Wikipedia:Categorized Deletion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump. |
(This is no longer active, but see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus)
- Frontmatter (overly long explanation) moved to the bottom under Rationale. -SV
[edit] Proposed
A heading section will be created at the top of the VfD page called Deletion fields (or some similar name). Anyone may create an article in the format [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:''nameOfCategory'']]. The creator of this category is required to create a link to this page under the heading section Deletion fields on the VfD page. To create a category, the creator of the category must first propose it, perhaps on a page like Wikipedia:Proposed categories for deletion. The person who proposes the category must show that it meets these specific criteria:
- A large number of articles of this field of knowledge have appeared (or will soon appear) on VfD.
- The criteria for judging the notability of these articles should all be the same.
- That there are very specific criteria for judging those articles.
The proposed category can then be voted on within a one-week limit. While this voting process will take time, in the end, the creation of categories for deletion will save a lot of time on VfD in the long run. At the top of this category page should be placed notes, such as the criteria for judging whether articles in this field of knowledge should be deleted or kept.
When listing a page on VfD, the lister is advised to look at the list of pages under the heading Deletion fields. If the page the lister is listing fits into one of those categories, the lister should list the page for deletion under one of those categories instead of on the main VfD page.
Otherwise, these category pages behave exactly like VfD currently does, with the same time limits, the same criteria for deletion or keeping, etc. However, they serve the purpose of bringing together similar (in terms of field of knowledge) entries on VfD. Essentially, these category pages are WikiProject pages, but used for standardization of deletion instead of standardization of page layouts.
The majority of pages listed for deletion on VfD will still continue to go on the VfD page; only those pages fitting specific, narrow categories will be listed on the category VfD pages instead.
[edit] IV. Example: high schools
A page called [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:High schools]]. All high school pages listed for deletion should go here instead of the main VfD page.
Is this page justified? Yes, because
- a large number of high school articles have appeared on VfD,
- the criteria for judging these high school articles should all be the same,
- certain people vote regularly on all high school articles and have developed very specific criteria for judging those articles (example: User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW).
[edit] V. What the proposal does not propose
[edit] i) A set list of categories for deletion
True to the Wiki model, these categories will be created by editors to VfD. There is no standard list of categories, and the list of categories may grow smaller or larger. Recall that each category is like a WikiProject page and may be created or deleted.
[edit] ii) Prohibition of "non-experts" from voting
Just because a person does not usually vote on articles within a category does not mean that the person should not be allowed to vote. Indeed, if a person does choose to vote in a category, his or her vote will be valued as highly as any "expert's" vote (subject to the standard, already-existing constraints on the counting of sock-puppet, anonymous, and new user votes).
[edit] iii) Categories are based on criteria for deletion
The categories are not based on criteria for deletion (which are subjective and often the main point of contention on VfD regarding whether an article should be kept or deleted), but instead on field of knowledge.
[edit] VI. See also
Other proposals for reforming the deletion process:
[edit] VII. Voting
To be decided.
[edit] Origins, rationale, etc
I created this article, but I wrote it fairly quickly, and this article needs work in style and in word choice (I probably should have used a different word instead of "category" when I was initially writing this, because of how it can be confused with Wikipedia:Categories). Please feel free to clean up and work on this article until voting begins (if this proposal ever even reaches the voting stage). It would not be a bad idea to discuss ideas on the talk page before adding them to this page. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:34, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Notes: (1) The wording of some parts of this proposal is copied from Wikipedia:Managed Deletion. (2) The word "category" as used throughout this proposal does not refer to the term "category" as used in Wikipedia:Categories, but rather more in the sense of "kind" or "type".
[edit] I. Introduction
The purpose of this page is to propose the categorization of some specific deletion candidates according to field of knowledge.
[edit] II. Reasons behind the proposal
[edit] I) VfD is too long, and VfD is overwhelmed
Every few days, someone on the Village Pump will argue that VfD is too long. VfD reaches over 40kb routinely, even when there is not a contentious debate on it. Indeed, it is so long that some people do not list articles there, and many more do not go to vote there. This proposal will not reduce the lengthy debates. Nor will this proposal eliminate the vital deliberative nature of VfD, but it is designed to make VfD easier to use by moving a few specific deletion entries elsewhere.
On September 23, 2004, there were thirty-one new nominations to VfD for the single day. Of these thirty-one, almost all were proper deletion candidates and received nearly unanimous "delete" or "redirect" votes. The nominators to VfD were acting appropriately, and yet it was extremely difficult for voters to consider all of the candidates. The sheer volume of nominations can make it virtually impossible to reason together and consider articles carefully, case by case, which is what VfD is for.
How can we cut down on the number of nominations? We may not be able to; however, we may be able to: (1) make it easier to work on those nominations by identifying some specific cases that often crop up (2) cut down on debate by bringing similar cases together on the same page.
[edit] ii) "You mean this isn't a speedy delete?" and the use of precedent
Inevitably, VfD gets hit with articles that are obvious deletes. They rack up ten to fifteen "delete" votes with no "keep" votes but that of the author, and someone will say, "This is really a speedy delete candidate." In some cases, that person is correct. In most cases, that person is not correct because the article is an obvious delete but not a speedy delete. Now, why is the delete obvious? Because there has been precedent for it before.
There are a number of articles that come up for deletion all the time. For example, computer societies in United States cities that are not known outside that city, high schools, obscure patent-holders, etc. Now, on these articles, precedents have been established by the deletion articles that fail to meet certain standards, and by the keeping of other articles that did meet certain standards.
[edit] iii) Experts in specific fields
Some articles are very specific to certain fields and require someone knowledgeable in that field to properly evaluate them. This can apply to mathematics or scientific fields like biology, chemistry, or physics. It can apply to other types of academic fields, like philosophy. It can also apply to genres like comic books. It is clear that each Wikipedia editor is knowledgeable about certain fields (or knows the VfD standards of certain fields well from frequent editing within that field) and not so knowledgeable about others. Articles listed on VfD in specific fields of knowledge tend to see the same people voting on them. This proposal will hopefully encourage such "experts" to look at articles within their fields of knowledge.
