Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion/Deletion policy discussion

Revisiting "guilty until proven innocent"

 * All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. 

The "guilty until..." bit contradicts our the "status quo bias," which underlies our general policy.

It may have been appropriate early on when there was a lot of concern about copyright violation ("our entire site is 90% suspected copvios" wrote one editor when this was being discussed on the predecessor site), but I don't think we have that issue now.

It has also been argued that this enables the deletion of an article, etc., that violates policy. But some of our VfD debates hinge on whether an article, etc., violates policy. I think it is fair to say that if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete, so we do not have to build in a bias for deletion.

I'm struggling to find a reason for this policy that is relevant now. I propose this change:


 *  All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no consensus has emerged to keep delete the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it 'close the VfD discussion. Closing the discussion does not preclude a later re-nomination for deletion.''

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd delete the sentence about articles, files or templates being guilty unless proven innocent, but I'm not sure closing a discussion inconclusively is a good solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Closing a discussion is good if no one has any new points or if the outcome is clear, so that no new points will change anything. A minimum time is good, because outcomes can be guessed wrong when too few have had time to express their views. A maximum time can help in the case the same arguments are made over and over (then you do not have to indirectly criticize people for that). But minimum and maximum times do not have to be the same. --LPfi (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of moving away from "guilty unless proven innocent", particularly for articles that have been around for some time. I would suggest a minimum discussion time of two weeks, and that inconclusive discussions are best closed after 2-3 months. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Closed with what result, based on what criteria? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the crux: many of our discussions do not reach a consensus after a long time. Now, the rule is that if there is no consensus, then the discussion is closed and the article is deleted. I am proposing to change the rule so that if there is no consensus, the discussion is closed and the article is kept. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What standard for "consensus" are you proposing? Maybe a majority vote would be a better metric. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The same standard of consensus that is being used in VfD now and everywhere else in Wikivoyage. I am not proposing any change to our Consensus policy. Ground Zero (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that if a majority supports deletion and there are good policy reasons for it, the page or file should be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be fair. I also think that if a majority supports keeping an article, we should keep it. But we seem to have decided to stick with "consensus", a less clear concept. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we're proposing a policy change, we can have a different standard at VfD than on other things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two points here: whether we want a figure different from 50 % and whether we want a vote. I suppose I'd want more than 51 % for deleting something, but introducing clear voting is another can of worms. In the current situation I see no big difference, but with a larger editor base one would have to keep track on puppets, and on en-wp (and with en-wp editors on Commons) there is a problem of voting instead of reasoning, which is absent on sv-wp where voting is not used (other than in very specific contexts). --LPfi (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would require both a majority and a policy-based reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A different rewrite
I've never liked "guilty until proven innocent" & do not much like the notion of voting instead of consensus. I'd rewrite the entire section as follows:


 * ===Deleting, or not===


 * Deciding whether to delete is tricky because we have two conflicting goals: we do not want the wiki cluttered with useless articles but we are reluctant to throw away someone's work or to remove something that might eventually become a good article.


 * Where a clear consensus emerges &mdash; whether to delete, redirect, rename or move the article &mdash; we can just act on that, after waiting about a week to ensure everyone interested has a chance to comment.


 * When there is no consensus we wait longer &mdash; at least fourteen days and sometimes longer if the discussion is lively &mdash; in hopes a consensus may emerge after more discussion. If not, then it becomes a judgment call and the decision will usually be made by one of the wiki administrators since only they can delete articles anyway. Factors that tend to get an article kept are that it has substantial text or that many people have argued for "keep" (a good example is the debate over the Esperanto phrasebook, archived at (insert link here)). Short articles or those with only a few defenders will usually be deleted or redirected.


 * ===Action once it is decided===


 * Where the outcome is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager can do it. Some moves can also be done by anyone. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.


 * Where the outcome is to delete, or for a move that requires deleting a redirect first, only an administrator can do that. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.


 * When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name.  Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

I think this addresses the issues raised above. Pashley (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This assumes the Esperanto phrasebook is kept as I think it obviously should be. If not, my example should be deleted or replaced. Pashley (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but this doesn't sit right with me at all. There is no reason to change this policy except that in the Esperanto debate, we have a majority vs policy and precedent and the "majority" is looking for a way to circumvent that. The above proposed wording is rather bold proof. You not only want to change the policy but you want to enshrine Esperanto by specifically mentioning it in the policy and then sneak "substantial text" as a reason to keep an article in spite of that NOT being a reason to keep an article, not being policy-based, and being specifically mentioned as NOT a valid reason in deletion discussion that this is springboarding from (Esperanto). Our "guilty until proven innocent" policy has not been an issue as far as I remember and actually encourages participation and engagement, unlike the reverse where you can just sit on your hands or ignore legitimate concerns with a vote and the article can be kept. Changing the policy in order to give an alternative to engaging the arguments is a bad idea. These are a lot of changes just to save an article that quite honestly I think even the people who want to keep it know is useless. It seems usefulness and the site goals are being thrown to the wayside in favor of the sentiment that "it's a shame to delete something with lots of text" which has really become the crux of this whole debate. That's not valid. It has no relation to our goals; quite the opposite, it opens the door for articles that are counter to our goals to have a policy-based reason for keeping as long as they are thorough/long. Are we really going to change the policy so that article length precedes policy and precedents all for the sake of keeping a phrasebook we know has no real-world value? Because that's what it looks like... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree with ChubbyWimbus, and I think we should not change the policy until after the Esperanto phrasebook is deleted, and in that fashion remove any possible bias. Selfie City (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I like neither the idea that a large number of words is an argument against deletion nor that an individual administrator gets to make an arbitrary decision if no consensus is reached. What if most admins disagree with his/her decision? I think that unless we are able to agree on a new policy that gives clear guidelines for what to do in the absence of consensus (or a majority, whatever), we have to stick with the problematic but at least decisive status quo. As for a large number of words, brevity is the soul of wit, and I have edited lots of articles with the specific aim of simplifying and shortening the language. We don't get paid by the word on this site. Moreover, someone could write a long article about Mickey Mouse, and it still wouldn't be a travel article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not actively contributing on this site anymore, so please don't use my comments when determining consensus, but this discussion highlights one of the reasons why I left. Wikivoyage will never fulfill its goal of becoming a pre-eminent travel resource unless more effort is put into finding ways to include new editors, which often means incorporating contributions that don't exactly conform to policies that were mostly written more than a decade ago.  Even if an Esperanto Phrasebook doesn't belong in Wikivoyage (and I would argue that it does no harm to keep it), a community where the first option seems to be deletion "unless there is consensus to keep" does not seem like a community that is welcoming to new editors and new ideas.  Instead of deleting, find a way for the contributors to demonstrate an article's merit, tag the article with a tracking template to note that it might not totally fit with Wikivoyage's current WIAA criteria, or, in the case of the Esperanto phrasebook, just leave it be since deleting it involves making a pedantic argument that even though it clearly fits into the category of "phrasebook" it might not meet the bar of "travel-relevant phrasebook".


 * If switching from "consensus to keep" to "consensus to delete" meant that less time was spent debating VFDs I think that would be a big improvement - if the same amount of time currently spent on debating VFDs was instead devoted to figuring out how to better incorporate new edits and ideas that don't fit the current status quo, Wikivoyage would be a much more vibrant place, and one that I could imagine eventually fulfilling its goal of becoming a viable internet travel resource. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with this. The problem is how to write that into policy. If people want to propose a simple policy of requiring a consensus to delete when it's not an obvious case, I guess that would be a simple matter. I'm unconvinced it would necessarily produce greater contentment among editors, though, because whereas people like you and me are happy with a broader focus, other users are not and want this site to squarely focus on articles about destinations and other core aspects of relatively short-term travel. By the way, I wish you would return to active editing, but I think your post does count toward consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with ChubbyWimbus and Selfie City here, and must confess that I find Ryan's remarks about accommodating new users more than a little confusing: the Esperanto phrasebook is not the work of a new editor, at least not a recent one, so it's not at all clear to me who we'd be discouraging from further contributions if we were to delete it. Furthermore, to his comments about WIAA edge cases, we already have a place where users who want to test-drive new ideas can do so, and that place is their own userspace. In fact, in lieu of deleting the article outright, the idea was floated of moving it to someone's userspace who would volunteer to host it, but there were no takers, which seemingly indicates that for all the bandwidth many of us have utilized in defense of this article, there's little if any interest in the actual subject matter. Secondly, I found ChubbyWimbus' points about pocket-vetoing VfD nominees through silence to be precisely on point. The flipside of giving people latitude to try out new things is that if an experimental article is called into question, it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal. I'd love just as much as anyone else to see more new contributors, but not to the extent of telling them they have the complete run of the place and feel free to ignore policy and scope and all that boring tedium. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I support the policy change, but I disagree with Ryan, and agree with AndreCarrotflower, and I'm not sure if I agree with Ikan Kekek, who seems to be having a bob each way. Giving people boundaries and guidelines makes it easier to contribute, not harder.  Where Wikivoyage struggles because it's so hit and miss on our core articles.  So many towns and villages around the world with no coverage on what there is to actually see and do, while so many experiments wallow with after one good author goes on a mission and then they are left wither once that author loses interest.  The site needs more focus, and we're not going to get that by making editing by travellers easier, not by encouraging specialist editors going on a frolic of their own.  --Inas (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, my feeling is that we need a clear policy. I'm OK with either the current policy or a clear new policy such as I outline below. What I'm not OK with is an unclear policy that does not clearly spell out what happens when there is no consensus. Either there is a bias toward deletion, as is currently the case, or there is a bias toward keeping. Either way is OK, but it seems to me that it has to be one or the other, because other attempts at phrasing for a new policy so far were IMO not good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The scenario with some trying to get a consensus by careful reasoning, while other get their will by just voicing their opinion and then leaving, does not seem very attractive. I hope people are responsible enough for the consensus to work. Perhaps the consensus can be interpreted to ignore shot and run votes. (And for the Esperanto article: I'd volunteer to take the article, but I did not want people to feel the issue is solved by that – very few will find the phrasebook there – so preferred to keep quiet.) --LPfi (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

New proposed rewrite
How about making this simple? Here's the current text:

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent

Proposed rewrite:

'''As this site has a "status quo" bias, a nomination to delete an article, file or template, when not obvious as a matter of policy, requires a consensus. However, both those in favor of and those opposed to deletion must cite Wikivoyage policies, guidelines and/or goals in their arguments, and while the traveller comes first is the guiding principle on this site, it won't be sufficient to save an article about a garden implements store or any other kind of article, file or template that is obviously against other policies.'''

Current text:

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it.

Proposed rewrite:

'''If after a policy-based discussion, no consensus has emerged to delete the article, file or template, it will be kept. If a consensus in favor of deletion has been attained, an administrator can delete the nominated article, file or template.'''

Irrespective of whether the Esperanto phrasebook is deleted before these changes, are you in favor or opposed? I think this is where the rubber meets the road, so have it out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I made one further change, which is reasonable and only fair: People in favor of deletion have to give policy reasons, too. We've seen plenty of nominations unjustified by policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with a need to provide a policy-based reason when proposing to delete something. Many nominations are along the lines of "this looks bad because it is short" or "I don't like it" although they are thankfully less common these days. Gizza ( roam ) 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I support Ikan Kekek 's' proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep it simple?

 *  All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no a consensus has emerged to keep delete the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. may do so. If discussion reaches no policy-based consensus, the status quo is retained. 

K7L (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In effect, the status-quo is always going to be to retain? Isn't it?  Why bother listing that?
 * If, after fourteen days of discussion, a consensus has emerged that our deletion policy applies to the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Otherwise, any Wikivoyager can still work to improve, retain, merge or redirect the article, as informed by the discussion. --Inas (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Simpler and good. I support this language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Inas' wording is short and sweet, let's go with that. K7L (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. Easy to understand and consistent with other policies. Gizza ( roam ) 21:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see where there is a need to change a policy that has not failed us and as I stated above encourages engagement nor have I seen any of the fervent "let's change the policy, because I don't like it" camp offer any actual reasons for why we need to change it (or address claims made by myself and others who question/oppose the change). Are you just pushing forward with this "I think I have the majority, so let's force a short-sighted policy change just to get my way" or is there a reason somewhere that I'm missing? You guys are moving awfully fast on how to reword your "policy change" without addressing ANY concerns or providing ANY reasons why the changes are better. This discussion quite frankly is an excellent reason why majority is a HORRIBLE basis for decisions. The current "majority" is boldly making decisions because they feel they don't have to engage simply by virtue of having the majority. I reread the discussion: There is ZERO engagement in opposing thoughts and no real arguments made as to why we need this policy change. Just a lot of "We don't like the policy" and a very fast progression to agreeing on changes. It's really everything we should NOT be. There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. but these are all attitudes that need to be fought AGAINST as they are all dismissive of the site goals. Having the vfd throw slightly more burden of proof onto "keep" voters is a good way to weed out wishy-washy "keep" votes that may be based on the aforementioned problematic reasons and force people to stay focused on our policy and goals (the nominator for "deletion" must provide a reason in their nomination anyway, so it always starts with the "delete" argument anyway). I see no proof of us ever callously deleting articles without policy-based reasons and do not foresee that happening, but I can definitely see us keeping more articles "because it's easier" with no policy proof or even in the face of policy problems if we change the policy. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a need because we have at least three contradictory policies. We have Consensus with its default status quo bias. We also have a policy (with a few rare exceptions) of not deleting real places, instead redirecting them. Then we have this guilty-until-proven-innocent in VfD which contradicts every other policy. The end result is an incoherent, contradictory mess - which simply is not working. K7L (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Vitriolic rants discourage me from contributing to policy discussions, that's for sure. Everyone in this discussion on both sides is an experienced editor who has given a lot of time to build a travel guide. Let's try to keep that in mind. I've fired off angry responses to things in the past, and I've regretted it. After ready the tirade above, i went out for a walk instead of responding right away. This sort of argument does not contribute to building a community. Quite the opposite: it turns people off the project. We've already heard from Ryan why he left, and that is a damn shame. We are all contributors, and sometimes we disagree. K7L has set out some good points, and Ryan has too. Don't diss arguments advanced by other editors just because you don't agree with them. I'm going off to create some content now. Ground Zero (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I share ChubbyWimbus’ frustration with what seems like a pointed avoidance of addressing the issues raised by the “delete” voters in favor of the easier but short-sighted approach of making the issue moot by wielding a half-baked policy change like a battering ram. Perhaps instead of misplaced accusations of vitriol, these newly minted Esperantists ought to actually answer the question of why avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus? To K7L’s comment, perhaps they can also answer the question of where exactly it’s written that our status-quo-bias policy has no exceptions, and if that’s such an incontrovertible rule, why has our site functioned perfectly well for the past 12 years with a pretty glaring exception to that policy on the books? I should say as well that I’m not impressed by threats to quit the site, warnings about how such-and-such a proposal will make other editors quit the site en masse if implemented, or even after-the-fact explanations from former editors about why they quit. Collaborative projects like this one aren’t  for everybody, and that’s okay. Any editor who absolutely has to get their way all the time really ought to step back and consider whether wiki editing is the hobby for them (or, in Ryan’s case, anyone who doesn’t want to get his hands dirty with lengthy and sometimes contentious policy discussions probably shouldn’t volunteer to be an administrator).  In the end it may be that I lose the argument and the Esperanto phrasebook stays, but if so, I’m not going to take my toys out of the sandbox and go home, nor are most of the other reasonable people here who sometimes get into disagreements with other editors. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did not threaten to quit the site. I said I was going off to create some content. I hope you understand that that is something very different. Responding to my comment about vitriol with more vitriol, and saying that my accusation was "misplaced" bewilders me. Arguing that everything's fine and we shouldn't change because we've always done it this way doesn't impress me at all. Any project or organization that resists change is doomed to fail. The status-quo-bias rule is a general rule for the project, and VfD is an exception to this rule that doesn't seem to have much basis. This has been raised as an issue several times over the years (scroll up the page). Ground Zero (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say that the supporters and opponents of the proposed policy change are both right: Either policy works. However, I disagree with arguments on both sides that either policy is likely to cause any significant damage to the site. This is essentially a dispute between people who prefer to have a bias toward deletion or a bias toward not deleting. Yes, if the policy is changed, it will have some effect of broadening the focus of the site. However, I expect the effect to be modest. If it turns out to have extreme results, that would be because there is no consensus to delete wildly off-topic articles. Do we really think that's likely? I see this, instead, as a marginal issue that will affect articles that are close cases. And to tie it to this debate and to Marriage in China (which I should stipulate, I don't think we can or should undelete, because undeletion requires a consensus, not a retroactive lack of consensus for deletion), the results would be that since some substantial number of participants in the VfD discussions found a travel-related justification for those articles, however strained the proponents of deletion found it, those articles would have stayed in existence (though in the case of Marriage in China, probably with a new title and definitely with substantially edited content and focus). I'm not sure I can think of another article we've debated in VfD since I've been here that would have been kept and was otherwise deleted, though please mention any others you can think of.


 * I'll admit to having a slight bias toward the proposed policy change, because my argumentation style in VfD threads is to question both sides and then make up my mind. For example, in the case of the Esperanto phrasebook, I proposed deletion and thought the last two VfD threads advanced no good argument for keeping it, but the points about Pasporta Servo eventually convinced me. That's travel-related. All that said, I think a compromise that might work is, as User:SelfieCity suggested, to agree to remove that phrasebook from articlespace, so as to grandfather its VfD into the existing policy before the change of policy is made. That way, we wipe the slate clean and move forward with a slightly different philosophy in VfD going forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The bit about diva-ish threats to quit the site did not pertain to you, Ground Zero. It was more a reference to diva-ish threats by some editors that other editors (specifically newbies) will quit the site if the preferred outcome to this discussion doesn’t come to pass, which was floated in the parallel discussion at the VfD page. My point was that people who aren’t given to collaboration or aren’t prepared to take things in stride when they lose a debate are temperamentally unsuited to working on wikis, and given that such an editor probably would have eventually left regardless, as soon as they didn’t get their way on some other issue, kowtowing to high-maintenance editors shouldn’t be a high priority. My comments regarding Ryan were meant to imply that those considerations can apply to experienced editors too, not just newbies. As to vitriol, I just hope you understand what this looks like from the other side of the conversation. From the angle I see it, certain users have chosen to respond to the valid policy concerns regarding the Esperanto phrasebook presented by CW, myself, and others by attempting to force through a policy change that (at least by the looks of it) is an explicit attempt to silence dissent, and are now stonewalling our concerns regarding the policy change itself. And now, for our troubles, we’re being faulted for expressing our frustration about that, while the response to our substantive concerns continues to be crickets. It’s a very bad-faith way to go about things, by the appearances of things. Consensus is not achieved through strongarm tactics any more than it’s achieved through simple majority vote, nonparticipation in discussions, or anything else that consensus is not. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thinking about the objections some folks have made that their concerns are being disregarded, I propose that language be added to the statement posted by K7L above, stating that all participants in VfD discussions must offer a reason for their argument, even if the reason is "per User X", meaning that they agree with User X's argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to scale this whole discussion back away from "how we can implement the new policy" to first justifying the policy change with examples of how the current policy fails us and/or how the change would improve things which I have only seen a few vague/weak attempts at and not by very many people. I would also like some of the concerns/comments raised to address. Here are some that I have raised, along with others: The "Guilty until proven innocent" policy requires us to look at an article and determine if it matches our site goals and does not violate our policies. An "innocent until proven guilty" policy on deletion starts with the premise that any article SHOULD be here and you need to prove that it doesn't belong, but that is not true to how our site operates and is certainly not in line with our goals.
 * "Guilty until proven innocent" encourages participation and forces engagement in order to keep while the reverse permits a lazier and less engaged approach by those who wish to keep (Ryan claimed that it is a "good thing" to just keep articles in order to avoid vfd discussions. To me, "less time debating" is neither inherently good nor bad. Some topics warrant more discussion than others and most vfd discussions are in fact quite brief.)
 * Per User:AndreCarrotflower: "it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal."
 * From myself: "There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. are all decision-making processes that are dismissive of our goals and should be combated. The current policy does this while the new proposal further facilitates the proliferation of keeps based on those kinds of reasons (whether spoken or unspoken).
 * User:Ground Zero wrote: "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete" But in the Esperanto discussion, instead of "consensus that an article violates policy" we ended up with precedent and policy being brought up with no one disputing it yet users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it. I know there have been others in the past where a policy violation was indisputable but some people for various reasons simply wanted to keep an article, so there is clearly NOT always a consensus to delete articles even if policy and precedent might dictate it to be an "easy delete".
 * To add to the above, if as I suspect, part of the reason that article length and time spent are being talked about is because users think it feels a bit "confrontational" and feel bad, I question whether the changes would make that better and think it may make the vfd actually feel slightly more hostile as the nominator has to go on the attack.
 * User:AndreCarrotflower: "why avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus?"
 * Specifically to Ikan Kekek (and I thank you for attempting to engage in discussion): I don't really understand your argument that beginning a discussion as "undecided" is better if there is an "innocent until proven guilty" policy versus the "guilty until proven innocent" policy. Many people enter with "Comment"/"Question" rather than "keep/delete" in order to have things clarified before they decide. Those concerns should not be overlooked any more than "keep/delete" points.
 * Just to add a point on deleting long articles: In truth, the clearer we make our policies and the sooner we act when we notice violations, the more likely we are to avoid a situation where an editor or editors spend(s) a lot of time working on an article only to have it deleted. Changing policy to accommodate articles that some people like in spite of policy violations and/or not aligning with our goals is much more likely to cause problems for editors and breed resentment than deleting someone's article with clear policy and goal-based reasons behind us. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I often have an initial position on a VfD-nominated article. For example, on the Esperanto phrasebook, it was to delete, on the basis that previous arguments simply treated it as an exception because it was a long article and "wasn't hurting anyone". Only the information about Pasporta Servo ultimately changed my mind because it is travel-related. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also say that you could be right, and the only way to know for sure is if we do change the policy. But that said, would requiring every participant in a VfD discussion to give a reason for their support or opposition go some way toward satisfying you that there will be sound reasons for doing either? I think there should be some kind of requirement for there to be a policy-based reason to either keep or delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If we had a really active site with lots of regular editors, I'd agree that we should not change to accomodate new editors, or even sensitive ones. But we have a site with lots of skeleton articles, and lots of articles quoting prices from 2014, 2011, and 2007. A travel guide is too big a project to be managed effectively by a smallish group of efitors, no matter how dedicated. The Esperanto article has been around so long that its creator has either moved on or is a fixture here who won't leave if one article is deleted. On the other hand, the "things are working well enough as they are and there's no need to change" argument could well be applied to this article. This article was imported from the predecessor site in 2006, and Wikivoyage's integrity has not been undermined by its existence here. It has not caused scope-creep, and has not resulted in a Klingon phrasebook being accepted as an article. For my part, I prefer to embrace change as being both necessary and good for organisations. "We've always done it this way" is the weakest argument I can think of, but it works both ways. Ground Zero (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The argument isn't "We've always done it this way". The argument is "It's tried and tested and hasn't failed us" and if proven success and lack of failure is unimpressive to you, then there can be no change you won't approve and no current policy you would support keeping. That would make it seem as if the change is being supported just for the sake of change, which is really bad policy-making. The idea that you are "embracing change" while those who wish to keep a successful policy simply "don't embrace change" is a false characterization. I have supported changes and am open to change, but I don't "embrace change" without a clear purpose and compelling reason(s) as to why it's an improvement. In the broadest sense, changes are "necessary and good for organizations" but that is much different from "any change is good change" which is emphatically false. Every proposed change should have a reason that shows it is more beneficial than the previous way. Making changes and hoping magic happens is a fast road to failure, as is a "Let's just shake things up" attitude. No change is "good change" without reason.
 * Part of the point of the Esperanto deletion debate was that it seemed to have been arbitrarily kept when precedent was established to delete articles like it, so while it may have sat around for a while without notice, it has hit the wall now and merely existing for a long time doesn't address the issues brought forth against it. As far as scope-creep goes, we should always try to be forward-thinking and anticipatory so as to prevent it rather than dismissing concerns as paranoia under the assumption that no one will ever challenge any of our policies so we need not think about it. Sure, we don't want to be too restrictive, but I don't really think that applies to a discussion about articles about fake languages. It's a rather specific topic that really only brings clarity to what is basically already an unwritten policy in that languages like Klingon don't have a place in our travel guides. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the policy is a proven success. That is something you are presuming. As others have pointed out, it is inconsistent with our general bias for the status quo, and is a built-in barrier to innovation. I don't agree that scope-creep is a big problem that needs this hammer. It can be dealt with be the normal approaches since Wikivoyage editors are a reasonable bunch of people. Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the evidence that the current policy has failed the site? I think either policy will work, and the difference should be relatively marginal and is a philosophical one related to precisely what ChubbyWimbus wrote above: Whether you fall more to the side of fearing scope-creep or preferring to let 1,000 flowers bloom. Both viewpoints are valid, but the reason I think the change, if it is agreed to, will be marginal is that you are never going to get a consensus to turn this into something other than a travel guide, but also because a lot of enlargement of this site's scope has been established and is quite unlikely to be undone. For example, I don't see any clamor to eliminate the various travel topics on bygone empires (the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Raj, etc.) or journeys (On the trail of Marco Polo, etc.), and while the cuisine articles remain problematic to my mind, I doubt we'll delete the whole slew of them. So let's all accept that (1) whether we make this change or don't, the slippery slope won't slide; (2) whether we make this change or don't, there is room to innovate on this site, and it's limited only by topicality and users' imagination and initiative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I still haven't seen anyone suggest more than two articles - 2 - that would (have) be(en) kept under the new proposed policy that were (or would be) deleted: Marriage in China and Esperanto phrasebook. I'd really like to see another article or two be mentioned, because otherwise, I think the evidence suggests that this is quite a marginal change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Going back only as far as January 2016, I found three more: outer space (sic), St. Louis (Illinois), and Northern Rhodesia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Going back further, a number of itineraries were deleted in 2014, that I think might have been kept under the new policy. One day in Hong Kong was moved to my user space - there were two keep votes and only one delete. I suggest we keep the existing policy of "guilty until proven innocent" for new articles, but after two years articles should be presumed to be innocent. I have chosen two years as outline itineraries are likely to be nominated after one year. AlasdairW (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * St. Louis (Illinois), really? Wow. That makes me think again. AlasdairW, I would not agree to a statute of limitations on deletion. Supposing an obviously off-topic article survived in a quiet corner for 3 years? OK, I get that your proposal is more nuanced than that, but I still have trouble agreeing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The real issue is that there are two different policies in fact
Let's be real here for a second. We all know that deletions simply don't happen to "real places" because someone somewhere started claiming we don't delete real places and everyone since slavishly adheres to that instead of actually arguing whether a place whose wikipedia article consists of stuff the census spambot wrote and which has 100 souls to its name merits coverage. However, travel topics are held to a much higher and more onerous standard. There, to me, lies the rub. We should have sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander, not apply a strict status where two out of six can delete and the simple argument "I found this place on a map once" overrules five out of six who say "Nobody lives there or cares" Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles about real places are deleted when they are created in bad faith, such as by that one Australian user we all love so much. However, when they're created in good faith, they are redirected if they can't support their own article. But where do you redirect a topic or itinerary that's either not relevant or is so undeveloped that there's really nothing to merge? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The "not relevant or is so undeveloped that there's really nothing to merge" condition happens with real places too, if there's truly nothing there worthy of even one listing. No point redirecting Toronto (Prince Edward Island) if there's nothing in Toronto (Prince Edward Island). K7L (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But real places are inherently part of larger real places, are they not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did drive through Toronto PEI, then turned around and drove through it again to see if I could see anything the second time. Nope, couldn't. You'd only find a place to sleep if you knocked on one of the few doors and asked to be taken in for the night. And fed. And it was a bunch of kilometres before I got to another settlement. I suppose it's part of a county, but there are only three of those in the whole province. PEI is small. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what you're saying is their are two things that inform our deletion policy, and one of these is administrative. It's simply easier to redirect a real place - because of the way our wiki works.  Deletion is an admin action, you can't see the history, etc.  If deletion was a normal user action, and simply was another "revision", then we may want to be more liberal with deletions.  Redirects on the other hand are very similar to deletions, and for real places they are just quicker and easier all around - the history is preserved, and the article "goes away".  --Inas (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Preserving history matters if there's some content at the old page which is to be merged to the destination (indeed, CC-BY-SA pretty much precludes merge-and-delete due to the need to preserve attribution) but Toronto PEI doesn't have a history worth preserving, any more than the Unicode teacup icon has a history worthy of preservation. K7L (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that we could usefully make the "redirect for real places" only apply to cities that we can locate on the map without doubt. If we are unsure where the place is, or it is not a city/town/village then we should not redirect. For instance we have Saddleworth Square which redirects to London/East after being nominated here. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we could have a rule that could be applied without the VFD effort, I'd support it. But applying this rule, Toronto PEI still gets a redirect.  And most of the VFD discussions seem to be edge cases, where some people seem to think it can refer to a real place.  --Inas (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There are exceptions, but in general not deleting real places is a good rule. Previous discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Deletion_policy. Pashley (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Toronto (Prince Edward Island) would be an exception. I'd suggest nominating it for deletion and pointing to this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Another possible rewrite
This is a very different way to rewrite this section and may or may not go along with Wikivoyage’s general policies, but it would be a solution that both sides of this debate could agree with.

Existing text:

All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent''. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.''

''If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.''

Possible rewrite:

''All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.''

''If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.''

''If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the side with the most votes shall be treated as consensus. If two or more sides of the discussion have the same number of votes, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.''

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

This might not be the perfect way express this, but this is the general idea. This would hopefully remove the bias toward guilt or innocence for articles and make sure that articles are only deleted when they should be and when there is a large group of people agreeing that the article should be deleted. Selfie City (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We've avoided simple vote-counting, because that's not a consensus and also requires policing for sockpuppets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet policing is a good point, Ikan Kekek. However, we have to remember that 90% of the voting on the VfD page consists of the following editors: Gizza, AndreCarrotflower, you, me, Ground Zero, K7L, Granger, all the other administrators, and all the active users. The only time recently when we even got close to sockpuppets on the VfD was when someone said to bring in Wikipedia editors to vote on the Esperanto phrasebook. If WV had reached Wikipedia's size, sockpuppets would be a major concern, but as it stands, not enough people vote on the VfD page to even make sockpuppets a problem.


 * However, we could do this instead with the rewrite to remove the vote-counting:


 * Rewrite #1 text: If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the side with the most votes shall be treated as consensus. If two or more sides of the discussion have the same number of votes, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article.
 * Rewrite #2 text: ''If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article.

''
 * That way, we won't need to do vote-counting. Selfie City (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Determining "the side with the most votes" requires vote-counting. Also, we have had problems with sockpuppets on this site. You haven't been here long enough to remember some of them and probably are not involved in policing a currently-active one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The point is that rewrite #2 does not mention "the side with the most votes". #2 is removing the vote-count by postponing when there is no consensus. #1 is my first possible rewrite and #2 is the rewrite based upon what you said at 20:15. Selfie City (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * One possibility is to use vote-counting but have a requirement that users can only vote if they had already made a certain number of edits on Wikivoyage before the discussion began. This is the method used on the English Wiktionary for some decision-making processes (though not for deletion discussions). Over there, it seems to deal with the issue of sockpuppets and related problems (like off-wiki canvassing). It might or might not be appropriate for Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for your thoughts, but what about the other possible changes I've suggested: twenty days instead of fourteen to give more opportunity for consensus-building, the forty-day limit for consensus-building or deletion, and the automatic keep if no opinions are made besides that of the nominator. Do others think these will make the nomination process fairer? (think of previous deletion nominations, I've haven't been around so long, and think whether or not this work well with them) Selfie City (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the difference of opinion on what constitutes "consensus", i.e. we do have have a consensus on what "consensus" means, I think that something like this could help resolve this dispute and address the ill-feeling that is being created by it. I don't think that we should dismiss this and "just move on". Ground Zero (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus
The way things are going with the possible rewrite, nothing will change, and if no-one wants a change, that’s fine. But let’s get consensus for something.

I’m going to lay out all the options for the section of the VfD page in question. Underneath each is the consensus decision, if any:

Existing text
All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

Original proposed rewrite
All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent. If, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it.... If no consensus has emerged to keep delete the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it close the VfD discussion. Closing the discussion does not preclude a later re-nomination for deletion. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

(Consensus decision inconclusive)

Second proposed rewrite
Deciding whether to delete is tricky because we have two conflicting goals: we do not want the wiki cluttered with useless articles but we are reluctant to throw away someone's work or to remove something that might eventually become a good article.

Where a clear consensus emerges — whether to delete, redirect, rename or move the article — we can just act on that, after waiting about a week to ensure everyone interested has a chance to comment.

When there is no consensus we wait longer — at least fourteen days and sometimes longer if the discussion is lively — in hopes a consensus may emerge after more discussion. If not, then it becomes a judgment call and the decision will usually be made by one of the wiki administrators since only they can delete articles anyway. Factors that tend to get an article kept are that it has substantial text or that many people have argued for "keep" (a good example is the debate over the Esperanto phrasebook, archived at (insert link here)). Short articles or those with only a few defenders will usually be deleted or redirected.

Where the outcome is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager can do it. Some moves can also be done by anyone. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

Where the outcome is to delete, or for a move that requires deleting a redirect first, only an administrator can do that. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

When deleting a template, consider first replacing it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name. Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it.

(Consensus result inconclusive, but trending negative)

Third ("simple") rewrite
As this site has a "status quo" bias, a nomination to delete an article, file or template, when not obvious as a matter of policy, requires a consensus. However, both those in favor of and those opposed to deletion must cite Wikivoyage policies, guidelines and/or goals in their arguments, and while the traveller comes first is the guiding principle on this site, it won't be sufficient to save an article about a garden implements store or any other kind of article, file or template that is obviously against other policies… If after a policy-based discussion, no consensus has emerged to delete the article, file or template, it will be kept. If a consensus in favor of deletion has been attained, an administrator can delete the nominated article, file or template.

(Consensus result in favor until User:ChubbyWimbus intervened)

My first rewrite
All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the side with the most votes shall be treated as consensus. If two or more sides of the discussion have the same number of votes, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

(Consensus inconclusive, but leaning negative)

My second rewrite (removing vote counting)
All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the deletion nomination should be postponed until another Wikivoyager votes, and that final vote will decide what will happen to the article. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

(Not enough comments for a real consensus)

My third rewrite (change to third paragraph)
All nominated articles, files or templates must be discussed on this page before being deleted. If, after twenty days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikivoyager should do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion as described in the next section.

If consensus has emerged to delete the article, file, or template, an administrator can delete it. Check if any article links to the article, file or template in question. After removing those links, delete the article, file or template. However, if the file is being deleted because it has been moved to Wikimedia Commons with the same name, do not remove links to the local file, as the links will be automatically be pointed to the file on Commons.

If there has been discussion about whether or not to delete the article, but no consensus has emerged on either side of the deletion discussion after twenty days, the deletion nomination should be postponed until consensus is reached. However, if a deletion nomination comes to no obvious resolution after forty days, the article in question should be deleted.

If, after twenty days, only the nominator for deletion has voted on what should happen to the article, the article should be kept, the deletion nomination should be closed, and the nomination should be archived.

(No consensus, this is a new one I created that removes the one-vote change in what will happen to an article - I'm doing this to stop possible sockpuppets)

Which is best: let’s make a decision now. Selfie City (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Just remove "All nominated articles, files or templates are guilty unless proven innocent." entirely and replace "If no consensus has emerged to keep the article, file or template, an administrator can delete it." with "If a consensus has emerged to delete the article, file or template, an administrator may do so." K7L (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have written another draft of new wording at User:Nurg/Deleting, or not. I welcome comments on it at the Talk page there. I intend to copy it here after any further refinement of it. Nurg (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Nurg's rewrite, for consideration
I put forward, for consideration, these bullet points to replace the "Deleting, or not" section.
 * If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
 * If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
 * If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
 * If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
 * If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
 * If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.

Additionally, I suggest that instructions about how to delete should be moved to a separate section (perhaps on the "Votes for deletion" page; perhaps at Deletion policy). The "Deleting, or not" section should be only about making the decision whether to delete, not the technicalities of execution. Nurg (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would give my cautious support to this proposed language, recognizing that adopting this new policy might have negative effects and reserving the right to suggest a return to the current status quo if the results end up worse than the current situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this proposal. However, I think all the information about the process should be detailed in one place, for simplicity's sake. That place might as well be at the top of the Votes_for_deletion page. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I attempted to outline concerns above with a convenient bulleted list of points, to which only Ikan Kekek responded to the one directed at him. If there is really a concern about consensus building or a desire to even keep consensus building, I'll ask again if we could first address the concerns. The main argument in favor that I saw was just to make everything "innocent until proven guilty" because other parts of the site operate that way. The vfd is different (and I don't think "being different" is a reason to change it given that there are reasons for the difference). I also acknowledge Ikan Kekek's point that neither the current policy or the new policy should dramatically change the site however, even if that is so, a policy change should always improve things, even if slightly, and if it doesn't improve things or it makes things even minimally worse, it's not a worthy change, which is my view on this proposal. So, does anyone care to address the concerns from the bulleted list above to demonstrate why/how this policy change is beneficial? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Chubby, there has been endless debate over this, with few people changing their minds, if anyone. I appreciate that you have taken the time to enumerate the arguments being made, and respond to them  one by one, but this ends up being a bit of a "wall of words". You have dismissed or ignored some arguments made by people you disagree with, or simplified their arguments in a way to make it easy to counter them. This is a common debating strategy to win a debate, but here it doesn't work. Wiki talk pages just are not a format conducive to lengthy, detailed debates -- either people haven't read what you've written because there's just too much, or they decide that responding point by point at length is not a good use of their time, and they go back to creating content. I know that the latter is what I did. I've read what you wrote above, and it did not convince me. The proposals are an attempt to find common ground, rather than to win the debate since the debate isn't going anywhere. We can expend a ton of time and effort arguing over individual articles and whether there is a policy basis for them and what the precedent is (look at how much energy was sucked by the deante over the Esperanto article), or we can adopt a streamlined decision-making process and get back to building a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To give one example, in your response to my point, "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete", you argue that "users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into itusers simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it". Yeah, that isn't the central argument being made, and if you think it is, you weren't paying attention. Arguments were advanced that travellers can use Esperanto, especially because of the Esperanto home-stay network, that we have other phrasebooks for very obscure languages, that there is no other place in the wikisphete for guidebooks, and so on, but the last thing I would want to do is reopen that debate - it's over. Let's focus on improving the policy so we spend less time arguing. Ground Zero (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the policy change proposal. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My general opinion is that, when there's no consensus, it usually means that those in support of delete are right; but of course, I wanted to delete Esperanto. I think the supposed change needs to include a scenario where no-one votes on the nomination, something that is covered in the current VFD page but is not dealt with properly in Nurg's draft. Still, I agree that there should be some kind of postponement, which became obvious during the Esperanto discussion. Selfie City (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But at the same time, I support the change and I hope that the change is made as soon as possible. Selfie City (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't envisage a situation where no-one votes, as the nomination counts as a vote. In the extremely unlikely scenario that no-one responds to the nomination, then the consensus (of one) will be to delete. But I'm sure this has never happened in WV or WT history - there are always people interested in sharing their opinion. Having said that, it does no harm to make this explicite in the text. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal as well. When opinion is mixed and a consensus can't be reached, the article should be given the benefit of the doubt. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I put the wording forward without explicitly stating my opinion, but I do support the proposal. I considered the arguments of ChubbyWimbus, but I am not persuaded by them. Some points reference the Esperanto debate, which I did not follow, as I had no interest in the article (based on its title) and did not care whether it was deleted or kept. I don't have a rebuttal to all the rest of ChubbyWimbus's points, but I will comment on two. As for the rest, I feel similar to Ground Zero as just above. ChubbyWimbus said that the "it might get clicks" argument was among "attitudes that need to be fought AGAINST as they are all dismissive of the site goals". I disagree - attracting more visits might not be a stated goal, but it does help the project. ChubbyWimbus said that the "less time debating" aspect "is neither inherently good nor bad". I disagree, and so does our "Consensus" policy, viz., "... to avoid endlessly debating intractable issues, so that we can spend most of our time adding new content, rather than sparring over existing content." I agree with Ikan Kekek's earlier comments that this current debate is between those who "have a bias toward deletion or a bias toward not deleting", and that a decision either way will not cause any significant damage, and is "a marginal issue that will affect articles that are close cases". I can live with a decision either way, but I think it is better to keep content in close cases, so I support the proposal. Nurg (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And, to be clear, I also support the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. The exact wording doesn't matter, but we do need to lose "guilty until proven innocent" for consistency's sake. K7L (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's move ahead with this. Is this consensus? Selfie City (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm plunging forward and making the change. Selfie City (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Nurg, your proposal is now on the VFD page itself! There is no more "guilty until proven innocent". Selfie City (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Does this proposal benefit us?/What's wrong with the current policy?
I'll put this in its own heading as perhaps I should have done earlier so that it doesn't get lost and people can engage in a single setting. I still haven't seen the concerns addressed and I do think it's really important that we have solid reasons for policy changes, which I haven't really seen. At any rate, here are the concerns that have been brought up:

The "Guilty until proven innocent" policy requires us to look at an article and determine if it matches our site goals and does not violate our policies. An "innocent until proven guilty" policy on deletion starts with the premise that every article SHOULD be here and you need to prove that it doesn't belong, but that is not true to how our site operates and is certainly not in line with our goals.
 * "Guilty until proven innocent" encourages participation and forces engagement in order to keep while the reverse permits a lazier and less engaged approach by those who wish to keep (Ryan claimed that it is a "good thing" to just keep articles in order to avoid vfd discussions. To me, "less time debating" is neither inherently good nor bad. Some topics warrant more discussion than others and most vfd discussions are in fact quite brief. If a user is averse to discussions, they don't have to participate. There are plenty of antisocial ways to contribute. Vfd is not and should not be one of them.)
 * Per User:AndreCarrotflower: "it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal."
 * User:SelfieCity wrote: "My general opinion is that, when there's no consensus, it usually means that those in support of delete are right" - I don't want to put words in his mouth, but this seems to follow the above comments that if an article is so difficult to justify that it inspires a lot of debate and no clear consensus for support then it probably isn't justified.
 * From myself: "There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. are all decision-making processes that are dismissive of our goals and should be combated. The current policy does this while the new proposal further facilitates the proliferation of keeps based on those kinds of reasons (whether spoken or unspoken).
 * User:Ground Zero wrote: "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete" But in the Esperanto discussion, instead of "consensus that an article violates policy" we ended up with precedent and policy being brought up with no one disputing it yet users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it. I know there have been others in the past where a policy violation was indisputable but some people for various reasons simply wanted to keep an article, so there is clearly NOT always a consensus to delete articles even if policy and precedent might dictate it to be an "easy delete".
 * To add to the above, if as I suspect, part of the reason that article length and time spent are being talked about is because users think it feels a bit "confrontational" and feel bad, I question whether the changes would make that better and think it may make the vfd actually feel slightly more hostile as the nominator has to go on the attack.
 * User:AndreCarrotflower: "why is avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus?"
 * Just to add a point on deleting long articles: In truth, the clearer we make our policies and the sooner we act when we notice violations, the more likely we are to avoid a situation where an editor or editors spend(s) a lot of time working on an article only to have it deleted. Changing policy to accommodate articles that some people like in spite of policy violations and/or not aligning with our goals is much more likely to cause problems for editors and breed resentment than deleting someone's article with clear policy and goal-based reasons behind us.
 * On User:Nurg's response, the reason "it might get clicks" is not a valid reason to support anything and is an attitude to fight against is because LOTS of things "might get clicks". Our articles should not and cannot be evaluated on their ability to get clicks. They must always be evaluated on whether or not they meet the criteria for an article and fit our goals. Cat pictures and porn have proven to attract tons of clicks, but we obviously don't allow them, because they violate many policies, aren't travel-related, and don't fit our goals. That was my point. Certainly, if something fits within our goals and can garner site traffic, we would welcome it.
 * Also, to User:Nurg's other point about debate lengths: The "guilty until proven innocent" policy does not require any more debate than the new proposal. You just delete the article (and it will never be discussed again, because it's gone). I don't think a debate must always be closed if the discussion is still productive and/or users are still working through things. That is what I meant by it not being necessary to be stringent, and I think our admins understand that as well and usually have a good sense of when things are winding down, getting off-topic, moving in circles, etc. to close discussions. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ChubbyWimbus, you're looking at each article and thinking, "Why should we keep it?" There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, but it will mean that the number of articles will be limited and the remaining Wikivoyage articles will very strictly follow policy. For the most part, I'm on the same side as you about this, but when you consider that 13/18 of Wikivoyage's city articles are outlines, it makes you think twice about being pro-delete for articles on the VFD page. Basically, we need all the content we can get, and keep that in mind if you want to delete an article such as the Esperanto phrasebook or Gestures.


 * But another way to look at each VFD is, "why shouldn't we keep it?" Because it's true that the Esperanto phrasebook wasn't doing any harm. When we need every word we can get on this Wiki, you could argue that it's best to keep every article we can. Selfie City (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I fundamentally disagree with using "why shouldn't we keep it?" as the starting point. If something is nominated for deletion, then it is nominated with some sort of concern that it is out-of-scope, against policy, etc. so there needs to be proof that it belongs. All articles do start at "delete" by the nominator by default. The vfd is not a random article check where Pittsburgh is just as likely to pop up as Thumb wrestling. As stated above, our current system encourages people to provide such proof while the change in policy permits/encourages more weasel tactics of disengaged interactions in the event of a disagreement. Putting a little fire under our feet to prove an article's value to our project forces us to always think about our goals. That's a good thing. If we can't justify an article's existence within our project, why should we keep it? Desperation for attention/clicks is not a good guiding principle. You can make anything vaguely travel-related just by adding a location. I definitely don't see a need to delete the vfd page and process in order to "keep every article we can". Also, if the scope of the site is seen as "too narrow", that is not an issue related to "guilty until proven innocent". The vfd permits permissible articles, so if the issue is that the "permissible articles" are too narrow, changing the vfd policy isn't the way to address site scope. To use the vfd as a way to dismiss the site's scope sounds like another excellent reason to KEEP "guilty until proven innocent" in order to prevent that kind of abuse. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some articles here that I don't think are a good use of time and effort, such as British Empire and Musicals, so I choose not to spend time on them. They may well draw in readers, especially if no-one else is covering these topics from a traveller's perspective. And readers can turn into editors. Wikivoyage benefits from more travel-related content, not less. Where we disagree is what constitutes "travel-related". I see knot evidence that Wikivoyage is overwhelmed by non-travel articles, so we can afford to loosen up a bit in order to draw in more travel-related articles. And if we find that the policy change leads to bunches of non-travel articles popping up, we can change the policy back. Desperation for attention is not a good guiding principle, but we do need more attention than we are getting how, so loosening the policy makes sense. (I don't think this policy change, or failing to change it, will save Wikivoyage, or sink it. It will have impacts at the margins.) I do not share your belief that Wikivoyage editors cannot be trusted to make the right decisions about what is travel-related, so a higher threshold for keeping an article is required. I think we are a pretty level-headed bunch, even those who disagree with me. You would probably benefit from trying to understand that people who disagree with you are not always wrong. Ground Zero (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero, your argument that "Wikivoyage benefits from more travel-related content, not less" is probably the fundamental reason why so many people wanted to keep the articles that have been up for deletion since Esperanto. I have to agree with you on that issue when you consider the number of outline articles on Wikivoyage that need content. Selfie City (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And since actions speak louder than words, I rescued Salsa dancing in Latin America from deletion by updating it and adding content, as you know. To me, that's not a core article of a travel guide, but now we have an article that other travel guides don't that may bring readers our way. Ground Zero (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Esperanto and Salsa dancing in Latin America have actually brought me more onto your side, Ground Zero. Also, when I discovered that more than 2/3 of city articles were outlines, it really hit me that Wikivoyage isn't near where it needs to be. Of course, with time, I think Wikivoyage will expand and gradually reach usable/guide status all-round, but until then we shouldn't be liberal with our article deletion. Selfie City (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus, you're always sincere in advocating for whatever you think is of most benefit to the site, and I think that's great and a good example for everyone. And I agree with you on at least one thing, which is that "because it could get clicks" is not a good reason to start or maintain an article that clearly has no travel content and could not under any stretch of the imagination be turned into a legitimate travel topic. But where we might differ is that there are a whole bunch of topics that may have started with no obvious relevance to travel at all, but imaginative people have shown that they can be legitimate travel topic articles. So while their talk pages will show that I have often been skeptical of travel topics that started off without being obviously about travel (for example, the cuisine articles, which admittedly still need a lot more work to be the kinds of travel topics I'd want to see that would tell people where to go for a, b, c, d, e, f and all the way to z specialty), I think that if there's a reasonable way to make them true travel topics, people should be allowed to do so - if necessary, with instructions and the threat to take up a Vfd again if nothing is done within another year. And on the Esperanto phrasebook, you'll probably recall that I was always in favor of deleting it until I was convinced it was actually relevant to travel because of the Pasporta Servo organization. Even so, I would have insisted that the phrasebook be edited to eliminate content that's irrelevant to real life, such as fictional dialogues with police about arrests or with waiters in restaurants. But really, the time for arguing that there was no travel-related reason to argue for keeping that phrasebook is long past.
 * I don't really know how to address the speculation that there will be more laziness and less discussion if we discard the "guilty until proven innocent" policy. There is just no way to know whether this fear is justified other than by changing the policy for other reasons and then seeing.
 * Is there another important argument I didn't address? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, I don't think deletion discussions will decline like you say because the "bias", if you like, is now towards keeping, although it's not as strong a bias as the current text. The keep bias will make sure those who want to delete do some consensus-building, and as a result of the consensus-building those who want to keep will do consensus-destroying; so things will be fair in the end.


 * I think, if we exclude the way it's written (I'm not crazy about the bullets), the biggest problem with this proposed change is that it doesn't have enough checks and balances, something I'd like to see considering the lack of checks and balances in the current text. When I say checks and balances, I mean as little bias towards keep or delete as possible in the guidelines. Somewhat like the legislation/veto idea in the Constitution. Selfie City (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the U.S. Constitution gives the President the veto power. There is no President of Wikivoyage. So what is your proposal for more checks and balances? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm using that as a comparison, but I know we don't have Presidents on Wikivoyage. I didn't mean that we should have someone that makes the final decision on these nominations, I just meant that we need to have a very careful balance between keeping and deleting articles. See my third proposal and you'll see what I mean. Selfie City (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, here's my view: there's no point in all our discussion if we're just going to change the "bias" from delete to keep; if we're going to go to all this work, let's try to make the VFD rules better. I think the additional seven days for consensus-building is the main improvement of Nurg's proposal. Selfie City (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, I have also been thinking about the effects on precedent. I think the "guilty until innocent" is a fairly solid way of establishing some precedent for articles, because we've already put in the legwork to justify their existence by not deleting them in the vfd nomination (and failing to justify them if they are being cited as something that warrants deletion). Having an "innocent until proven guilty" approach doesn't really establish precedent, because justification is not necessarily required as the burden is placed on the nominator to convince us to delete it. Citing a deleted article would still make sense under the new policy as something unwanted however, if someone were to cite that an article was kept under this new proposal, it doesn't necessarily set precedent that it's a desired article in the same way that "guilty until proven innocent" does, because all articles are considered "justified". To some it may not seem like much of a difference, but there is a difference between "this article survived a vfd" and "we decided that this is a legitimate article in the vfd (usually for X, Y, Z reasons)". The second is clear precedence that can be cited and referenced while the first doesn't mean the article has proven validity, so the ability to cite precedence from vfd is diminished. Vfd precedence is actually quite helpful in discussions. It definitely can help to put issues to rest faster (which some were concerned about) so I do think it's another strength we lose from the new proposal.
 * From the above responses though, I'm gathering that there is concern that we are "deleting too much". Esperanto aside, are there really a lot of articles that are believed to have potential or that someone proposed a way to make it work but was ignored in favor of deletion? I don't see that. The cited example of Salsa dancing in Latin America is going to be a clear keep (I myself also voted "Keep"), so the "guilty until proven innocent" seems to have served it well. It even received edits that more than doubled it's size just to help ensure it would be kept (Also I'm not sure why you ,Selfie City, cited the salsa article when you were the one who nominated it for deletion. While I don't advocate ignoring policy violations if you believe you've found one, I do find it odd that you would both nominate it for deletion and cite it as an unfair nomination.)
 * If the main part of the new proposal is to state "An additional 7 days will be given and a decision will be made thereafter", why not add that clause (I don't think anyone has issue with that part) and keep "guilty until proven innocent" as it is? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus, Ground Zero proved to me that Salsa dancing was an article that could be expanded and that it shouldn't be deleted, so I've changed my stance on that one to Keep after I nominated it. Also, if you look at the VFD page, you will see that the change has already been made in the text: Nurg's rewrite is now the standard, so you'll have to do a lot of consensus-building to get the standard back to "guilty until proven innocent". Selfie City (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that, but now that I do, it appears that YOU Selfie City made that change yourself while this discussion was going on to push through this agenda (even though every point you've made in your "support" has a been a point against the proposal), so I find it disingenuous on your part to hurry and do that while it is obvious that discussion is still taking place, particularly a discussion regarding basic justification of the policy change. That is Consensus, so do not insult me by telling me I need to "build consensus" when this entire proposal down to its implimentation was not about consensus at all and instead was about using a slight majority to drown out and ignore opposition. Furthermore, when talking about "consensus" and justification, proposals are supposed to start with justification and purpose; this one somehow started with the premise that the proposal took precedence over current policy and required those of us in favor of the status quo to provide "proof" when it should have been the proponents of the proposal all along to have had the burden of proof (and there still isn't really an clear reason why this proposal is beneficial). This whole thing was done backwords and wrong. If it actually stands as a new policy like this (as discussion was finally happening to try and get some justification for the policy), then AndreCarrotflower and I were right about this shady proposal all along (or you made us right). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "this entire proposal down to its implimentation was not about consensus at all and instead was about using a slight majority to drown out and ignore opposition". -- when I read Nurg's proposal, I see "consensus" as being its core, and "slight majority" nowhere. I think you are mistaken, ChubbyWimbus. Your continuing to ignore or dismiss the justifications provided by the supporters of this policy does not make this a shady proposal. It only tells us that you cannot accept that people disagree with you. Ground Zero (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus, I didn't try to slip this through without discussion. If you read [], everyone who raised opinions except you supported the change, including me. In fact, "support" got six yes votes and there were not any definite "oppose" votes. I asked if there was consensus and waited more than twenty hours; nothing happened &mdash; no-one objected and it seemed that Nurg's proposal was the only proposal with a chance of getting consensus. So I decided, after consensus was already formed and there seemed to be no objections in the final vote-taking, to plunge forward and make the change, and now there's no more need for argument; consensus (which isn't unanimity, by the way) wanted Nurg's proposal. Now, ChubbyWimbus, you're on the side that has to build consensus, not Nurg.
 * Also, ChubbyWimbus, one opinion isn't enough to stop something moving forward. If I waited for you to agree with a proposed change to the VFD text, nothing would have ever happened &mdash; the disagreements over the text would go on for months and months just because one person wasn't happy with them. And I didn't really see AndreCarrotflower getting too involved, either. Like me, AndreCarrotflower originally wanted to keep the "guilty until proven innocent" text because all of us were defending the Esperanto nomination and saw the VFD proposal as an under-handed way of keeping the Esperanto article. After Esperanto was deleted, I so much supported a change to the VFD text that I made my own proposal for changed text, which is the basis for Nurg's rewrite, and once Nurg came out with the rewrite, and I don't think Andre got too involved.
 * In the section [], AndreCarrotflower didn't make one comment, by the way, so you can't argue he agreed/disagreed with Nurg's proposal unless you can find another comment of his somewhere else. ChubbyWimbus, you're just going to have to accept Nurg's rewrite, which is now the Wikivoyage guidelines. Selfie City (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ground Zero, if I correct it to say "Using a majority vote to drown out/stonewall opposition and avoid engaging in arguments", my point still stands. If there are so many great reasons as to why this benefits the project that have been given and missed or ignored, why didn't anyone/you reference them here? The points in your initial nomination (just 2) were refuted and there was little after that in regards to what "problem" this policy change would solve or what benefit it will bring. Your own responses are mostly about tone-policing myself and AndreCarrotflower. The few other points that I did find (I reread the discussion), I incorporated into the above bulleted list. I provided direct quotes specifically to avoiding misconstruing anyone's points. Asking for proof that a proposal will have net benefits for the site/project is not an impediment to consensus (or it shouldn't be). Yes, I've been persistent in asking people to engage with the counterarguments, something that I thought was a basic standard in consensus-building, and for that I am accused of "not accepting people that disagree with me".


 * Selfie City, Your aim was clear as you stated it directly: "I support the change and I hope that the change is made as soon as possible" and you did the same with your vote-change in the Esperanto debate just to "end it". If you don't want to participate in debates, then don't. It's better to abstain than to continually offer support to one side with all reasoning in favor of the other and to try and find the majority and vote with them just to end a discussion. That is not at all helpful and also not what consensus-building is about. As a biased party, I think you can see how it looks when you want the change made "as soon as possible" and then suddenly make the change yourself, incorrectly citing plunge forward as you do it. I don't want to put words in AndreCarrotflower's mouth, but all of his points about this being rushed and the lack of engagement with opposing arguments still stand, even without Esperanto. If the reason for the lack of engagement is that Esperanto was deleted, that is a false reading of the concerns. The bulleted list of unaddressed concerns are all about the policy, not about Esperanto.


 * I do think there is a clear shift towards majority-rule on WV that is concerning. There was proposal in a discussion a year (or so) back on the Destination of the Month page about how to ignore "not yet/don't support" votes with a certain number of "support" votes. I believe that number was 4 votes. There is a lot of emphasis here as well on votes over arguments/engagement and the discussion below mimicking that same sentiment. It's rather disappointing, but I do notice proclivities shifting away from engagement/debate in favor of vote-counting. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's true that I did get on with posting the proposal quite quickly. But if I had been slow about it, nothing would have ever happened. And the Esperanto phrasebook issue was entirely different. In the Esperanto situation, the article should have been kept because that was the only way consensus would be reached: Ikan Kekek changed sides, AndreCarrotflower seemed to be weakening on the issue, so it was better to move on to other issues instead of still arguing when the article should have already been deleted according to the old policy. I'm pretty sure I said at the time of Esperanto that I thought the changes to the policy should come after Esperanto was deleted &mdash; I never said I was against the changes. Selfie City (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)I realize my silence here has been deafening. I bowed out of the debate because it was like a black hole sucking in massive amounts of time and energy that I'd rather spend on other endeavours both on- and offwiki. But for what it's worth, I continue to echo pretty much all the points ChubbyWimbus has made throughout the proceedings. I think the fundamental question he and I want answered is: what problem are we trying to solve here? Can anyone name an instance at any point over the existence of Wikivoyage, or Wikitravel before it, where the project was substantially harmed by the deletion of an article we really should have kept? I'm not swayed by any of the hypotheticals or what-ifs posited by some of the above commenters, especially because if we ever do screw up we can always undelete anything we've previously deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Granger would have an answer to that one when it comes to Esperanto. Selfie City (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * AndreCarrotflower, for the most part, I don't think there's been great harm, because articles in which a slight majority was in favor of keeping an article but it got deleted anyway were borderline as travel articles and not core to the site's purpose (e.g., the Esperanto phrasebook, Marriage in China). However, I can think of a category of articles whose deletion did in my opinion harm the site: Some of the better so-called "personal" itineraries. For example, there was one on Hong Kong which was a solid Usable article, yet it was deleted. I don't remember how much of a consensus there was to delete those, but I was on the "Keep" side every time they seemed to me to be halfway decent articles about plausible itineraries. I think you agree with me that deleting all those itineraries was overzealous, but it does point to the difference between the effects of a policy of being eager to delete vs. one of being more tolerant of the initiatives of individuals or a few people who feel stimulated to write an article that is not part of the core content of this travel guide but could be part of it if we prefer to uproot only the weeds that are clearly damaging the garden, while letting some pretty wildflowers grow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, it wasn't a slight majority in favor of keeping the Esperanto phrasebook, it was an overwhelming majority. About 80% of participants in the discussion voted to keep. I agree with the point you're making, though, and I like the garden metaphor. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * On Ikan Kekek's example: I remember when the issue of "X days in (city)" was discussed long long ago, although I don't remember where I fell in that debate or how it panned out in specific terms, but weren't there issues with at least a handful of stubby articles in that format and then discussion progressed into the number of days being arbitrary, and feelings that many cities have way too many top-knotch one day itinerary possibilities that it wasn't a good idea (for example trying to establish a definitive One day in Kyoto-type guide)? I think at that time travel topics were underdeveloped and there was concern that we weren't getting the "type" of travel topics we'd hoped for and that the X days in (city) articles seemed to only be inspiring more of the same but without content, so they were seen as a hindrance. I could be misremembering, but I feel like there was unanimous or near-unanimous support to delete the useless stubby ones and the Hong Kong one was deleted for consistency. It's possible we threw the baby out with the bathwater. To be honest, I wouldn't personally be opposed to reopening the discussion and hashing out a few of the issues that I think are reasonable concerns to create a set of guidelines for the articles (such as only 1 day, 2 days (weekend), one week and stipulations that places must have more than enough to do in that timeframe, maybe attempting to deal with the Kyoto-type destintation dilemmma, etc.) if people are really interested in reviving it. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't remember it being an issue with the policy as much as there being a consensus to delete the stubs and the Hong Kong article being deleted for consistency. I feel like the Hong Kong article was singled out as the only good one.


 * In regards to the Esperanto question, the issues were that a sizable portion of that majority did not provide adequate justification. For example, the argument that it's "long" and "someone spent time on it" seemed a popular sentiment, but we don't have any rules that articles that are long are exempt from deletion. There was also the issue of the precedent set by another fake language which was deleted for reasons that are damning for Esperanto: no cultural attachment that learning it could cause enrichment, no countries/regions/cities where it is the majority or even a strong minority language, it never being more prevalent than another language, that travel phrasebooks are meant to be used day to day and when one is out-and-about but that the fake language was not useful in that way, etc. Some of that majority seemed to all-but concede that it was useless as a phrasebook but still felt it should stay. (This discussion also seemed to muddy the waters and I believe Selfie City proposed deleting Esperanto to try and show that the policy change was not just a way to keep Esperanto). The Esperanto debate did have a majority however, the desire to keep Esperanto was stronger than the reasoning. I said something similar in one of my first responses to this proposal. Maybe others saw it differently, but I didn't and don't see the Esperanto deletion a result of lack of majority. I saw/see it as a result of lacking arguments to separate it from precedent and prove it has a real-world application. The issue was always in the reasoning, not in its lack of majority. Even in a "preference to keep", I don't think we could necessarily rule out deletion. Arguments matter more than "votes". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles that should be deleted will still be deleted with the new text. For example, the "tea" redirect a couple months ago should have been deleted since it really was a waste of time and effort. The same is really the case with Gestures, for example; I now understand that deleting them is really a last resort: if any article can be improved and fits policy, it should be improved. I'm not so sure about the Esperanto phrasebook, but at the same time I don't think it was really WV's business to teach people that language.

I wasn't around during the Marriage in China days, but I can see that didn't follow the 14-days rule. But from what people say about the article's content, it seems like the scenario was different from Esperanto, Gestures, or Rail travel in Africa. Selfie City (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm visiting friends and family in another time zone so I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikivoyage. I don't want to spend all of my limited time wading through long-winded debates, especially with someone who continues to misrepresent others' arguments (e.g. dwelling on the minor point that "it's "long" and "someone spent time on it"). This shows the flaw in relying on one person's interpretation of who has the best argument. I find ChubbyWimbus's arguments to be for the most part unconvincing (but not always). But I'm damned if I'm going to take time away from creating new content and improving existing content to "engage" in a point-by-point debate for the sake of debating. That's not what I came to Wikivoyage to do. I realise that sounds like a cop-out, but I don't think that policy should be determined on the basis of who is most willing to spend time debating. The old policy reflected the views of those who started Wikivoyage many years ago when the policy was established, and the new policy reflects the views of those who are building the project now. Not a bad thing. Ground Zero (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero, I have to agree with you. The continued debate about this (even though the text has already been changed) pulls time away from adding content. Selfie City (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ChubbyWimbus, I think your account of how the "personal itinerary" deletions happened is accurate, though I think the one about Hong Kong is probably the best and not the only good one that was deleted. But on Esperanto, I don't understand why you don't acknowledge that Pasporta Servo was the factor that led a majority to conclude that that phrasebook, though needing restructuring, with some content deleted, was in fact relevant to travel. I don't think it would hurt you to admit this point and simply state that it was your opinion that this wasn't a sufficient reason not to delete, and it seems to me, your continued insistence that only extraneous factors were advanced is either a willful blind spot or calculated to annoy others. I wouldn't have added content in the time it took me to write this, but I certainly don't intend to go over this ground with you again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek To be honest, I spent a lot more time trying to accurately recall how the "personal itinerary" debate went than the recent one. I may have took for granted that everyone reading this was familiar with that debate, but I didn't intentionally omit Pasporta Servo. If it sounds like I did then I will state now that I was/am aware it was brought up and that there were some users who felt it was convincing. I guess I didn't notice it was "the majority" though. You are actually the one I recall being the primary supporter on that basis (or at least you are the one that emphasized that as your reason). My main point in that response was to clarify that there was an acknowledged majority, since some people seemed to be stating that it was deleted on the basis that the number of supporters was not sufficient. I wasn't the one who advanced the deletion, so I may even be wrong on that point, but it did seem to me that it was the arguments that led to the deletion (and possibly the proposition to delete it for the sake of this discussion) rather than the numbers, but yes, I'll again acknowledge the discussion included Pasporta Servo and that there were disputes about whether that might set it apart from other languages of that type (and that I was on the side of "not convinced" to make my own bias clear).
 * Ground Zero I completely understand that you see no need to justify the policy since the policy seems to have been successfully changed without needing to be justified. While I personally think that even retroactive justification would be better than none at all, I know that is unlikely. Selfie City, The discussion is likely to end soon, but even if it doesn't, you really need to stop trying to stop discussion. Again: You made that change knowing that I had asked for some justification (a completely reasonable request that should have interested everyone) because you didn't care. You did it JUST as people finally seemed willing to engage (and don't tell me there was lots of prior engagement. There's lots of text, but Ikan Kekek was nearly the only one to engage at all. There's little evidence that more than a few others even cared enough to look at the critique let alone justify the policy). It's extremely patronizing and makes you look quite smitten with yourself for what you got away with. To be honest, your trick should have been reverted, but I was not about to do that myself given that I've already been accused of "not accepting people who disagree with me" for not being comfortable with a "majorities don't require reasons" approach to policy change. I assumed good faith, but gleefully repeating that "the text has already been changed" in a passive way like it wasn't YOU who did it so we should all stop talking because it "pulls time away from adding content" or telling me to "try and gain consensus" to put back the policy that YOU changed makes it increasingly difficult to assume you were/are acting in good faith. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Excluding AndreCarrotflower, who has not been having a major involvement in the discussion recently, you (ChubbyWimbus) are the only person supporting a revert to the old text. One person can't change consensus, especially without clear, balanced reasons for changing it. You're still not bringing up the reason I moved ahead: nothing would have been changed otherwise. This argument would quite possibly have never ended, and the original text would still be there after all this debating. And it's not true that you had almost changed people's opinions when I reverted it: everything had actually settled in the opposite direction&mdash;in that section, there were no objections when I asked for them, so I moved forward and changed the text. I'm not crazy about the new text, but it's better, that's true. Selfie City (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus, you incorrect in claiming that I "see no need to justify the policy since the policy seems to have been successfully changed without needing to be justified". I believe that change was justified before the change, but that you don't agree with the justification. You're entitled to your opinion, as are other editors. This debate has been long, and has sucked up a lot of time and energy. If this new policy turns out to be a mistake, we can revisit the policy later. I will go create some content instead of rehashing this debate. You might find that going off and building up an article will alleviate your frustration with this result. Ground Zero (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's just go on, contribute to articles, and see how the new policy works. If it doesn't, we can change it back again, after discussion and consensus has been reached. Selfie City (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ground Zero: Claiming there were reasons without anyone being able to cite them doesn't really have meaning and I'm not the only one who saw that. Also, stating "I find ChubbyWimbus's arguments to be for the most part unconvincing (but not always)" says a lot more about how you feel about me than about my "arguments". It certainly doesn't indicate your "engagement" simply by stating wholesale that a user "has unconvincing arguments for the most part (but not always)". That's dismissing arguments because of who made them. I didn't think this was personal, and for my part it wasn't; my purpose here has always been about the policy and its lack of benefit, and my frustration is not about the result; it's about the way it all went down. This was a majority-rule decision made by stonewalling opposition as AndreCarrotflower stated. It was not reached by consensus as consensus does require engaging in opposing ideas regardless of who makes them and sometimes requires longer interactions/debates than we'd like. I also don't care for long debates, but I wouldn't be okay with the way this happened even if the results favored my view.
 * Selfie City: If people had started with justification and proceeded to engage with counterarguments and other points against the proposal and in favor of the status quo in the first place, and I didn't have to repeat my concerns, which have been ignored even to now, perhaps the discussion wouldn't have felt so drawn out. It is unprecedented for a policy to be proposed and passed without engaging in arguments by the opposition in any serious manner. If any debate had actually occurred, there were still two possibilities: keep the policy or change it, and someone else would have made the call and probably have done it in a way that didn't make them look like a rat. "One person can't change consensus, especially without clear, balanced reasons for changing it." Oh, are you referring to that unrefuted BULLETED LIST of "clear, balanced reasons" that you and almost everyone else refused to even attempt addressing in favor of strong-arming your policy? This is just taunting. At this point, it's quite clear you are acting in bad faith and you're reveling in it. Whatever it takes to end the discussion, I guess. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're trying to pull me back into this, but unless something important happens, I'm not commenting any more on this thread. Selfie City (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus, thanks for your posts. For the record, I was very surprised by what seemed to me like a sudden or at least hasty new policy while discussion was still ongoing. Also, devaluing AndreCarrotflower's opposition because he has chosen to make a couple or a few clear statements rather than repeat himself at length is really indefensible. Those of you who are relatively new here may not have any idea just how frustrating it was in the past to have arguments that never ended, in the days when "consensus" was taken to mean "not a single user opposed", but the other approach of leaving a principled minority feeling slighted and bitter is also a bad result. As I expect Vfd decisions to vary only at the margins with this policy change, I think the maintenance of a good working environment for all volunteers is more important, and therefore, the haste to stop the discussion instead of trying harder to draw in more participants was unfortunate, in addition to being a break with precedent for a policy discussion. I'm not sure what the best way to go forward would be. Perhaps we should agree to reevaluate the new policy in 6 months (which would be late December, 2018) and again in a year and treat it as probationary until then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re CW's comment that "Also, stating "I find ChubbyWimbus's arguments to be for the most part unconvincing (but not always)" says a lot more about how you feel about me than about my "arguments". It certainly doesn't indicate your "engagement" simply by stating wholesale that a user "has unconvincing arguments for the most part (but not always)". That's dismissing arguments because of who made them."
 * No, I don't know you. I only know your arguments. When I wrote that I find your arguments to be for the most part unconvincing, I meant that I find your arguments to be for the most part unconvincing. Nothing more. I am not dismissing them because you made them. You seem to take the view that because you've written long, point-by-point position statements, you've won the debate and everyone should fall in line behind you. As I've illustrated below, I do not agree with most of your points, but I do not dismiss them, and even agree with some of them. People with persecution complexes generally find it difficult to work in collaborative projects, so you might want to think about how you choose to misinterpret people's statements. Ground Zero (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeable to Ikan Kekek's proposal for a probationary period to test out the new policy, but I should also note that even under the original policy, it was quite rare for an article to be deleted despite a majority in favor of keeping. I think we should be open to extending the probationary period past a year if the policy hasn't yet been meaningfully tested at that time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How long could you imagine extending the probationary period? Two years, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, regarding the timing of closing the debate, I re-opened this discussion on May 19, but others had raised concerns about the policy in January 2014, and in March 2013. This discussion could have gone on longer, but I don't think we would have got a different result. I agree with your proposal to revisit the proposal in 6 months or a year (or even longer), as long as the discussion is based on our experience with it, as opposed to just rehashing all of the arguments made over the last month. Ground Zero (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's just try it, instead of this endless filibuster. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Some responses to ChubbyWimbus
This is not a good use of time when I could be creating content or improving articles. Some or many of these arguments have been made elsewhere, but I will repeat them. I will even respond to arguments that have so little merit that I think many people didn't want to waste time on them. I will not, however, make long-winded, detailed refutations. Life is too short. (First bullet is CW's, second bullet is mine.) [I have added my response to ChubbyWimbus as a third, indented bullet point, in addition to Ground Zero's. I have responded directly to ChubbyWimbus's points without taking notice of Ground Zero's responses. - Nurg.]

I expect that CW will want to respond to each point and continue to argue, rather than accept a difference of opinion. And this is the most important point. I don't think I will convince you, nor you me. Reasoned debate does not always resolve things on the Internet. I fact, it rarely does. Winning the argument on this policy change should not be so important to you that it prevents you from contributing to the content of this project, as it seems to be doing.
 * "Guilty until proven innocent" encourages participation and forces engagement in order to keep while the reverse permits a lazier and less engaged approach by those who wish to keep (Ryan claimed that it is a "good thing" to just keep articles in order to avoid vfd discussions. To me, "less time debating" is neither inherently good nor bad. Some topics warrant more discussion than others and most vfd discussions are in fact quite brief. If a user is averse to discussions, they don't have to participate. There are plenty of antisocial ways to contribute. Vfd is not and should not be one of them.)
 * Creating content instead of having to fight to keep it is an even better way of encouraging participation and engagement. The sort of contributors we want to encourage are those who create content, not those who are just here for arguments.
 * I don't understand how a bias-towards-keep in close cases permits a lazier and less engaged approach by those who wish to keep. Is the concern that an article will be kept just because a number of people said to keep, without advancing a rationale?
 * Per User:AndreCarrotflower: "it's the responsibility of the person who went out on a limb to prove that his experiment is travel-related and within scope, rather than that of the community to prove that it's not travel-related and not in scope, which correlates more with the "guilty until proven innocent" status quo than with the new proposal." The "Guilty until proven innocent" policy requires us to look at an article and determine if it matches our site goals and does not violate our policies. An "innocent until proven guilty" policy on deletion starts with the premise that every article SHOULD be here and you need to prove that it doesn't belong, but that is not true to how our site operates and is certainly not in line with our goals.
 * As I've argued elsewhere, we need more travel-related content. Having to defend and justify takes time away from creating that content. Take the Esperanto debate for example. That took a lot of time and energy away from creating content.
 * Yes, it's a shift in responsibility from one side to the other, which I agree with. I don't know how it is "not true to how our site operates and not in line with our goals".
 * User:SelfieCity wrote: "My general opinion is that, when there's no consensus, it usually means that those in support of delete are right" - I don't want to put words in his mouth, but this seems to follow the above comments that if an article is so difficult to justify that it inspires a lot of debate and no clear consensus for support then it probably isn't justified.
 * If the deletion of an article is so difficult to justify that there is a lot of debate and nonclear consensus to delete it, then deletion probably isn't justified. This argument works both ways. Let's err on the side of leaving content in rather than deleting it, since it is content that draws readers and contributors and makes the project viable.
 * If there is no consensus as to whether an article is justified or not, especially if opinion is fairly evenly split, I'm not sure how one can know which side is probably right.
 * From myself: "There is already a general bias just to keep everything, because "it does no harm", "someone took the time to type it so why ruffle feathers", "who cares, it's just one article", "it might get clicks", "it's long", etc. are all decision-making processes that are dismissive of our goals and should be combated. The current policy does this while the new proposal further facilitates the proliferation of keeps based on those kinds of reasons (whether spoken or unspoken).
 * These are all arguments in favour of expanding the travel-related content in these project. They should be embraced and celebrated.
 * I have already given support to "it might get clicks". The other reasonings look weak or invalid. I am not convinced the new proposal further facilitates keeps based on those kinds of reasons. Invalid reasonings should still be resisted under the new policy.
 * User:Ground Zero wrote: "if there is consensus that an article violates policy, then there will also be consensus to delete" But in the Esperanto discussion, instead of "consensus that an article violates policy" we ended up with precedent and policy being brought up with no one disputing it yet users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it. I know there have been others in the past where a policy violation was indisputable but some people for various reasons simply wanted to keep an article, so there is clearly NOT always a consensus to delete articles even if policy and precedent might dictate it to be an "easy delete".
 * As addressed elsewhere, the contention that "users simply didn't want to delete the article namely because it is long and someone put effort into it" ignores the other valid arguments advanced.
 * I didn't follow the Esperanto discussion, so can't comment on this point.
 * To add to the above, if as I suspect, part of the reason that article length and time spent are being talked about is because users think it feels a bit "confrontational" and feel bad, I question whether the changes would make that better and think it may make the vfd actually feel slightly more hostile as the nominator has to go on the attack.
 * As noted, there are other valid reasons. And you have demonstrated no hesitation in going on the attack. We don't have a problem there.
 * I can't really comment on this.
 * User:AndreCarrotflower: "why is avoiding messy policy discussions at the price of the continued existence on our site of out-of-scope cruft is preferable to engaging with those with opposing viewpoints and coming to something that can truly be called a consensus?"
 * No-one is disagreeing that out-of-scope cruft should be deleted. The new policy does not inhibit that.
 * We don't want to keep cruft, even in-scope cruft. Debating issues and coming to consensus - fine. Engaging in messy discussions - ok, when it is necessary. The real issue though is what do we do when, after a discussion, there is no consensus, because people simply have different views and neither side is swayed by the other's arguments. I say we should keep.
 * Just to add a point on deleting long articles: In truth, the clearer we make our policies and the sooner we act when we notice violations, the more likely we are to avoid a situation where an editor or editors spend(s) a lot of time working on an article only to have it deleted. Changing policy to accommodate articles that some people like in spite of policy violations and/or not aligning with our goals is much more likely to cause problems for editors and breed resentment than deleting someone's article with clear policy and goal-based reasons behind us.
 * The new policy is clear and concise. Wikivoyage must change as it grows or it will die. Policy is better set by current active contributors than by people who have left the project long ago.
 * I agree with the first sentence. If we can make our policies clearer so that we can reach consensus on delete-or-keep decisions more easily, and earlier, that would be excellent. If you want to propose tightening any policies that might serve as criteria for deletion, go ahead. Maybe we should explicitly rule out some dubious reasonings for 'keep'. I supported changing this policy to a bias-to-keep - but I have an open mind on tightening criteria for deletion.
 * On User:Nurg's response, the reason "it might get clicks" is not a valid reason to support anything and is an attitude to fight against is because LOTS of things "might get clicks". Our articles should not and cannot be evaluated on their ability to get clicks. They must always be evaluated on whether or not they meet the criteria for an article and fit our goals. Cat pictures and porn have proven to attract tons of clicks, but we obviously don't allow them, because they violate many policies, aren't travel-related, and don't fit our goals. That was my point. Certainly, if something fits within our goals and can garner site traffic, we would welcome it.
 * Agree: we should limit ourselves to travel-related content. We disagree on how narrow to make the definition of "travel-related". No-one has proposed including non-travel-related content just to get clicks.
 * I agree from the 3rd sentence on. And I'd agree with the 2nd sentence if "solely" was added, e.g., articles should not be evaluated solely on their ability to get clicks. In fact, it is only a minor reason to keep. But in a case that is stalemated on all other reasonings, I think "it might get clicks" is a reason to have a bias to keep. One could distinguish between pre-fork content and newer content - pre-fork content is less likely to get clicks, because such articles don't feature so high in search engine rankings.
 * Also, to User:Nurg's other point about debate lengths: The "guilty until proven innocent" policy does not require any more debate than the new proposal. You just delete the article (and it will never be discussed again, because it's gone). I don't think a debate must always be closed if the discussion is still productive and/or users are still working through things. That is what I meant by it not being necessary to be stringent, and I think our admins understand that as well and usually have a good sense of when things are winding down, getting off-topic, moving in circles, etc. to close discussions.
 * I agree somewhat, but would rather be creating content that in engaging in debates.
 * My point was that less time spent debating is good, as opposed to it being "neither inherently good nor bad". As to what leads to more, or less, debate - that is a different matter. I don't disagree with the point above.

For my part, I'd rather move on, as I did when the Esperanto article was deleted over the objections of me and several others. In fact, I'm going to go hike around Vancouver's beautiful Stanley Park right now. Also a better use of my time. Ground Zero (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The 3rd bullet point on each topic above is mine. Nurg (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nurg, on another discussion thread we actually have decided not to argue over policy anymore. We are going to test out your policy over a period of time (6 months–2 years) and then decide which policy has worked better. So no need to debate with CW. Selfie City (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ChubbyWimbus expressed an interest in "retroactive justification" of the policy change, and I have given them the courtesy of making a contribution to that. I am not interested in unnecessary debate, but I would hate to see a long-time contributor like ChubbyWimbus become disillusioned and cease contributing because they felt they weren't being listened to and that we were making unjustified and detrimental decisions. Nurg (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also you really need to stop trying to play debate police or being the enforcer of some arbitrary endpoint you've unilaterally placed on the discussion. The discussion will be over when it's over. It might go dormant for a week and then get rekindled, perhaps by a user who maybe has been away from Wikivoyage for a while and didn't even know the discussion was happening - it's hardly unusual for late-in-the-game perspectives by newcomers to the conversation to be really thought-provoking and change the tone of the proceedings. That's just the nature of the beast. If you personally are getting tired of the discussion, the answer is for you to take a break and occupy yourself with something else for awhile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AndreCarrotflower: are you talking to me, Nurg, or CW? If you are talking to me, it's true that it was already decided that we would go ahead with that plan. I'm not trying to be confrontational or be debate police. I'm just telling him what's been decided in a friendly manner. It was quite clearly stated in the above discussion thread that we would stop debating endlessly and just go ahead with the new policy. So there's no point in Nurg wasting time on creating responses for CW when we've already come up with a game plan to test the new policy. And I wouldn't mind adding to articles, but that is an impossible task when I'm being told that explaining to a user that consensus has already been reached is trying to play debate police or enforcing arbitrary endpoints. Selfie City (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I was out for the weekend. I appreciate the good-faith attempts to address some of the concerns. Ground Zero is of course correct that I have opinions/rebuttals, but at this point in time, I think Ikan Kekek's proposal is better for myself and everyone, so unless those who responded (Ground Zero or Nurg) feel I owe a response, would like a response, or other developments occur, I think it's best for everyone including myself to just leave it where it is and review the policy at a later date, as Ikan Kekek proposed. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

One major downside of "consensus to keep"
I must admit I tuned out of the discussion for a time so forgive me if this was raised already. The problem with "consensus to keep" is that in theory a group of dedicated trolls or even one editor with clever sockpuppets could always vote "delete" on everything that comes up for VfD or even nominate and then vote "delete" and thus in theory force everything to be deleted. We know that wouldn't happen in reality, but why have a policy that allows for something like this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It does not. A consensus is required, and if you think we won't recognize trolls, then there would be much more serious problems than whether to tweak Vfd policy one way or the other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean there might even be somebody who wants to force a change in policy that way... By simply always voting delete.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, people have a right to their opinions, and if they really think all the VFDs should be deleted, then they have a right to vote that way. Chances are that in situations where they are obviously in the wrong, the other voters will get a "keep" consensus. Selfie City (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm not one of those people, just to make clear considering where my recent nominations went. Selfie City (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's say there is a dedicated but small group who always vote "delete" how big can that group become and still be dismissed each and every time? What about somebody who just almost always votes delete? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing. As long as the rational Wikivoyagers have large enough numbers and good enough arguments to get consensus (consensus isn't always about unanimity or great majority), things should go fine. And I don't really see any reason why such a rebellious, always-voting-delete group would form. Selfie City (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Esperanto phrasebook deleted?
That's strange...after the last few votes and people changing their votes, I thought the consensus for keeping had become pretty clear... —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, regarding changing votes, "I'm switching to keep so we can just get this over and done with" is pretty blatantly not policy-based reasoning. Secondly, again, consensus is not a majority vote, and up to the bitter end there remained a significant minority of participants in that discussion who were for deletion based on policy-based reasons. Furthermore, as I said in my remarks at the archive page, "there was no consensus behind any of the proposals to amend our deletion policy and do away with the 'guilty until proven innocent' rule... [a]s frustrated as many of you are surely going to be, this deletion was by the book." Believe me, I understand the frustration, but part of working on a collaborative project like Wikivoyage is accepting that sometimes things don't go your way, knowing when to stop trying to force an issue, and being willing to let things go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the phrasebook couldn't remain in articlespace. Since no policy change has been made, deletion decisions have to be made under the old policy. However, a user had volunteered to have it moved to his userspace, so I think that it should be restored there. Please speak up, because I don't want to trawl through a long discussion thread to see who it was. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I did. Is it going to be linked from somewhere or is it there only for those who know to search in userspace or manage to look at the page logs? --LPfi (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * LPfi - We generally don't link from mainspace to userspace. By definition, when users adopt VfD-candidate articles into their own userspace to prevent outright deletion, it's with the understanding that the user will edit the article to bring it within scope, then reintroduce it into mainspace when it's ready. In view of the reasons given for the article's deletion, that would most likely entail converting the article from a phrasebook to a travel topic (the earlier-proposed Esperanto travel or something along those lines), though if you have other ideas, by all means. I'm sorry I missed the part where you volunteered to adopt the article; I will restore it into your userspace shortly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As I see it, no policy-based reason was ever given for nominating this & none for deleting it, except "guilty until proven innocent" & our inability to reach a consensus to keep. Pashley (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Just because you personally were against deletion doesn't magically make the "delete" votes non-policy-based. You and the other "keep" voters presented your case but were unable to persuade enough of the deletionists to reconsider to constitute a consensus as we define it on this site. You then proceeded to try to fast-track a policy change for the explicit goal of making the deletion of the Esperanto phrasebook avoidable by technicality - which was a pretty clear attempt to game the system, but about which I kept my mouth shut for the sake of not being a dick - and again were unable to find enough people dissatisfied with the status quo (or dissatisfied enough with the status quo to prioritize overturning it in a broad sense above petty squabbles over the exact wording of the new policy). I say again: regardless of anyone's personal feelings about whether the article should have been deleted, the deletion was handled by the book and it's time to let it go and stop trying to force the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rein it in Andre: you are out of line. I've dropped out of this discussion because it became clear to me that the policy was going to be enforced even though doing so does not improve Wikivoyage. But I accepted that the decision was made, and I have moved onto other things.
 * I object, however, to you characterizing the proposal to change the policy as "a pretty clear attempt to game the system". The discussion on the policy change makes it clear that those of us who want the policy changed do so because we think the policy is wrong. Furthermore, we are committed editors who contribute a lot to Wikivoyage. Like I did when you accused us of being "self-serving", I am going to remind you that we are volunteers, here to build a free travel guide, like you are. We do not benefit from this aside from the warm fuzzy feeling we get from contributing. No-one is trying to game the system. Please stop making Wikivoyage less fun by accusing your fellow contributors of bad faith. Ground Zero (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take you at your word that the policy change proposals were not an attempt to game the system, though I find the sudden urgency of doing away with the "guilty until proven innocent" clause odd given that no one expressed concerns about it on any of the three previous occasions in the past two and a half years when an article has been deleted despite a majority voting to keep. But to the rest of your point, a good way to get me not to accuse other editors of bad faith would be for other editors not to accuse me of bad faith, an accusation I earned for doing nothing more nefarious than enforcing policy using the procedures laid out at the beginning of the vfd page. If people here have a problem with our policies - either our deletion policy, our definition of consensus, or our policy on how to go about changing policies - that's fine, but I didn't have any hand in writing them, so their argument is not with me anyway. All I did was what I'm supposed to do as an admin; if anything, what would have been misconduct is if I had closed the nomination as "keep". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If I have written anything that makes you think I am accusing you of bad faith, please let me know. I do not mean to suggest that in any way. Similarly, I would expect that you would take responsibility for your own behaviour, and not blame other editors for what you write. As the one who proposed the policy change, of course I take your accusation of "gaming the system" as an attack on me. I proposed the change because I only became aware of this policy through the Esperanto phrasebook VFD, and it strikes me as contrary to the spirit of Wikivoyage, and not contributing to building the project. As I set out in my argument for the change. I don't know who accused you of bad faith, but I am pretty sure it wasn't me. The contradiction between Votes_for_deletion and Consensus has been raised on this page in 2013 and 2014. It's not a new issue. Ground Zero (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this should be construed as an attack on, or even a reference to, you personally. You were one of several editors who advanced competing proposals to do away with guilty until proven innocent, some of whom went on to accuse me of bad faith and some of whom did not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I said about getting it over and done with because I thought the best thing to do was to get consensus keep the article so we can get on with other things, but if we've just deleted it, I'm fine with that too. Selfie City (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe we had consensus to scrap "guilty until proven innocent" because it contradicts too many other established Wikivoyage policies, including the requirement for Consensus and the bias toward keeping every Toronto (Prince Edward Island)-sized speck on the map if they're real places. Now that we have that consensus, the article should be restored. I'm not averse to seeing this turned into a travel topic (perhaps auxiliary languages) instead of a phrasebook, but there is no consensus to delete and plenty of consensus to scrap "guilty until proven innocent" once and for all. K7L (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The most popular of the several competing proposals counted five votes in favor and two votes against. I'll remind you that consensus is not a majority vote, that consensus is also not attained by nonparticipation in policy discussions (even if ChubbyWimbus and myself hadn't spoken out against the policy, five users weighing in is an awfully small sample size, especially given how many people chimed in on the Esperanto phrasebook VfD nomination), and in the absence of consensus, status quo bias applies in all cases except VfD votes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If all but two supported a change? Consensus does not require unanimity, as was pointed out in Votes for deletion/March 2014. K7L (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not require unanimity, but again, it does require participation in policy discussions. Five people isn't a large enough sample size to establish a consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no specific requirement as to how many users constitute a quorum. K7L (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any reasonable reading of the “consensus is not nonparticipation in discussions” clause would take into account that five users is far less than the number that participated in the Esperanto phrasebook VfD debate, and further still less than the total number of active Wikivoyagers who would have a stake in such a policy change. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Existing policy does not say “consensus is not nonparticipation in discussions”. What Consensus does say on the question of whether consensus is not created without participation is to ensure "interested individuals participate in a consensus-building discussion by soliciting feedback". This was done, feedback was solicited. If only two people of all that responded saw any point in keeping the broken 'guilty until proven innocent' and the rest expressed an opposing view, so be it. The outcome, while you disagree with it, appears valid as a consensus if consensus does not require unanimity. K7L (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point I have no choice but to throw up my hands and conclude that it's pointless to continue arguing with someone who continually misreads policy (intentionally? I'd hate to be accused of assuming bad faith again, but it certainly looks that way) and twists logic into pretzels in an increasingly futile attempt to "win" this debate or be "right". This is a collaborative project, and we should be working together toward a common goal, which from time to time includes losing arguments with dignity and grace. I certainly have done my share of that in the past. Now I've suggested several times already that those who are keeping this already-resolved issue alive instead let it go. If you want to disregard that suggestion, fine - stew and seethe about it all you want - but as for me, I've already said everything I need to say about how my actions were within the parameters of policy and now I'm going to move on to more productive activities. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5-2 is not a consensus for changing a rule, though it would be sufficient for changing a single article's pagebanner. And those opposed to changing the rule had logical concerns. So though I was on balance on the side of changing the rule (while agreeing to take that phrasebook out of articlespace), I would back Andre up on this. Plus, there was no consensus language for a new rule, anyway, and it hadn't been adopted, so expecting an indefinitely postponed decision doesn't seem reasonable to me, especially since I was not the only one in favor of changing the rule who agreed that the new rule shouldn't apply to an existing VfD nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If a 5:2 margin isn't consensus enough to remove the one phrase "articles are guilty until proven innocent", what is? K7L (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like 10:2, IMO, and maybe 8:2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, now that the article's deleted, I think we should just forget about Esperanto and move on. Selfie City (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? The problems caused by "guilty until proven innocent" go well beyond your personal agenda of deleting the Esperanto page; that's why discussion goes back to 2013. K7L (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(indent) There is no "golden number" on what constitutes "consensus". Talking numbers kills consensus in favor of vote-counting. An infinite number of frivolous votes cannot trump one well-reasoned argument. There can be a lot of nuance, and it's important to follow the arguments. If the majority of one type of vote is at the beginning and then a point is made and the last few people were to agree that the new point is valid, then the previous voters really need to re-engage or their votes could become moot (depending on what the new point is). In the above article change proposal, in terms of engagement and arguments for the proposal, it looks like a weak 2~3 vs 2, with Ikan Kekek who has stated he doesn't even care that much either way actually being the most engaged on the "for change" side. If there is so much excitement and fervor around this policy that is about more than just a desire to change it, I'd really expect more engagement and less proposals. Instead, there are a LOT of proposals with, as I said, very minimal engagement in what should be the most important part of consensus building. Even after I was accused of a "vitriolic rant" and I put up the bulleted list in hopes that it'd be easier for people to address (I did assume good faith), the concerns were not addressed, and a new set of proposals was written. I don't want to repeat myself, but I don't know how else to operate. I can accept an a reasoned consensus that doesn't go my way, but the core of consensus building should be the argument phase and engaging with the opposing side not in writing proposals that pre-assume the change must happen. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)