Wikipedia talk:Relist bias

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

However, I have seen an admin express a view, unchallenged by others in the discussion, that a good close by a non admin for "delete", followed by the use of the {{db-xfd}} tag is very helpful.

Possibly, though, this is not advice for spreading, because every experienced NAC-er contemplating doing "delete" closes should discover that trick themselves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with a lot of parts[edit]

It says relisting can be harmful, but not relisting can also be harmful. I've cleared up a lot of the backlog recently, but from May to July we had a huge backlog in AfD discussions and admins were not closing things on time. Relisting (appropriately) can help admins focus on the few remaining cases left in the backlog from 3 weeks ago, that can't be appropriately relisted or NACed. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect @Dr. Universe I just looked at your two most recent relists (not having time for more) and 1 was properly closed as a soft delete shortly after your relist and 1 had a fairly firm delete consensus (with a couple of delete !votes and a relist coming in after the sole weak keep). I would suggest that these actually show the danger this essay is discussing. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases relisting helped to get those AfDs closed! Dr. Universe (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]