Wikipedia talk:Proposed article demotion

Discussion closures...

I want to make sure that I am understanding here... that when a discussion has only one result from many people, it is ok for someone involved in the discussion to close this discussion, yes? Referencing this closure and this revert. I think the close was ok and proper. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with the outcome, but did you discuss the revert of the revert with the editors involved? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Goblin 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

I did not revert. I closed it myself, using my name. That makes it my close. The revert was due to "Improper close" because barras was involved. I'm not involved, so that makes is a separate close, I believe. I'll undo myself if this is not the case. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Two common-sense proposals

1. Allow demotion from VGA to just GA. There can be articles that no longer meet the VGA criteria, but still meet the GA criteria.
2. Limit number of PADs active at a given time to three. We aren't in a rush...there's no time limit on fixing Wikipedia (note on EN Wikipedia, they have unlimited numbers and unlimited time; here we have unlimited numbers and limited time). Considering the amount of community imput needed to fix a GA, if we have a whole bunch of PADs going on, they're essentially all guaranteed to pass since none of them will get the community imput they deserve Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for promotion which relate to later demotion

I would argue against promoting anyone known for a single event if that event is oft-repeated (eg sports events) or in other ways not unique. No matter how much our younger editors may be hypnotised by, say, female tennis players, they usually have short careers and they are forgotten in a trice by most people. The exceptions are those who have won top events years after year. All who have won a grand slam event are notable in principle, but not all notable people should be developed into GAs, still less VGAs.

This idea relates to some other categories, not just sports. The purpose of this suggestion is to prevent the cycle of change. We have increasingly professional editing. We consider demoting several pages that no longer look so good in the light of day, and no longer are thought worthwhile to update. Actually, we can't update some because the subjects concerned have chosen to leave the public arena. In other cases the individual's fane is undimmed by time. I would say Stanley Matthews and Ben Hogan are examples among games players. Neither is a GA here... Suzanne Lenglen we don't have at all. I expect young readers think "Who is she?" Oh, just the person experts thought was the best female tennis player in the pre-WWII world. If we concentrate on people like those, we won't have to keep demoting GAs and VGAs.

Another idea: we should look more to content ideas than to biographies. It is undoubtedly easier to write a biography than explain an idea, but when we do have a concept page developed to a good level it should be preferentially treated. IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

While I generally like the idea, I think we should restrict what can become a good or very good article as little as possible. en:Mathias Rust was the pilot who landed a small aircraft right on the Red Square in Moscow, in 1989 (around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I think about two months beforehand, but don't quote me on that). To the general public, Rust is only known for that event. In later life, he was handed a prison term for stabbing (and severely injuring) a nurse who did not want to kiss him. Anyway: to the general public, that person, who is in his 50s now, is only known for that single event. If we had the article, what would be the reason from keeping someone from making that a good or very good article? - I don't see any. Other example: Niki Lauda; yes, known for winning the moto grand prix a few times in the 1970s, otherwise: successful entrepreneur. Reason for keeping someone making this a VGA? - none. Similar rationales: Serena Williams, Kimi Räikkönen (for people who are still alive), Paavo Nurmi or Ayrton Senna for sportspeople who died. Getting something like Trichoplax adhaerens (en:Trichoplax) to good or very good article is likely a lot more work. (Note: I think it is a VGA in DEWP) --Eptalon (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)