Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-decent articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete all. CDC (talk) 21:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Half-decent articles, Wikipedia:Half-decent classification and Wikipedia:Half-decent article candidates
The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal. Radiant_* 10:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the point at present. The only thing that comes to mind is a space for articles that would be useful for Wikipedia 1.0 but are not quite up to standard. However, I think the FAC and collaboration mechanisms would be better suited to these (although I'm not active in either, so I might be wrong). My first preference is to archive, but I'll vote delete as I wouldn't want to stand in the way of a consensus on either option. Thryduulf 11:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a community. Try livejournal instead. 203.26.206.129 19:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete these half-decent ideas, POV, unverifiable, no consensus on Village pump or other policy discussion pages. Barno 20:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, tagging about 400,000 articles as half-decent doesn't really say anything about their quality. Mgm|(talk) 20:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Policy gets archived, not deleted. But there's no evidence that this was mentioned, much less discussed, anywhere before its inception. Besides, is Wikipedia really going to proudly label an article 'half-decent'? That's publicity I think we could do without. --InShaneee 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- This is just dumb. Delete to take one small step towards cleaning up the giant mess that is the Wikipedia namespace. Also the related junk:
- Wikipedia:Half-decent classification
- Template:Hac
- Template:Ha
- Template:Hc-list
- Template:Hc-ref
- Delete. Let's not make things too complicated. Sjakkalle 07:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all those pointed out by Cyrius. Also delete the shortcuts WP:HAC and WP:HA, plus Category:Half-decent article candidates. the wub (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This idea isn't half-decent. -- Joolz 21:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and NOOB -- Personally, I'd like to see them go, but this is not within the purview of VfD. Comments on the failed nomination of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion indicated clear concensus that VfD is not an appropriate place to discuss the deletion of Wikipedia-namespace pages. Those arguments are equally valid here. This nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 14:26, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Actually the remit for VfD was orginally anything on WP. Since the Templates, Images, Categories etc have been spun off those deletion tools have defined remits. The consensus on the deletion debate you give was actually that the place to discuss changes to TfD, including getting rid of it already, is TfD. The Wikipedia: namespace is within the remit of VfD as it is not within the remit of any other deletion tool. Thryduulf 15:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. — Phil Welch 06:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Surely you could call the thousands of articles that are not stubs and not Fantastic half decent. No point really. --bjwebb 09:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
