient.
- re: BLP and borderline G10 type pages..
- CSD can't fit every article, but deleting *clearly* non-encyclopedic articles shouldn't depend on whether they can fit into 15 random categories.
- I have yet to see an article that needed to be speedied where one of the criteria didnt work.
- I think really somewhere between "on occasion" and "routinely". If it were something that were getting done all the time, we'd put it in the policy. On the other hand, there are always going to be cases that are clear but technically outside the rules. That's why we have IAR, rules can't cover every situation.
- I was going to say "routinely" but if it is routine, it's time to reopen the criteria I'm routinely ignoring. The lack of applicability of schools to A7 is under review for this very reason. Policy should reflect consensus, not the other way around.
- Somewhere in between "virtually never" and "on occassion" - we have CSD for a reason, but we can't foresee everything that's going to come our way.
- I have answered one on the 3 surveys as an IAR
Balloonman's Analysis[edit]
To say that IAR should never be used is not a valid response as every rule has exceptions. That being said, it is utilized way too frequently at CSD. The criteria for CSD were defined narrowly to ensure only those articles with little or no dispute would be deleted per CSD. This is the result of community consensus. To routinely delete articles per IAR is to put oneself ahead of community consensus and say that you know better than the community.
IAR should be used infrequently. If you find yourself appealing to it too often, then you need to convince the community that the CSD criteria is wrong and needs to be expanded. If you are afraid to bring your expanded criteria to the community or know that it would be rejected by the community, then you are applying it incorrectly. IAR is not a license to routinely ignore the rules. It is not a license to place oneself or one's views ahead of the community's consensus. The established policies and guidelines should be adhered to as the rule, and only ignored on exceptional basis.