User talk:Siroxo/How to fix NORG AFDs

nominator's responsibility

@Siroxo I can't find guidance about a nominator's responsibility in arguing to support his AfD nomination. If a nominator argues against WP:NORG, then shouldn't the burden be on him to prove that sources don't meet WP:ORGCRIT? rootsmusic (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such. There is a wp:speedy keep criteria for completely erroneous nominations, but it would be quite rare for that to be invoked if a nominator were to suggest sources don't meet ORGCRIT. More common in such a case, even if it was widely agreed they were erroneous, it would soon be a WP:SNOW keep instead (which is functionally the same outcome, but a different way of getting there).

But, most commonly, the nominator asserts the sources don't meet ORGCRIT, the discussion goes 7 days (or more if relisted) and a closer evaluates consensus based on the discussion. —siro χ o 03:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo One of the nominator's arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement was: Election denial exists (bracketing the question of whether it's a notable phenomenon), but this article makes the very different, and unsubstantiated, claim that an "election denial movement" exists. In addition to disputing WP:N, he was also questioning the very existence of that movement.

As defined by WikiProject Organizations: The term "organization" is applicable to any active or historical association, society, union, foundation, federation or corporation as well as any related and notable conferences or events. So to me (not to the nominator), a political movement such as an "election denial movement" would be considered an organization by the WikiProject. But I don't know how to address the question implied about differentiating between a number of election deniers in the 2020 elections and a political movement/organization of election deniers across more election cycles. rootsmusic (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on that page, I do think that was ultimately a content dispute, and that AfD was not the correct forum for discussing it.

Regarding the Wikiproject you mention, the consensus developed there would be a narrower WP:CONLEVEL, and wouldn't override broader consensus such as guidelines. Wikiprojects are mostly communities of editors focused around a goal (such as improving the state of articles about organizations) As such, I think it's unlikely to have an impact on notability, whether for NORG, GNG or otherwise. It's possible that the article may be of interest to that Wikiproject.

As to your last concern, I think the best way to address the issue across election cycles is to find reliable sources that actually discuss multiple election cycles. Then, summarize those claims in the article. Once you have that in the article, using additional context from other RS around individual election cycles is fine. —siro χ o 04:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]