Wikipedia talk:Follow the leader

project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

July 2008

As I have participated in quite a number of

AfD discussions

, I have found for there to be a trend. The first editor to give their opinion on the outcome of the discussion, or in many cases, the nom, seems to have a lot of weight in influencing others who comment later, who may otherwise not have the same views.

The result can often be unfair, as the appropriate action by existing Wikipedia guidelines seemingly should logically be something very different than what actually happens due to the heavy influence. These early comments very frequently lead to numerous others just like it, thereby becoming the result.

In many cases, there is one "keep" and 10 "deletes." While that single "keep" has often made very good points, which, standing alone, should be basis for keeping the page, other editors, and ultimately, the closing administrator see the numerous deletes, and make their judgment based on that.

This is also unfair to those who have created or made major contributions to that page, but have not learned of its proposal for deletion until long after others have gotten their dibs first. Wikipedia is not and does not have an instant messaging service. All editors are purely volunteers. Few editors log in hourly and check their watchlist that frequently. Many editors do not even check daily. By the time such a contributor has gotten the news, many other identical and similar comments have already been made.

Many of those who comment regularly on AfDs are not those truly interested an the actual topic, but those who make frequent topics on a variety of AfDs, either because they have a personal interest in doing so, or because they are building their resume toward becoming an administrator. The result can be a skewed view of what concensus among those who have an interest or are otherwise familiar with that topic really is, and ultimately, a different outcome than what the true experts believe. Sebwite (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This should not be a policy or guideline. This should be an essay. You're free to think however you like about the fairness or unfairness of the deletion process, but the essay tag is the proper one. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You'd be a great philosopher, but a policy involving the Wikipedian physche is crazy. --FlagFreak ^TALK 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 changes

Giving occasional editors a chance to comment on an AfD wasn't the only reason for the 2009 extension of typical AfD lengths. Another goal was to get people to stop whining about closures that were hours (or even a few minutes) less than the

"statutory" five days (which was being understood as "sixty hours, and not one fraction of a minute less, no matter how perfectly obvious the consensus is"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

userfy this article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose - It was rightly rejected as a guideline, but I don't think its a stretch to think that there aren't people that feel its gives a common enough viewpoint. I guess this vote will decide that. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are cases where "following the leader" is absolutely the right idea, such as when the first commenter presents some kind of definitive counter-argument. This article feels like it minimizes more dedicated editors by suggesting they are probably biased and should be argued against. There is not much proof what this article suggests is the case, and it feels like a salty treatise written by someone who had their AfD shot down._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you disagree with the premise of the essay in part or in its entirety, the proper place to discuss this, is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, where decision can be made whether to userfy it or delete it at all. But that said, I don't see a problem with this essay, there are many junk essays out there many worse than this... they're not doing any harm. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: merge.

_(talk) 22:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I propose to merge

forking/duplication problem we have in WP-space. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge it makes sense and is a reasonable idea.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not a !vote): Please ensure that any merge clearly preserves the idea of the
"A word of caution" section. Also, I'm generally not a fan of WP:Avoid writing redundant essays as a merge reason (as opposed to a don't-create-in-the-first-place reason). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't December 15. Why spoof the date? It benifits no one. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not spoof the date; I signed legitimately using
~~~~. I came across this discussion several months late for reasons more or less described here. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.