Wikipedia:Countdown deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. " If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

As per Wikipedia:Edit this proposal, you should be bold and edit it.

This proposal originally spawned from the discussion on Preliminary Deletion. It never really got a spotlight, and recently it has been suggested that giving it some wider exposure might have merit.

It's Yet Another attempt at streamlining our overburdened, unscalable deletion process: countdown deletion. The basic idea is that articles that start off as rubbish are put on probation: if nobody comes to improve them in seven days, they're out.

Countdown deletion (CD) is intended to be an additional tool for deletion. It would not supplant or modify Wikipedia:Votes for deletion or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion in any way, except for prohibiting VfD on an article already undergoing CD.

[edit] Basic process

• Starting the process
  • CD can only be applied to new articles (that is, articles that have been edited by one user since their creation or have only had very minor changes made (such as spelling, grammar, removing a link, adding a stub notice, etc.)).
  • To invoke CD, a template ({{countdown}}) is added to the top of the article page.
  • A claim that the article was already good can be entered by adding the template {{alreadygood}} to the top of the talk page at any time while the article is on CD.
  • An article cannot be taken to VfD while it is listed for CD.
  • An article can still be tagged for speedy deletion while on CD, but as always, the speedy deletion tag may be removed if editors disagree with it. Being on CD does not prevent an article from being deleted if it is a proper candidate for speedy deletion.
  • Removing the CD template notice is not allowed; removing the notice in bad faith is vandalism.
• After 7 days
  • If there have been no substantive edits to the article within 7 days, including no {{alreadygood}} claim, it is deleted.
  • If there has been an {{alreadygood}} claim and/or any substantive edits to the article made, a vote is held over 3 days to determine whether the claim is true or the article has been materially improved. If the vote decides overwhelmingly that the article was not already good and has not been materially improved, it is deleted. Otherwise, it stays.
• After the process is completed
  • An article that survives CD can never be listed for it again, and has to be taken to VfD.
  • An article that is deleted after CD and is recreated verbatim can be speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted content.
  • An article that is deleted after CD and is recreated with new content is just that: a new article, and CD can apply anew.

[edit] What is countdown deletion?

There is no separate page to which articles that are subject to CD need to be added — articles are automatically listed at Category:Countdown'some appropriate category', Category:Countdown refers to a gameshow. After the {{countdown}} template is added to an article, users discuss (on the article's talk page) ways to improve the article so it no longer qualifies for deletion, and implement them—the familiar Wikipedia editing we all know and love. The alreadygood tag can be added at any time during the seven days, and should not stop anybody from continuing to make improvements. If, after seven days, the article has not been voted already good or been materially improved (with "good" and "material" as defined below) it is deleted.

What constitutes a "good" article, and "material" improvement? After the seven days expire, then either:

1. Ignoring vandalism and reverts, nobody has edited the article since the countdown process started → no alreadygood claim and no improvement at all → Delete.
2. There have been some edits and/or an alreadygood claim → a vote for a period of three days on whether the article has materially improved since the countdown started.

In the case of a vote, registered users get one vote each which can be either Already good, Improved, or Not good and not improved. You should only vote whether the article was good to begin with or has improved materially since the countdown started. It is not relevant whether the topic is "notable" or not, or simply a dicdef, or "too POV" or "vanity". In any of these cases, wait for the CD process to finish and list the article on VfD if it survives. The votes should not be accompanied by reasons or discussions, though discussions may of course be started separately: only judge whether you think it was good, and/or has been improved.

As a guide, an article which possesses brilliant prose, context and sources is already good; adding any of these qualities is a material improvement; spelling, grammar, wikification, categorization, and adding or removing stub notices are not material. The vote must be overwhelmingly Not good and not improved for the article to be deleted. If not, then it stays.