Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive November 2003 to October 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A summary of earlier discussion follows.

Contents

Miscellaneous

  • Biased articles: The statement that biased articles should be be given an NPOV dispute notice rather than listed on VfD was revised to say "However, list articles if rewriting the facts in an NPOV way and removing unattributed opinions would leave no useful information."
  • Administrators' judgment: GrahamN felt sysops should not have to use judgement because all decisions should be made by consensus. Evercat and FearÉIREANN felt this was unrealistic as 100 deletions occur a day. GrahamN proposed a Pure wiki deletion system, which Axlrosen supported.
  • Cleanup: Martin suggested pages where a unanimous agreement to delete had been reached on Wikipedia:Cleanup could be deleted. Camembert objected.
  • Policy discussions on VfD: Taku added to the policy that pages which serve the Wikipedia community such as VfD and Cleanup ought not be listed on VfD as that is not the place to discuss policies. Angela agreed but removed it from the policy page as it may confuse people about whether pages in the Wikipedia namespace are perhaps not allowed to be listed for deletion. She felt that saying VfD shouldn't be listed on VfD was stating the obvious.
  • Sub-stubs: dave sought clarification that the deletion of sub-stubs was acceptable after Jiang reversed his deletion. The policy supports dave's decision but there are mixed views on how stubs should be treated, so such deletions may be regarded as controversial by some.
  • Day Pages: MrJones asked whether there should be a policy on whether pages about days (Pi Day, Yellow Pig Day etc) are allowed and whether there ought to be a separate wiki for them. Maximus Rex explained that such pages are kept if they concern real verifiable days, and felt a separate wiki for them may not be useful. He suggested merging them into one page.

Major Change Proposed

(initially by Fuzheado with modifications by Daniel Quinlan)

  1. Time on the list has been reduced from 7 days to 5 days.
  2. Only usernames which are at least 1 month old can vote (F version was 5 days)
  3. Only usernames with at least 100 non-minor edits can vote (F version said 100 edits)
  4. Deletion requires a 2/3 majority in order for page to be deleted (F version was 3/4)


The rules for who is allowed to vote

  • Dysprosia supported points 2 and 3 but queried whether 100-edits was enough to prevent ballot stuffing, but also noted that rapid 100-edit-making would be really visible.
  • 129.234.4.10 felt the page author should be allowed to vote regardless of number of edits. Fuzheado thought this reasonable.
  • mav said "non-minor" should be replaced with "valid".
  • A hitherto unknown user, Wanwan, objected to the proposal as it precludes frequent readers from voting, and thought this would create a new class of wikipedia users, disenfranchised from voting. Kingturtle explained that these users were still allowed to comment on VfD, even though their votes might not be counted. Whilst Wanwan strongly objected, Kingturtle and Maximus Rex maintained it was necessary for the prevention of 'sock puppet' votes. Wanwan suggested votes be checked by IP, which Fuzheado explained would not work as users were coming in via proxies such as AOL. Wanwan suggested it may be better to remove the desire for ballot stuffing by having a stricter policy on what was allowed to be kept.
  • Jake strongly disagreed with the 100 edits ruling, feeling that "10 valid edits to articles" would be better. He later said 50 is an option... 10 could be too easy, true. Maybe 25. He also stated he would prefer 2 weeks to a month, but did not feel strongly about this. He proposed that invalid votes be marked with "this user has less than 20 edits" rather than "invalid vote".
  • Fuzheado agreed 1 month was too exclusionist as we are trying to avoid sock puppets, not "prove your worth." He also coined the term Sock Puppet Avoidance Threshold (SPAT)! Fuzheado supported the idea that edits must be "valid", not necessarily "non-minor".
  • Kingturtle thought the number should be between 25 and 100 and later said a full week and 100 edits seemed fair. He also stated that user should not be allowed to vote on articles that were placed on VfD prior to the creation of said user's account, but said user should have the right to make comments on the VfD page.
  • Axlrosen felt anything more than a week and 25 edits too much and edited the policy to reflect this.
  • Cyan suggested a rewording of "Sysops clearing out VfD are permitted to disregard votes and comments if there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith," which he believed was the de facto policy anyway. This was endorsed by Fuzheado, RickK, Angela, and Martin
  • Fuzheado presented Talk:List_of_caucasian_people/delete as an example of how the avoidance of sock puppet votes changed the outcome of this page's fate. Camembert objected as this deletion should not have been based purely on votes anyway. Angela (who deleted the page in question) said that the recent policy modifications hadn't actually affected her decision to delete the page but that it provided support if she was asked to defend the deletion. She felt she often had to justify deletions in terms of numbers, even though that may not be the underlying reason for her decision.
  • Camembert said that if a policy page which is quite clear about whether such-and-such a page should be deleted or not, these things should over-ride bare numbers.

2/3 majority needed

  • Oliver P. felt it was all "utterly, utterly wrong!" as we shouldn't decide the fate of articles by voting at all. The purpose of commenting on Vfd should be to try to settle the question of deletion firstly by pointing to our existing policies, and secondly by rational debate. He thought votes without comments should be ignored and arguments should be judged on their merits not on whether a user had 100 edits or not. He said more definite policies about what material is eligible for inclusion were needed to avoid having to argue similar points over and over again. If a page is contrary to Wikipedia policy, it should be deleted, regardless of how many people want it kept and vice versa. He thinks that cutting the amount of time that something stays on Vfd to save space on the page is not scalable.
  • Fuzheado disagreed and said that even with firmer policies about what is included, there will still be debate about the interpretation of them so a voting process is needed. He pointed out that we want debate and comments, not just a vote. Oliver P. felt the policy put too much emphasis on numbers and Kingturtle suggested renaming VfD "Concensus for Deletion."
  • Angela pointed out the problems of people not aiming for consensus. They vote and then go away rather than following the discussion. RickK added that there are people who will vote "no" just to deny consensus to anything. Fuzheado agreed.
  • Oliver P. said voting eradicates debate and adding up votes gives a meaningless figure, because if votes are made over a period of time during which the article is constantly changing, each vote is effectively for a different article! Hence, people should give reasons for their decision.
  • GrahamN advertised his meta:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal) as a solution to the voting issues which FearÉIREANN criticised. Further discussion was moved to meta:Talk:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal) and Wikipedia talk:Edit war.
  • Camembert asked that the 2/3 rules not be enshrined in official policy and let the sysops use their judgement instead. Fuzheado thought it was best to leave it in the policy so the process was transparent . Camembert thought Wikipedia:Requests for deletion would be a better name, and that the policy should allow flexibility.
  • Daniel Quinlan proposed that a sysop may delete if > 1/2 majority and < 2/3 super-majority and should delete if >= 2/3 super-majority. Camembert liked this extra flexibility. Jake was firmly against allowing cases with less than 2/3 be deleted. Daniel Quinlan thought requiring more than 2/3 was silly and sysops' judgement should be trusted. Angela said that if sysops deleted with less than a 2/3 agreement, there would be too many VfU listings. She also said the "Sysop should delete if >= 2/3" was wrong because often people vote before changes are made to the page and that votes sometimes go against established policies. In these cases, even 90% of votes to delete do not mean a page should be deleted. Martin agreed.
  • There was some sort of vote in which Kingturtle and Jake participated, but no-one else knew what they were voting for.

Unsummarised discussion

Consensus vs. 2/3rds

I thought we'd agreed a rough policy on consensus vs 2/3rds at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus - maybe folks here didn't know (I should have added more cross-links, perhaps). See exitsing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators Should the discussion be moved there? Martin 21:26, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good point, but a lot of people prefer actual numbers. Eloquence's call to the mailing list for Jimbo to assert some fixed percentage is what kicked this off I think. The 2/3 is just one way to quantify rough consensus. Angela

I think "just one way" - is right. I'd prefer sysops made their own decisions (and stood by those decisions) on what rough consensus is, at least for the time being. That's what's happening in practice, I don't see an overwhelming amount of support for changing that. Certainly not for changing it to any specific set of criteria. Martin 00:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Angela

Has anyone addressed the point that different votes are for different articles? It's rather an important one, I think. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Does editing imply support?

Incidentally, I think that edits to an article should be counted as implicit expressions of support for that article (unless overridded by more explicit statements); explicit support for some general policy should be counted as implicit support for deleting/keeping articles according to that policy, and explicit support for deleting/keeping some article should be counted as implicit support for deleting/keeping another equivalent article. Martin 00:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nice idea, but you expect me to remember how people have voted previously in order to take that into account in future decisions? I'm not too sure that's realistic. Angela
It's not realistic if you want to be mathematical about it - but if you're just going by judgement and instinct, then these are the kinds of things that (imo) naturally filter in. Martin 02:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Oh well, in that case, yes they probably do filter in, as do many other factors beyond a simple 2/3 count. I might report the reason for deletion in terms of numbers but the decision is rarely based on that alone. Angela 02:24, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
I very much disagree. (1) I've edited an article that was on VfD that I thought should be deleted. I didn't know how the vote would turn out, and if it was going to be kept, I might as well make it better. (2) I think it will be very subjective as to when two articles are "equivalent", and also to some extent when an article falls under a particular category or policy. Axlrosen 21:24, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify that edits to an article are only implicit expressions of support - if someone explicitly votes for deletion, then that's what counts. I reckon the creator of an article, and the majority of those who've made major edits to it, probably want to keep it, even if they don't actually vote as such (perhaps they've left, for example). Martin 21:38, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I disagree (that edits imply support). What are we discussing anyway? Is there a real disagreement or proposed change? The current system seems to be working fine. Daniel Quinlan 22:44, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
No, I'm not proposing a policy change - just giving my thoughts on what influences rough consensus. Martin 23:17, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I also disagree that editing implies support. I've edited articles which I think should be deleted, and articles which I have no strong views on one way or the other. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Editing does not imply support. For example, I edit articles that I vote to have deleted. Why?
  1. I'm like a nurse who wants to give the patient comfort and dignity before he dies.
  2. All existing pages should reflect Wikipedia editing norms, even if it is marked for deletion.
  3. Just because I vote to delete doesn't mean it will be deleted. I should still be diligent and edit an article, no matter what it's future.
  4. I tend to be a bit compulsive.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 19:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-> Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

Undeletion without listing on "Votes for undeletion"

The categories of page eligible for speedy deletion currently include "previously deleted content, where the page was not listed on votes for undeletion."

It seems that Angela is happy with the idea of sysops undeleting pages without listing on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if they think that the proper process has not been followed. I'm happy with that, too. So should the above rule be removed? -- Oliver P. 02:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe it just needs tweaking to something like: "content previously deleted according to this deletion policy, where the page was not listed on votes for undeletion". I believe we were trying to guard against people continually recreating articles that had already been discussed on VfD and deleted with a near consensus. Gah, this is legalistic. Martin 02:47, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
Reword. Don't remove. Angela
Thanks for clearing that up, both of you. -- Oliver P. 04:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't the undeletion policy be at wikipedia:votes for undeletion or else wikipedia:undeletion policy? Martin

Ok. Angela

I have a proposal: would it be fine to delete plural redirects iff all the links pointing to that redirect are fixed? Dysprosia 00:13, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No. Somebody may link to the plural in the future, and deleting the redirect may also break links from outside the Wikipedia. --Camembert
Good points. So much for that "brilliant idea" of mine :) Dysprosia 07:42, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects for discussion of the new guideline about moving titles to /partial history pages.


Various updates

I don't think any of these are controversial, but...

  1. "In general, admins will follow a process" -> " You can expect admins to follow the process" - perhaps over-optimistic, but judging from the deletion log and traffic on VfU, I think this is stronger than "in general"
  2. "process of listing on VfD" -> "process below" - updating for multiple pages
  3. "deleted test" for speedy deletions by non-admins - it's either that or normal VfD, I guess. This might be dodgy, but I wasn't sure what else to say. Umm.
  4. List articles that contain no verifiable information - people do this anyway, and even most inclusionists dislike unverifiable content, so make it explicit.

I'd appreciate feedback on the third, in particular... Martin 22:37, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

candidate for deletion or other action

This is silly: for other actions, don't use VfD. Anyone listing a page on VfD as a candidate for some "other action" is abusing the process (IMO, YMMV, etc). Martin 23:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Copyvios should be listed on wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, or you may choose to inform Wikipedia's designated agent if you are the copyright owner or their representative.
To keep Votes for Deletion down to a reasonable size, articles that are proposed for deletion because they are written in a foreign language should be listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/foreign language. If you can speak (and translate!) another language please feel free to watch that page... if a page comes up in your language.. maybe you can do the translation and save useful content from deletion.

I removed these, as they duplicate the extensive list of deletion-orientated pages earlier... Martin 20:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-> Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

Tildes

Hi folks, I made the four tildes <tt> because they're easier to read on my computer that way - without it they look like one squiggly line. How's it work for you? Tualha 01:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proposed changes to deletion policy organization

A few recent entries on VfD have been for articles that were good topics, things we'd want articles for, but were just written badly: one a rant, one nonsense, one in French. Looking at the last few days, I see this happens fairly often. Such articles should be fixed, not deleted - and indeed these were fixed, and quickly. (Wikiwiki!) They should be listed on Cleanup, not VfD. (If they stay there for a while with no improvement, then VfD, as with Post-colonialism in literature.)

This is covered in Deletion policy - Section 2, bullet points 2 and 4 - which suggests to me that people are posting on VfD without carefully reading the policy. To try to remedy this, I propose the following:

  • Swap Sections 1 and 2 of Policy, putting what to list (and what not to) before how to list. That ordering will hopefully cause people to stop and think before posting, and cut down on the unnecessary ones.
  • Further, we should emphasize the importance of (the new) Section 1 in the top matter.
  • I'd also like to see something along these lines right near the top: "When in doubt, list it in Wikipedia:Cleanup, not in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion."
  • Finally, the message at the top of VfD should be emphasized - bigger font, italicize the "please", red font - something.

Discussion?
Tualha 06:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The first point is a good one, I think. The rest will fail - no matter how large instructions are, some people will ignore them. Trying discussing with the individuals involved on their talk pages, and convince them that cleanup would serve their needs. Martin 22:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
True, some people will still ignore it. But it might be significantly fewer people than the number who ignore it now. I'll retract suggestion 4, it'll probably be too obtrusive, but I'm sticking with 1-3. Tualha 01:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If you think reordering would help, then you could try that, but I expect the problem is that people just don't read it at all, or possibly they don't agree with it. I disagree with you about the foreign language articles being a problem. These are currently dealt with very well by the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/foreign language subpage. The pages are listed there with the aim of getting them translated and/or moved to the appropriate Wikipedia, and the page contains instructions on contacting the appropriate Wikipedia's embassy member. The only thing wrong with that page is probably the name as people don't really vote on deletion there unless they understand the language and can verify that it is nonsense. Cleanup would be a bad place to list these as they would simply be lost and very hard to find for people coming over from other Wikipedias to help with. Until Cleanup is working properly, which currently I'm not convinced about, I see no problem with people making inappropriate listings on VfD. Things get fixed a lot faster there than they ever will on Cleanup. Angela. 18:29, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Talk about speedy deletion

"Voting policy"

The stuff about voting policy and 25 edits and suchlike has previously been discussed here, and I don't believe it even has a majority of support, let alone a consensus. Can we delete it from the page? From talk:Brianism, it seems to be causing confusion. Martin 18:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Really? I thought the 25 edits part was supported. I agree the 2/3 idea was more contentious, but I feel the "sock puppet avoidance threshold" should stay in, and the idea that it is still merely a proposal should be removed. Cyan's suggestion that sysops clearing out VfD are permitted to disregard votes and comments if there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith should also be added. I'm surprised it wasn't already considering the support it got at the time. 25 is still very low. Many people were suggesting 100 edits when this was discussed in November. I can't see any reason for this to remain under the heading "proposal", though there probably isn't much point leaving the 2/3 ruling in. So, can we forget all about 2/3 and let people make up their own numbers, but keep in the 25 - just as a suggestion, not as something you need to spend hours checking every time you look at VfD - but a simple way of justifying the outcome when half a dozen sock puppets turn up? Angela. 10:20, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I remembered wrongly. Wishful thinking? Anyway, I'm fine with Cyan's proposal that sysops may disregard votes and comments if there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith - I'd suggest adding that to wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators, under the section on "rough consensus". If you really think the 25 edits rule would be valuable in addition to that, then I won't object. Still, aren't we all intelligent enough to work out when we're just being trolled? Martin 15:13, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just edited wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators to cover this point, belatedly. Is it sufficient? Should we add the 25 edits guideline there? Martin 00:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure now whether there's a need for a strict 25 edits limit or not. I've reworded the "Voting Policy" section on the deletion policy to state that edits made in good faith can be accepted. I expect those with less than 25 edits can be discounted under that rule anyway. Angela. 00:29, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)


Proposal for reorganization

How would people feel about this structure:

  • Wikipedia:Cleanup
    • Our guideline should state clearly that readers should list anything they consider fixable on Wikipedia:Cleanup first. That means: If the information can be salvaged, or the article edited into proper form, it needs to go through the cleanup process. But there will be no punishment in case this step is skipped -- we trust readers to use their own best judgment as to when to use Cleanup. Emphasis is on should.
Yes, we should do this:
  1. —Eloquence
  2. Tuf-Kat
  3. Angela
  4. Anthony DiPierro
  5. Jwrosenzweig
  6. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  7. UtherSRG - but make a {{msg:cleanup}} to alert folks
  8. Cyan
  9. Jiang
  10. Jack 07:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) (but I would like some regulation to ensure this page is used)
  11. Emsworth
  12. James F. (talk)
  13. Secretlondon
  14. Oliver P.
  15. Kokiri
  16. Jamesday Giving time to see if new articles develop is a good way to reduce workload.
  17. Ryan_Cable
  18. Toby Bartels
No, we should not do this:
  1. No. I have always opposed the existed of the cleanup page. It weaks Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Kingturtle 19:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we should do this:
  1. —Eloquence
  2. Tuf-Kat
  3. Angela
  4. Jwrosenzweig
  5. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  6. UtherSRG
  7. Cyan
  8. Emsworth
  9. Kokiri
  10. Ryan_Cable
  11. Toby Bartels (as deliberte inclusion into deletion process, name/intro matters little to me)
No, we should not do this:
  1. Anthony DiPierro (current name is more accurate)
  2. Martin -- This is still two proposals: a rename, and stripping the intro to a seperate page (to be called what?). I think the current name is better. The intro stripping might work, but there are details to be worked out.
  3. Jiang
  4. James F. (talk) (Current name is better)
  5. Jamesday It broadens the scope too much. The current one saying possible problem and sticking to possible infringements rather than all possible copyright problems is better, IMO.
  6. No. This creates redundancy. I see no reason to duplicate. Kingturtle 19:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. Anthony DiPierro (Again, I don't understand. What's wrong with Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements?)
    • The point is to have a name that is more inclusive and shorter than the current one.—Eloquence
    • Thanks, I've changed my vote. The new name seems less inclusive, not more inclusive. Anthony DiPierro 01:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oliver P. (I'll think about it...)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion requests
    • Controversial pages can be listed here. Only consensus matters. If no near unanimous consensus can be reached within 7 days, the page cannot be deleted. Roughly as VfD operates now, with one important exception: Every opinion needs to be justified. If it appears that a participant has clearly failed to respond to an argument, their opinion also has lesser weight. This makes "Keep" and "Delete" comments effectively "Me too" posts that can be ignored.
Yes, we should do this:
  1. —Eloquence
  2. Tuf-Kat
  3. Angela (for one month trial, main VfD only)
  4. Jwrosenzweig (but concerned this will become a battle royal over what constitutes a "justifiable" argument)
  5. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  6. Cyan
  7. Jiang
  8. Jack 07:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) (very good idea)
  9. Emsworth
  10. James F. (talk)
  11. Secretlondon
  12. Oliver P. (This is great!)
  13. Kokiri
  14. Jamesday Deletion Requests will be seen too often by newcomers and sends them the wrong message - a more friendly title is appropriate. Perhaps "Considered for deletion". What is near unanimous? Only the page creator objecting?
  15. Ryan_Cable
  16. Toby Bartels -- Let's try it!
No, we should not do this:
  1. Anthony DiPierro (only opinions recommending deletion should need to be justified. "Keep" with no justifications simply means that you don't agree with the justifications for deletion.)
  2. UtherSRG Don't split requests & votes. Requiring a justification just means "me-too-ers" will copy someone else's justification.
  3. No. I don't see anything wrong with the current VfD system. Nothng. Also, isn't this what the ye olde Cleanup page is supposed to do? Furthermore, this idea causes more bureaucracy, more pages to stay on top of, and makes the length of time for deletion 12 to 14 days. Kingturtle 19:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion votes
    • No page could be listed here until it has undergone the Wikipedia:Deletion proposals page. The arguments for and against would have to be summarized, probably by the person adding the page to this list. This adds a certain burden which prevents abuse, and also provides readers with useful information to inform their votes.
Any page listed here would have to remain for another 7 days. During this time, people only add "Keep" and "Delete" votes without justification -- the discussion period is over. After that time, the votes are counted, and any page with 80% or more support for deletion is removed. Having this separate would ensure high participation rates
Yes, we should do this:
  1. —Eloquence
  2. Tuf-Kat
  3. Angela (I'm not happy with the % being so high, but will accept it for one month. Main VfD only)
  4. Jwrosenzweig (I agree with Angela: another note, though....how will we combat sock puppets?)
  5. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  6. Cyan
  7. Jack 07:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. Emsworth
  9. James F. (talk)
  10. Kokiri
  11. Toby Bartels -- with reservations, but accepted as part of reform plan
No, we should not do this:
  1. Anthony DiPierro (Delete votes should be justified. We can't be removing pages solely because 80% of Wikipedians don't like it.)
  2. UtherSRG Don't split requests & votes.
  3. Jiang (stick with 75% or lower)
  4. Secretlondon
  5. Oliver P. (Votes are bad. See below.)
  6. Jamesday the Wikipedia:Deletion proposals process has not been described so I can't support this followup yet. Assuming that it is the deletion requests process above, 80% sounds too low without a quorum requirement to go with it. I expect the summaries to be unrepresentative and done primarily by those who want something deleted. Better to use the whole previous text and avoid the issue. This step also seems redundant, since it's known at this point that there isn't even a near consensus to delete; that means the article shouldn't be deleted.
  7. No. Let's keep this as simple as possible. We will get bogged down in bureaucracy. Kingturtle 19:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ryan_Cable
  • Wikipedia:Undeletion requests
Yes, we should do this:
  1. —Eloquence
  2. Tuf-Kat
  3. Angela
  4. Jwrosenzweig
  5. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  6. UtherSRG
  7. Cyan
  8. Jiang
  9. Jack 07:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  10. Emsworth
  11. James F. (talk)
  12. Secretlondon
  13. Oliver P.
  14. Kokiri
  15. Ryan_Cable
  16. Toby Bartels (but see question below)
No, we should not do this:
  1. Jamesday Should be the inverse of the deletion voting, so if something gets 20% of votes here, it's undeleted on the basis of a lack of consensus for deletion.
  2. No. I see nothing wroing with the current system. Kingturtle 19:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rationale:

There have been concerns, notably by Jimbo, that the VfD process is overused and fallible. There have also been concerns, especially by myself, that the lack of clear guidelines turns deletion into a constant guessing game as to which action is in compliance with policy and which is not. These guidelines are relatively simple to follow: On anything controversial, try to reach consensus first. If that fails, you can call for a vote, but you have to organize it properly.

Any parts of this scheme that end up getting more support than opposition will be implemented as a 30 days trial period, pending of course any major flaws that are pointed out, very strong objections or a proposal which receives much wider support. I would like to state that this is more a reorganization than a completely different scheme -- we are doing both votes and consensus based decision making right now, but in a more chaotic way.—Eloquence 05:06, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Can you clarify the proposal to split into separate consensus/votes pages is applying to the main VfD only (for this trial period at least)? Angela. 00:51, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
A mere majority is not sufficient to implement such drastic policy changes, even as a "30 days trial period." I object, very strongly. That said, two parts are unanimous. Let's do em. Anthony DiPierro 01:18, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Eloquence, I do not see VfD as being a problem. IMHO, the system works well. You and Jimbo have concerns. Where exactly do these concerns come from? Do you have some example? Maybe some hard evidence of abuse or improper deletions? Kingturtle 19:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(written to Kingturtle on his talk page, from eloquence) eloquence says...regarding your vote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, I would like you to understand that this proposal is an attempt to address what is currently a highly inconsistent situation. We have Wikipedians who oppose all voting, and we have Wikipedians who only want to use voting for these matters. The page title "Votes for deletion" suggests the latter approach, while the current deletion policy codifies the former. Different sysops are doing different things. Some pages have not been deleted because there are one or two people in opposition, some pages have been deleted because there's a 66% majority. Deciding on only one process has the potential to split the community.
This proposal tries to find a useful middle ground between these two hardened positions. The fact that the main opposition comes from people who either think that the threshold is too high or that it is too low IMHO proves that a compromise has been found. Do you have to keep on top of more pages? Only one, the voting page, and there should be links between the two pages which shouldn't make it too hard to keep on top of them. I think splitting up the process is the only way to consistently address the fundamental difference between the two procedures -- consensus seeking, and voting.
You can see how the first stage will look at Wikipedia:Deletion requests.—Eloquence 19:30, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot to add that this is only a vote on whether we should hold a 30 day trial with the two-stage system. The old VfD page will simply be suspended during that period, and we can always go back to the old system if the new one turns out to be horribly broken.—Eloquence 19:40, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
I am of the mind that the current system of VfD works well enough. The only thing I'd like to change are the specifics regarding what constitutes a deletion result on VfD. Isn't the process already split in two with clean up and VfD? I really don't like this new idea. Some things are so blatantly delete-able that it is a waste of time running through a 5-day first process before even getting to the VfD stage. Kingturtle 06:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Proposal discussion

Summarized comments

Summarized thread between Eloquence and mav: mav felt that voting before discussing the proposal was a bad idea. Eloquence argued that the poll was based on lengthy discussions of the past, and a relatively small change to the existing system compared with other proposals. He agreed to modify the proposal to include a discussion period, however. (Summarized: —Eloquence 17:16, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC))

Summarized thread between Eloquence and MyRedDice: Martin (MRD) feels that small changes should not be lumped together with big ones. In accordance with that opinion, Eloquence has split up the vote into several smaller parts. Eloquence has clarified that the proposal does not imply the deletion of any existing specialized subpages of VfD.

Unsummarized comments

I've made comments on the various aspects of it, but I think these would be a lot clearer were they made on separate pages.

  1. Cleanup proposal: This should not only be for pages you regard fixable. It should be for pages you have doubts about. For example, you are unsure if something is fictional or a person isn't really famous, so you put it on cleanup to see if other people agree before risking being humiliated on Vfd by listing someone who does turn out to be famous
    • "You have doubts about" is already implied in current policy. That should not be changed.—Eloquence
      • In that case I don't see that the proposal really changes anything about cleanup. A
        • It makes a clear recommendation that pages which are considered fixable should be listed. This is separate from the cases where people have doubts. Often pages are listed on VfD by people who are very confident that they should be deleted, yet would agree that they are fixable.—Eloquence
          • This supposed to be the case for cleanup now. Clarifying that would be a good idea, but I don't see that needs to be part of this proposal. The intro to VfD just needs to be clearer that that is what people should do. A
  2. Delete me proposal: Neither support not oppose this name change.
  3. Copyright problems proposal: What's wrong with the intro? I can't see a reason to remove it. The name change is good though.
    • Intro can be linked, just like the extremely long intro on VfD has eventually been summarized and linked. Quickly getting to the list is important.—Eloquence
      • Ok. You don't really need a formal proposal with a vote to do this though. Just edit the page. :) A
        • The proposal is meant to describe the structure as it will look when the reorg is complete, not every part of it is substantially different from what we have now.—Eloquence
          • I think it should be taken out of the proposal then so when people are voting it is clear which parts they are voting for. The current poll above would suggest people oppose the whole policy, and therefore oppose the removal of the copyvio instructions, when actually they might not oppose that at all. The change should just be made. A
  4. Deletion requests proposal: Oppose. Gives too much weight to minority opinions if those supporting the ideas of one position can not mention that support.
    • They can mention it, but it does not matter. Only the facts and arguments do in this discussion. It's not a vote.—Eloquence
      • What I'm worried about is one person coming up with stupid reasons for keeping something and the fact that 100 people disagree with those reasons being overlooked. However, as long as the page is moved to the voting stage when there are remaining objections to keeping/deleting it, rather than just being kept/deleted on the basis there is one troll giving stupid reasons to keep/delete something, then this shouldn't be an issue. A
        • If the reasons are stupid it should be possible to show that, no? If the person is trolling, Wikiquette is applicable.—Eloquence
          • It probably needs to be seen in action before I will be convinced on this point. I would support running it for a trial period, of say one month, with an additional vote at the end of that month to see if we should return to the current system. A
  5. Deletion votes proposal: Why is this needed in addition to the Deletion requests page? If consensus has already been found there, why would you vote again? Also, 80% is too high.
    • You would vote if consensus has not been found, in order to bring about deletion in cases where very few individuals have raised spurious arguments that are rejected by the vast majority of Wikipedians. 80% is not too high if you consider that we have no threshold at all right now. The point is to improve the current system by means of compromise -- many people would never agree with a lower threshold. So the question is whether an optional 80% threshold is better than no thershold at all.—Eloquence
      • I'm still unsure on this. Currently, the reason for someone's vote is given with that vote, which means the reason can be taken into account when deciding whether to delete the page. ie- if the reason is stupid (I just like this page) the vote can be ignored. The new system would let people vote without reasons, so pages will end up being kept for the wrong reasons and against policy. A
        • That's what the summaries are for -- give people an idea of what arguments have been made pro and con. Perhaps shortliners should still be allowed, but that is a minor implementation issue.—Eloquence
          • It needs to be more flexible than a strict 80% rule. The current policy states 66% or a "rough consensus". I see no reason to change that. A
  6. Undeletion requests proposal: Neither support not oppose this name change.

I also strongly oppose the implied deletion of the VfD subpages. There is no reason whatsoever to remove pages like WP:PSTBD or VfD/foreign. These operate in a completely different way to the main VfD and therefore it would be highly damaging to try and force the main VfD procedure onto them. Angela. 13:41, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

My updated view on this is that I would support it without the 80% rule, and if it was agreed that the first month was only a trial with the possibility of switching back at the end of that month. Also, this should apply for the first month only to the main VfD, not to any of the subpages. Angela. 21:48, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
I support Angela in this. There is no reason to delete them.
Agreed on keeping WP:PSTBD or VfD/foreign. Those two, only, seem to be almost totally uncontroversial as ways to offload traffic from VfD. Jamesday 15:59, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is impossible. There are people who will vote "no" just to be arbitrary. Note that I have stopped doing that on VfD. RickK 16:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "implied deletion" of the VfD subpages interpretation by Martin was not implied by me at all. I have no strong opinion on this and we will have to see which organization makes most sense, preserving the current one after the initial change.—Eloquence

Reading this discussion for the first time, I noticed one thing about voting that was not mentioned: a requirement for a quorum, or a minimum number of total votes cast, on any one article, for a deletion to take place. (I have no idea if this has been brought up & debated to deaht in the past.) It just seems to me that without such a rule, it would be possible to abuse VfD by removing a number of articles in less-known parts of Wikipedia under the radar before anyone noticed what was happening. -- llywrch 19:07, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence says "Yes, let's start atomizing everything, split it up on 20 different talk pages, and make sure that nothing ever happens". Presumably sarcastically?

Your rationale section is all about votes vs requests, so I suggest concentrating on that issue, since you seem to care about it the most. However:

  1. Seperating off the intro from possible copyright infringements might make sense. You've not given any reasons for this in your "rationale" section. You do say later on that "Quickly getting to the list is important", but this can be done with the table of contents links already. I'd be happy to discuss this further though, but on Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements, so we can get the advice of the legally inclined people who use that page.
    • I don't like TOCs on date-structured pages, but that's another matter. Besides being easier to navigate, not having lots of content on that page that is only of interest to first-time readers also reduces the page size, which increases performance.—Eloquence
  2. I don't see the reasoning behind the proposed rename of "possible copyright infringements". You've not given any reasons for this in your "rationale" section.
    • "Copyright problems" allows more general listings, is shorter and is more neutral.—Eloquence
  3. "deleted test" needs to be renamed, but I'm unclear why "delete me" is better than the alternatives on wikipedia talk:deleted test. You've not given any reasons for this in your "rationale" section.
    • "Delete me" is inclusive of all types of candidates for speedy deletion, and the imperative name is indicative of the special nature of the page (operated by "What links here").—Eloquence
  4. The votes for undeletion rename makes sense to me, since that page already has a completely different pace and style to VfD. I think I'll just go do it.
  5. The VfD split might make sense, and could relieve the pressure to continually add new cases to wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion. Needs fleshing out with more details.
    • Which details?—Eloquence
      • Interaction with "VfD/foreign language" and similar pages. How formal is the vote? How do you resolve ballot box stuffing? What if there's more than one option? What if the page changes mid-vote? What if a change is proposed mid-vote? What if the opinions change after the vote is finished? Just flesh it out. Write the new "deletion policy" in your userspace somewhere. Martin

Martin 19:23, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the substantively different process Eloquence proposes for deletions. I would like to give it a trial period: a couple of weeks or a month would be sufficient. Unfortunately, the guidelines for acceptance of the proposal are pretty firm, and are not written with trial periods in mind. Happily, the guidelines for acceptance are undergoing discussion, and can easily be modified. I would support this change over a trial period with possible ratification at the end, but I don't have enough information to support it as a permanent change. Meow. -- Cyan 21:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: Because many users requested it, I have split up the vote into individual parts. Because existing votes were no longer applicable, these had to be remoevd -- please vote again for each part of the proposal!—Eloquence 23:22, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

From the vote comments: Requiring a justification just means "me-too-ers" will copy someone else's justification.--UtherSRG

I don't understand this objection - a copied justification could be simply removed without comment.—Eloquence
Why should a copied justification be removed without comment? If 500 people all agree "this is a dictionary entry" why should their vote only count once? That justifications must be unique was not part of your proposal, you should make it explicit if you intend this vote to count for that. Anthony DiPierro 02:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding - I don't think they should count the same. I just think redundant information can be removed. The information that someone agrees with a certain rationale is not redundant. If they do so for exactly the same reasons, however, these reasons need not be enumerated again, and can be removed. For example, if someone says "We have a policy against this type of pages, see XY", I could respond "I agree", but it would be silly to respond two paragraphs below "See the policy XY".—Eloquence
So what's the point of requiring justifications if you're just going to remove those justifications? Anthony DiPierro 03:06, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please read my response again.—Eloquence
Your response doesn't make sense, and clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it. You say that "Me too" posts can be ignored. So what's the point of having people say "Me too" in the first place? I don't get it. Anthony DiPierro 13:37, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You're right, Anthony, I made some personal notes in my head that I haven't yet included in the proposal. I apologize. My idea is that "Me too" type posts can add to the gravity of an argument. In these consensus discussions, we always have to make judgments whether an argument has really been refuted, and whether more elaboration is needed.
The level of involvement of people can be an indicator for us as to how much time we need to spend discussing that particular point. It should not be the only guide or even the most relevant one, but it should give us pause if 1) an initial argument has received a lot of support, 2) the rebuttal has received no reply and no support even after several days. In such cases, it might be a good idea to ask a follow-up question: "Given how many people have expressed agreement with the initial argument, do you have anything to say to this rebuttal?"
If this proposal receives enough support (which appears to be the case), I'll try to develop some guidelines -- collaboratively, of course -- how to organize these consensus discussions: how to refactor and summarize, how to decide whether an argument is over or not, how to deal with deliberate trolling and provocations, how to sort arguments etc. This sounds more complex than it is -- the eventual guidelines should be no longer than a screenful.
Does this make sense to you? I believe this is an interesting experiment -- how do we properly organize a consensus process, how do we avoid redundancy, name calling, logical fallacies etc. I would appreciate your input if you feel that any particular aspect needs improvement.—Eloquence 03:03, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well done for trying to sort out the mess that is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Mr. Eloquence! Separating the consensus-forming process from the voting process would make the whole process a lot easier to follow.

However, I have to say that as more and more votes appear on Wikipedia, I find that I like them less and less. I sympathise (well, slightly) with your fears that trying to come to a consensus about everything would take a lot of time, but I think that it would lead to a better system in the long run. It seems to me that most of the really bad arguments on Vfd are due to unclear (or even absent) policies on inclusion of content. Holding votes on individual cases leads to inconsistent results, as it might happen that people with one point of view contribute more to a vote on one article, while people with the opposite point of view contribute more to another. And it helps little in improving the policies.

I think we all agree that we want articles to be treated consistently, so we need a process that guarantees that. If there is disagreement about whether certains classes of articles should be deleted (source texts, biographies of obscure people, or whatever), then proposing them for deletion should wait until an agreement has been reached about the class as a whole. That will provide an incentive for people to actually sort out the policies for that class. Once such an agreement has been reached, a consensus on each case should be easy to reach on Wikipedia:Deletion requests and there would be no need for a separate vote.

If articles are proposed for voting when there is no consensus on general principles, it will lead to a lot of bad decisions being taken. Sometimes inconsistency, which won't please anyone, but also sometimes consistent errors. It often happens that a majority vote for or against an article just because they happen to like or dislike it, without having any defensible argument to back up their preferences. Even when there are arguments, it often happens that a minority has stronger arguments than the majority. If those arguments are not answered but just overridden by a vote, it will lead to a lot of frustration for the participants and a lower quality for the project. -- Oliver P. 06:17, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Me too :). Seriously, though, I strongly agree with the points being made here. There need to be some well defined criteria for deletion. Voting should only come into place when there is a dispute as to whether or not the article in question meets one of those criteria. For instance, there is a general consensus that articles on wikipedia need to be verifiable. Let's say an entry comes in which is somewhat popular on the internet, but isn't discussed on any major reputable sources. There might be a dispute as to whether or not that topic is verifiable, and a vote could be made to answer that dispute. Anthony DiPierro 17:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Viewing deleted articles

(moved from Wikipedia:Village pump)

We need a category of non-sysop users who are allowed to view deleted articles. Anthony DiPierro 00:18, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. The purpose of deleting an article is to make it look (to non-sysops) as if it is gone. Legit articles very, very rarely get deleted (I know of one instance, but that's a long story). Not only that, but I think there's a lot more substantive requests already waiting for our overworked developers. →Raul654 00:27, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Even sysops can't view all deleted articles. They can do for a certain length of time, but the archive of deleted entries is regularly removed, so no one can see them. For example, sysops can't see anything that was deleted before 3 December last year. Angela. 00:33, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Depends what you consider a "legit" article. Everyone has a different idea, and by my view of "legit" there are a whole lot of articles deleted which are "legit." Yes, the purpose of deleting an article is to make it look as if it is gone to most people. That's why I'm suggesting that we create a category of users who can do this, rather than suggestiong that everyone be allowed it. As for the overworked developers, I'm sure the project is interesting enough for people to work on. It's certainly not a reason to oppose the feature. Anthony DiPierro 00:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What exactly do you want viewed that's deleted? If it's just one article, maybe you can ask someone nicely if they can get the text for you. Dysprosia 00:38, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, it's a lot of articles. Basically all the stuff that's been deleted for being nonfamous, so I can add them to McFly. Anthony DiPierro 00:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Wikipedia had a liberal policy for granting adminship. why dont you just request it? Sennheiser
He did: it wasn't quite that liberal. Anthony: most of the "vanity"/nonfamous deletions seem to be up at Internet Encyclopedia, which is more catholic in its tastes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sennheiser doesn't know Catholic is a good word to use. He believes that might offend Catholics who don't like Internet Encyclopedians, or Internet Encyclopedians who don't like Catholics.
Having never before seen the word used in such a context, I looked it up. The first definition (according to dictoinary.com) is Of broad or liberal scope. Finlay was quite correct to use the word as such. And Senn, please stop referring to yourself in the third person. →Raul654 02:42, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Heh, I thought he was referring to the inclusionist Catholic dogma of being opposed to birth control. Anthony DiPierro 02:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I got like 8 votes opposing and no votes supporting so I withdrew my request. As for IE, I assume that only has the deletions which were transferred to IE before being deleted. Anthony DiPierro 01:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

subst:vfd

The message shown under the guidance to use subst:vfd does not match was is created using that macro. (?) - Texture 16:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Angela. 18:49, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Removing from VfD early

Three items removed were from Feb 8th. These items should remain so everyone can review the resolution per the existing deletion policy. There is no harm keeping these votes in view for five days. Please give a reason for harm. - Texture 16:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I already answered this on Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion for the remaining issues - Texture 17:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Deletion requests

The first version of Wikipedia:Deletion requests is now online. Please comment on the talk page. Note that the example sections badly screw up section editing, I'll fix this bug later today (hopefully).—Eloquence 12:00, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

"Deletion policy polls"

I have moved the discussion of whether or not fame or importance should be a reason for deletion from Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls to Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, which seemed a more appropriate title. People wanting to contribute to changes in deletion policy should of course come to this page, so I am making Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. -- Oliver P. 04:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Undeletion requests

How do we make sure that people can see the page that they're discussing here? This is the one point in the reform plan that I don't understand! (Maybe this was mentioned above, but I couldn't find it.) -- Toby Bartels 01:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who can nominate for deletion?

I'm sure I've seen something written about who can nominate for deletion, and who can vote on VfD, but I can't actually find the reference to it, if it exists. Anyone? DJ Clayworth 22:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no rule. In practice the sysop who "actions" a VfD day has a degree of latitude with regard to which votes they choose to count as valid (a latitude mitigated by the inevitable recriminations should they be felt to misstep). Obvious sockpuppets tend to be discarded out of hand, and in general most other votes seem to count. An imperfect scheme for an imperfect world. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Finlay. Obvious sock puppets and anonymous votes are not counted. Unsigned votes are almost never counted (unless the admin decides to check the page history and try and find out who it was -- a rare thing, usually not done, I think, unless the vote might tip a page one way or the other). In general, any account that has not edited beyond voting on VFD is ignored (even if it can't be traced as a sock puppet to a particular user) under the reasonable (I think) assumption that it's either a sock puppet we haven't identified, or a banned user wreaking minor havoc. Jwrosenzweig 23:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sort of like the US election system. Votes are muddled by unanswered questions of who can vote, vote counters are selected from among those with interest in outcome of the votes, and final outcome is determined by judges with partisan interests. User:not
I shouldn't have, but I snickered. Feel free to invent a better system for us to use, though; you can propose it on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Yours, Meelar 06:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about anons? DJ Clayworth 21:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I can't recall a time when this issue has come up; there's never been more than one anon vote on a given page, really. Meelar 21:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
(Maybe I should start making all my points at once) I asked because I in fact saw an anon add a VfD notice to an article (though they didn't actually list it on the page). I think they were just messing around, but it strikes me as a good way of creating a little chaos - just add twenty random articles to VfD and we have to go though the whole process for them. As for anons voting, I think we should forbid it. It's just asking for a whole lot of sock puppetry. I suspect that the only reason some people haven't done it is they think anon votes will be ignored. However maybe we should make it explicit. I'll take this to another page. DJ Clayworth 03:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This has been discussed lot at Wikipedia talk:deletion policy. Currently, the policy states "any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith", which implies sockpuppets may not vote. Earlier suggestions that voters must have a certain number of edits did not reach consensus. Angela. 20:56, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

user: namespace

I added a link to wikipedia:user page as a motivation for listing and possible deletion. I think this is largely just bringing policy in line with reality, but objections welcome (there and here). Martin 13:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

moved from wikipedia:deletion policy:
I would like to see deletion become a "null edit proposal" and the contributors notifyied for this process. Also you might make the page with a check box as to public interest when a null proposal has been accepted. Giving passers by a last chance to "keep". Quickwik

Deletion of user subpages - please vote

Please vote at Wikipedia talk:Deletion of user subpages, and apologies to anyone who didn't see the notification of the discussion period which was on The Pump and the VfD talk page but not here. Andrewa 20:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When VfD votes are kept

I have been adding VfD votes to the talk page and then replacing them with links to page history so that no one would confuse it for a current vote and add an entry. An alternate solution I have seen it for the person removing it form VfD to add text such as "Vote complete (date) - no consensus to delete" - Tεxτurε 20:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand the logic of the former approach, but if people want to express their opinions (pro or con) after the artificial five day window, I think they should be able to do so reasonably easily. This helps reduce the "double jeapordy" problem, where the same page or pages end up on VfD multiple times. Martin 13:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Now updated at Wikipedia:deletion process which takes maximum advantage of the practice of a page per discussion. Rossami 23:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

editing Life in Hell

I am a satirical newbie who started a silly Groening history. Was I the first to contrive a definition? Have fun with it--I made it all up (well, most of it). Delete the whole thing? Seriously? Matt himself would have a chuckle or two...

I like Matt's work and found it humorous. It can't remain as an article, however. I have deleted it. - Tεxτurε 17:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Escalating deletion to speedy deletion?

I've seen several cases recently where a cautious person has listed something on VfD, and it seems to be clear from the discussion that it would have been appropriate for speedy deletion.

Could VfD votes include "Speedy delete" as well as "delete" and "keep," with the article being deleted when and if there is a consensus for speedy deletion (rather than waiting five days?) Dpbsmith 22:55, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Is there a rush? Martin 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
When it becomes clear that an article is an obvious troll, speedy deleting it is a way to not feed the trolls. Thue 11:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
The admonition "don't feed the trolls" is to encourage people to ignore trolls, not to encourage them to make special rules deliberately targeting alleged "trolling". Martin 12:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Deleting things on VfD

I've noticed in the past few days some things that were on Votes for Deletion simply getting speedily deleted. While I agree that many of these items should have been listed on speedy deletion instead of VfD, I feel that, once something is on VfD, it is poor form to terminate the debate. If it's truly a bad article, it'll go away within a week anyway - no need to hasten the process and leave a bad taste in people's mouths when a debate is effectively cut off. Snowspinner 19:09, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

This has come up before. See Deletion before all votes are complete. Angela. 19:38, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I'm taking issue with - my issue is that articles that were listed on VfD are getting deleted before five days of debate has elapsed - not the VfD discussions themselves. Once something is listed, the decision should wait five days. Snowspinner 20:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
No, it's the same issue. Just because someone wrongly lists something on VfD does not mean it has to stay there five days. Newcomers can not be expected to understand the full deletion policy or the CSD, so will often list things that have no chance of being deleted, or things that should have gone to wikipedia:speedy deletions. Removing them from VfD because they are candidates from speedy deletion is no more an issue than clearing up any other mistake a newcomer makes. Angela. 22:13, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
If the deletion were to be total, that would be one thing, but many of these are being left to hang around on VfD even after the page is deleted. (I wonder if people are using {{msg:delete}} on the pages instead of {{subst:vfd}} and admins who delete aren't realizing they're on VfD?) Snowspinner 00:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying I should have waited 5 days to delete the bad copy/paste move at The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences? What would that have accomplished? -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
It would have allowed the full five days of debate? That said, there's been a rash of this in the past few days, so don't take it as any comment on you - I'd just rather have doing this be against the rules so we don't start having cases that are questionable. Snowspinner 20:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
My $.02 -- if something qualifies for speedy deletion, then out it should go, no matter if it was mistakenly listed on VfD. older≠wiser 21:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
While I agree that many of the pages that get listed on VfD could be speedily deleted (And I never understand why people go through the lengthier process of listing on VfD when they could use the far faster speedy delete), I think that once the question is raised, cutting it off just leaves a... bad taste in my mouth. Snowspinner 00:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I think that if a page meets one of the 13 criteria set out on Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, it is fair game for speedy deletion. Even if it has been listed on VfD, and people are voting on it. Of course it should also be removed from the VfD page rather than leaving a pointless discussion and a broken link. But I don't see why a page that deserves speedy deletion should get a 5 day stay of execution just because someone listed it inappropriately on VfD. --Stormie 01:40, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Let's not pretend that all of these cases would have generated meaningful discussions. That said, I won't argue against a simple, consistent, and easy to enforce rule against it, in order to avoid questionable cases. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:59, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
I performed one of these. Ordinarily I wouldn't, but the article contained personal information on some kid. I would say that most times it should be against policy UNLESS it could potentially harm someone to have it up for 5 days. Meelar 23:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that in the case of clear and present danger, speedy deletions should be enacted - that or we should have a more broad legal troubles page akin to the copyvio page where the article content could be deleted and a warning could be put in its place. But I can't see that coming into much use, so probably speedy deletion regardless of where it's listed is the best thing int hese limited cases. Snowspinner 00:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
If an article on VfD meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, it should be speedily deleted, unless there is some sort of reasonable opposition to its deletion. A troll that wants to keep all the articles on VfD and the creator of the article would not be considered "reasonable opposition." In most cases, there would not be anyone against deletion, but if there were, the article could stay for the full five days. Guanaco 02:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

We have a problem in which things are on VfD and are being speedily deleted depsite not meeting the criteria. Nobody has time to undo other people's "bending" of the rules. I'd like to propose a stop to this for the moment as there is abuse going on. We have procedures for a reason and not everybody is on all the time... I suggest that if an item is on VfD then it has to stay for a minimum amount of time - and that everybody re-reads the speedy deletion criteria. Thanks. Secretlondon 01:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree that everyone needs to read the speedy deletion rules. Basically, if you can figure out what it's about, it's probably not speedy deletion worthy. As far as your proposal, I'd say it would encourage people to not list things on VfD. The solution is for everyone to be slower on the trigger. Having ANY article for five days won't kill Wikipedia. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I also have reservations. Specifically, case 4 in the speedy delete rules is too vague and is being applied to articles that I believe deserve the full discussion before deletion. As Meelar said, 5 days won't kill Wikipedia. Rossami 23:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleting free hosting stuff

Hello, I've deleted Shaheen Lakhan following vfd discussion. His external web site [1] links back to the resume posted at User:Slakhan -- click on "About Me" or "Research". So this is evidently use of WP as a free hosting service, which WP is not. What happens to stuff which WP is not? I looked at the speedy deletion guidelines -- doesn't appear to be addressed there. Should I just list User:Slakhan on vfd? Have there been similar cases in the past, & if so what happened to them? Thanks for any info & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 02:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It's certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. I doubt it would get consensus for deletion on VfD either. Have you thought about just blanking it or asking the user to remove whatever it is you find inappropriate? Angela. 21:47, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Listing templates for deletion

It is unfeasible to insert the deletion notice in templates still in use because that would show up in the articles and mislead readers. Should we make a new notice, somewhere in the lines of "This template has be listed for deletion..."?

I have received some objections in the past over listing template still in use for deletion. I don't see what's wrong with this practice since it's beats just soliciting comments on the template's talk page (and receiving none) and unilaterally removing a footer or categories box.

I also think that templates should be listed in categories for deletion since the main page is too overburdened. --Jiang 23:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. There must be a more efficient manner in which to handle templates that need deletion; and Jiang's proposal is the best way to go about it.
-JCarriker 01:05, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, User:Sverdrup suggested on my talk page that "...we don't even need to take Templates to VfD, it's just like taking individual facts or paragraphs from articles to VfD. My model would look like: Used banners are kept, unused banners (and all other kind of Template elements) can be deleted without discussion. To remove a banner we should therefore discuss on every talk page where it is included, or on the talk of the relevant wikiproject whether to include a banner or not. When the editorial decicion is made in a consequent way, there doesn't need to be a deletion debate." I'm agreeing with this now. Any comments? --Jiang 04:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about adding the deletion notification to the talk page instead of to the template. I don't think adding it to every article affected by the deletion is going to be practical in many cases. Angela. 16:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Personally I would wish to render templates unused first, and list for deletion as "unused" second. If I can't do the first because I get too many objections and reverts, then the second will never happened. Say I'm going to do this (and why) on template talk first, though. YMMV. Martin 17:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proposed/Evolving Policy for Exceeding 5 Days on VfD

This concerns VfD entries that have been moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old after 5 days on VfD. There have recently been cases where someone cleaning them up (carrying out the deletion, or removing the VfD message and moving the discussion to a long-term page) has had a sense that the discussion instead deserves more time.

At this point there is no basis in stated policy for this step, and at least some of us are unclear what criteria are being used to identify cases perceived as not adequately covered by the 5-day policy.

I am not yet convinced that anything less than a near-decisive fraction of undecideds can justify extension, and concerned that in any case there be stated and agreed-upon grounds (however subjective) for extension.

Toward resolution of these questions, i propose these measures:

  • "Suspension" of pages currently on VfD, that have had their time there extended and not reached completion. Discussion of these pages' deletion or retention would be temporarily out of order; the discussions would get labelled, and the previous participants in those discussions get notified; the label and the notification would note that those interested in those VfD discussions are especially likely to be able to contribute valuably to clarification of what policy on extension we should adopt.
  • Discussion, on this talk page, of whether there should be extensions and if so what situations justify it.
  • Opportunity, once those situations are agreed upon, for anyone judging that a past VfD process probably had its result changed by an extension that would not fit the policy policy arrived at, to request review of that decision.
  • Perhaps some kind of temporary policy for putting some discussions, that begin during this process, into suspension as above.

--Jerzy(t) 06:20, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you are saying. The Heron Programming Language issue has brought this to the forefront and is a useful case study where a VfD became a fiasco. Two points to emerge from this particular case were:
  • Possibility to extend or (optimally) rerun vote in the event of disputes over purity of votes cast (q.v. the allegations of sock puppetry in this case)
  • Possibility to extend or (optimally) rerun the vote in the case of marginal decisions
However, I think that the Heron Programming Language was en soi a fiasco primarily since had policy been adhered to in the first place it would not have been listed under VfD. I say this having read the Deletion Policy very carefully, in particular the criteria under What to list on VfD; in my opinion it falls under none of the categories listed therein. Either this policy needs to be extended or clarified, or we accept that in all cases we should carefully evaluate a VfD under these criteria before submitting it. Sjc 07:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Specifics Moved from VfD Discussion of Heron programming language

As Sjc seems to agree just above, the following, which led to this subsection and the section above it, may be useful to the discussion i seek. --Jerzy(t) 07:35, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

One editor, instead of doing the normal task wrote

Re-listed on vfd due to a deadlocked discussion

I would probably change my vote to delete, if there were a chance to do so.

But traditionally, there has been no such thing as a "deadlocked discussion". The discussion and votes go on for a preset period of time, and if that fails to produce a substantial consensus for deletion, the proposal fails. That period is presently 5 days, and it produced roughly equal sized camps.

(If there has been a change the requirment for substantial consensus, those without the stomach for following the volumninous Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion are entitled to a note like "In accordance with the changes to policy dated [Feb 29, 2007 link to page and section with that change ], this debate is deadlocked and extended.")

I am not participating in what appears to be a lynching contrary to policy, and i await evidence that action based on its outcome should not be treated as vandalism.
--Jerzy(t) 23:17, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

This is very illegitimate and after a cursory study of the wording on Wikipedia:Deletion policy is manifestly contrary to stated policy:
<snip>
Decision Policy
To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, and any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith. At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" has been reached (some would call this a 2/3 majority) to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains. The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted
</snip>
No such consensus was arrived at. There is nothing in the Policy about resuming a vote. We are either going to have policy or we are going to have anarchy. This is such a f***ing waste of time.
I believe also a careful reading of the Policy subsection What to list on VfD would also see this article delisted immediately. Sjc 04:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well then it has been settled, the listing survived the vote. I removed the VfD notice, and tidied up the POV of the article a bit. -- Christopher Diggins 06:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest administrative action to be taken against the person who did not know what to do with a "deadlocked decision" (not gaining the rough consensus to delete) and prolonging this whole discussion on the vfd all over again. 172.196.203.149 09:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt there is much that is going to have any impact on User:Francs2000 who lists the execrable Pam Ayres amongst his list of favourite poets; having to read that is far worse than anything I can think of, since most of her stuff is the nearest thing to Vogon poetry yet produced by h.sapiens. In seriousness, however, the real problem with Wikipedia policy atm is that there is rather a lot of it, and none of it terribly centralised; as an admin I am hard pressed to keep on top of it myself, and no doubt everyone else is in a similar predicament. Sjc 09:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Statement from User:Francs2000 [and responses]

Once listings have been on the WP:VFD page for five days they are moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old where the agreement is that they may stay there until consensus is reached one way or the other but they may be removed from listing at any time. The current practice of myself and other sysops who edit that page is that if an article has not reached consensus one way or another, to leave it there until it has. This is due to the complaints and recriminations that we occasionally get when we remove a page from listing on vfd before consensus has been reached.

Recent practice (not only by myself) has been to re-list certain nominations because rough consensus hasn't been reached. This is because very few people visit the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old page to place votes on the discussions there. Everyone is entitled to do that, but very few people actually do. Therefore recently (and it wasn't me who started doing it) nominations have been re-listed.

I apologise if this contravenes policy, I am merely a volunteer who is acting in what I believe are the best interests of the community.

Just recently my actions have come under fire quite a lot. This is because I am one of only three volunteers who ever make any real effort to clear off old debates from vfd, and other users do get upset when things get deleted/not deleted/merged or whatever. Most of the time I have thick skin and it bounces straight off, however when I start having other users suggesting that I receive "administrative action", "removal of sysop powers", "disciplinary" or even questioning my taste of poetry (seriously) for actions I have taken it leaves me to wonder what on earth I'm hanging around here for when my efforts can be better appreciated elsewhere.

I am not going to be around for the next few days (nothing to do with this debate, I am actually going away with work) and when I return I will decide whether or not I really want to continue to volunteer here. Until then you can leave replies here or on my talk page, but please bear in mind that I won't be around to answer them until Friday 23rd July at the earliest.

-- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you ask me, the original vote was tainted by sockpuppet vandalism. I support the new vote, and still say that the article is deleted. Here's a quick litmus test to see if something is encyclopedic. If the author of the article is the only one gunning for the article, and has time to sit here shouting at the top of his lungs to keep the article... it's probably un-encyclopedic. I agree with Graham's assessment. Articles are frequently re-listed for vfd here. The article should be judged on its merits, not on some bureaucratic loophole. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:35, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. For clarification the re-listing occurred, and I got so upset, because only a week previous to this I had received the same level of recrimination and accusations for not re-listing something for deletion. I think someone else got it right above in that there is so much policy it's hard to stay on top of it. I still believe my actions were perfectly legitimate, and I'm not about to let these criticisms stop me from acting as an admin for this encyclopedia. I am still going away though (as of first thing tomorrow morning!) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To DropDeadGorgias: er Policy is not some bureaucratic loophole, it is policy until it is changed or altered. If you don't like the policy, then you should try and get it changed. I would certainly accept a rubric in the policy which states something to the effect that where the purity of the vote is suspect, then the page may be relisted for deletion; at the moment, no such rubric exists as far as I am aware. Sjc 05:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To Francs2000: don't sweat it; Wikipedia policy is a mess at the moment and we need to address it. Nobody can be right all the time, least of all me. Sjc 05:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End of material moved by Jerzy(t) to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heron programming language

I'm very embarrassed by collegiality-free responses from colleagues who welcomed my questioning of this process. My own assessment of Graham (/Francs2000)'s performance is that is doing a number of tasks that range from thankless to virtually thankless, and that his only shortcoming, if any, would have to be in his balancing between insufficient initiative and insufficient consultation. (I, on the other hand, probably was too quick to insist on more words (explaining in more detail what he was doing and why) that, frankly, probably would have gone in and out lots of pairs of ears, without noticeable effect.)

Perhaps the most important point for me to make is to speak out against legalism, in the sense of expecting a written prescription to be adequate, and expecting the process of improving the written prescriptions to work solely by changing what is written before trying out whether something else will work better. All of the following ideas (each expressed above) are deeply incompatible with WP's (flawed but healthy and vital, and IMO importantly valuable) culture:

  • that any quick, simple answer to the question i raised could be even harmless;
  • that my point settles the VfD status of Heron programming language; and
  • that "administrative action" is called for against the initiator of this worthwhile experiment. (This is the most bizarre of the three; the seriousness of his action's impact is so far below the level that provokes more than one-on-on harsh words that the suggestion -- the demand -- is laughable.)

(And IMO, a personal attack is hard to forgive, and following it with "but seriously" is probably best described as adding insult to injury.)
--Jerzy(t) 21:15, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion?

With the rise of the category system, we have a lot of article series boxes hanging around that are, typically, bloated, ugly, and disruptive. I've got a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes that should sort out usage guidelines for them, and, unless there's objection at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, it'll presumably go into the categories policy shortly. Once this happens, what would people think of creating a page called Templates for Deletion where some of these redundant templates could be cleared out? I'd even volunteer to maintain the damned thing, which would be no treat, since deletion would involve clearing out the {{ tags from all the articles. And, to head off the other objection I forsee, the listing directions would note that, if you want it to be a category (Instead of deleted outright as irrelevent) it should be cleared to category prior to listing.

Thoughts? Snowspinner 20:08, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)


I support splitting templates off from VfD. Different rules apply to the deletion of them so it makes it easier for admins maintaining the page to have them separate. Also, the voting page will probably be of interest to people not interested in the main VfD. Angela. 21:20, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is now up. I'll give it a few days for comments before I link it from the other deletion pages and start letting things get listed on it. Snowspinner 17:51, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring page to help prevent invalid VfD listings

I have no problem with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy layout as far as clarity goes. It lays out the policies in a concise, easy-to-understand format. However, I wish it would use subsections instead of tables. That way, when someone lists a page on VfD incorrectly, we can respond with a polite comment linking directly here to the rule they ignored. Newer Wikipedians incorrectly list articles on VfD all the time. With subsections, more voters would link to the deletion policy, and it would get read more. Example:

I think we should delete Icelandic dancing bears because it's redundant with Notable circus acts in Iceland. —BobNewbie
Bob, thanks for your concern. However, this article really shouldn't be listed here, because this sitation is covered by Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Duplicate information. Please merge the content into one of the articles and redirect the other. —AliceVeteran

If no one objects to this change, I will gladly refactor the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page. Of course I wouldn't act without consensus for something like this. • Benc • 23:09, 14 Aug 2004

I like the idea of being able to link to specific parts of the policy, but I think this might make the page far less readable. How were you planning on creating sections? Are you going to replace the table with something like this? If so, it makes the policy seem even longer than it already is. Angela. 03:21, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
You're right, that is a very hefty list. I hadn't realized it would be so long, so scrap that idea for now. :-( If only there were a wiki tag that worked like the HTML <a name="whatever"></a>. That would work perfectly here. Feature request then, I guess. • Benc • 03:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've just realised you can do this. <div id=foreign name=foreign">Text</div> will let you link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#foreign. Angela. 18:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
A belated thank-you to Angela for coming up with this solution! Thanks also to Rossami, who implemented it. I also created WP:DP/Shortcuts to help document the hidden tags. • Benc • 10:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary Definitions

On a recent VfD discussion thread, there was a lengthy discussion of the appropriate interpretation of this policy as regards to dictionary definitions. The current language in the policy lists pages which "can never be more than a dictionary definition" among those eligible for deletion. I believe that standard should be interpreted fairly strictly and that if an article has potential to be expanded, it should be kept. Many good articles started as mere definitions and stayed that way for a relatively long time until someone came along and expanded them.

In this particular case, the definition was nominated for deletion within minutes of its creation - an act that, however well intended, is perceived as hostile by many new contributors who are not aware of our desired standards or of the five day discussion period. Over the months I've watched VfD, I've lost track of the number who have come to VfD and said that they were just trying to fill out a red link and expressed great confusion and frustration that their good faith attempt to help was met with such hostility.

Several people argued strongly that the current standard is an unworkable policy and that all articles which are mere definitions are deletable unless they are affirmatively expanded within the five day discussion period. If that is to be the new standard, then we must change the plain wording of the current standards. Rossami 20:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current VfD process allows for five days before the article is deleted. It isn't an instantaneous process. If, at the end of the 5 days, the article is nothing but a dictdef, then, it should be deleted, regardless of whether or not it has potential to be increased to something more meaningful. The vote on whether an article should be moved to dictdef or not should be based on what the current content of the page is at the time of the vote. If someone wants to increase the article, and feels that their increase has made it worth keeping, then they should vote accordingly. But voting should not be based on some hypothetical ideal article which, might at some unknown time in the future, be expanded. RickK 23:09, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rick's comments, above. I don't see this as a change in policy since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (part of What Wikipedia is not beings with the statement "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong..." If it is a dicdef, it is deletable. If it gets expanded into something encyclopedic, it isn't. Until that happens, though, it is a dicdef and doesn't belong. IMO, a self-obvious sub-stub is worse than no article. If someone wants to know the definition of a word, they will check a dictionary. If they come here, they are looking for more than a definition. Geogre has phrased it well (the first two paragraphs are germane to this topic). On policy grounds, I believe the policy is clear that dicdefs should be deleted, the "can never be more" wording elsewhere notwithstanding. Maybe that wording needs to be changed. SWAdair | Talk 07:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As for the timing of VfD nominations - these are most often the result of people reviewing either Recent Changes or New Pages. If I "watched" each non-encyclopedic page I would never remember which ones were marked when. There would be no way, short of the tedious check-each-one-each-day method, to know when a watched article had been on the list for a week, a month, however long. Non-encyclopedic articles are brought to VfD soon after creation because that is the only realistic way to make sure they get there. They then have five days to become encyclopedic. If five days pass and no one has chosen to improve it, it probably doesn't belong. Anyone wanting to write an article on that word/topic can write the article without a dicdef placeholder. Of course, the proposed soft redirects (see below) could make the VfD process for dicdefs obsolete. Until it is implemented, though, I see current policy as stating that dicdefs should be deleted. I don't see that as a change in policy. SWAdair | Talk 07:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Policy proposal for dicdefs: soft redirects

In response to Rossami's concerns, I'd like to propose a policy change for dicdefs. This actually isn't my idea — Pcb21 came up with it several weeks ago and wrote Wikipedia:Soft redirect to explain it. Please read over that page and comment about it here. If enough people think it's a good idea, I suppose we should eventually vote on it. (Unless it's unopposed, of course, in which case let's implement it.)

By the way, here's my two cents as to why I like this idea. The use of Template:wi is a much better solution than having to constantly list dicdefs on VfD. No matter how often we delete them, well-meaning newbies are going to constantly create new dicdefs. This is solution isn't overly ugly. Better yet, it's a simple and permanent solution to a problem that will continue to grow as Wikipedia gets more visitors. • Benc • 10:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a very sensible idea. Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 13:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like this as well. It's more user-friendly than our current process because it leaves a "paper trail" so the new user can see where their dicdef went and start to understand why we moved it there. Rossami 15:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I like it. But what do we do with dictdefs that don't have Wiktionary entries? RickK 18:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we could transwiki like normal, then add the tag only after it's done. Unless they're non-notable neologisms, in which case we vfd them like normal (alas). • Benc • 19:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes we should not be using this template willy-nilly. Only if there is a decent "something" at Wiktionary should it be used. If we create that something at Wiktionary ourselves, then that's fine.

I have some reservations. There are two ways of looking at them, practical and theoretical. They are really the same issue.

Practical: Is this just to apply to Wiktionary, or to all sister projects, existing and future? Will it apply, for example, to the 9/11 Memorial Wiki? To the cookbook in Wikitext? Where do we draw the line?

Theoretical: This is essentially reversing the decision that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We may as well have the dicdefs themselves in the article namespace rather than these soft redirects.

Personally, I think that recombining Wiktionary with Wikipedia is a good idea. But it's not one to be taken lightly. If it happened, it would be the first major departure from Jimbo's vision. Andrewa 14:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that cross-links between Wiki-projects are strongly discouraged in the main namespaces because they don't work with mirrors. If you wanted to link to a page in Wiktionary, you should do it through an external link. That would require a different template or creating the link manually. But it wouldn't change anything else in this proposal. Currently, there is no reason why any article shouldn't include external links to pages in other Wiki-projects and I suppose that some of them do (along with external links to useful web pages). Nor does this reverse the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary definition of something like Democracy would be quite different from an encyclopedia article on Democracy. Both should exist, but should exist separately. Encyclopedia articles often quite rightly include the substance of a dictionary definition but should contain more than that. A dictionary and an encyclopedia have different purposes (though they share some purposes in common). I'm not sure I approve of this proposal, but as proposed it seems it would only apply to dicdef articles that had been erroneously created within Wikipedia. Including soft redirects for every word in Wiktionary not included as an article in Wikipedia would be somehing else altogether. I don't like that idea, but I fear this soft link proposal could be a slippery slope towards it. Jallan 16:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes we need to make clear in the updated policy pages that this type of redirect should only be used for pages that are "borderline".. i.e. they are sufficiently close to be encyclopedic that people are creating links to the word whilst going about their business of writing other articles, but on a closer analysis are better off in wiktionary. Pcb21| Pete 21:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very good points. Template:wi is a band-aid, after all. That's going to be the hardest part of making this policy work. Occasionally, a well-meaning newbie is going to see this template and think: "Hey, why don't I help Wikipedia by creating soft redirects to every word in the Wiktionary?" I think we can make it work, though. The RC patrol will catch any overzealous newbies, and can refer them to the "use this template only for commonly linked words" policy. Also, we could even refer to the policy on the template itself. • Benc • 03:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS - I updated Wikipedia:Soft redirect to clarify the policy as suggested. • Benc • 05:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What of the newbie or troll who creates hundreds of new dicdefs just to see what happens, e.g. articles for The, Hideous, Very and so forth? Arguments sometimes arise as to whether an article is just a dicdef or whether an article is encyclopedic enough to be kept in Wikipedia. I would suppose any of the above words could be the title or a REDIRECT to a very good encyclopedia article, that is one could write on article on very or any word discussing its meanings at different stages of the English language and also its semantics by comparing corresponding meanings and the changes in meaning for correspding words and expressions in other languages. There is probably no word in English for which an encyclopedic article could not be written using historical linguistics and semantics and corresponding uses of similar or different words or phrases in other languages that would result in a discussion that would be inappropriate to a dictionary but very appropriate to an encyclopedia. I've read many such articles on indiviual words and would greatly welcome a group of linguistics who descended on Wikipedia to write lots of articles of that kind. So what is the criteria which allows one word in English to be made into a soft link to Wiktionary and another word to be removed from consideration for such a link? Simply basing it on what dicdefs happen to be incorrectlly created in Wikipedia doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently logical. And I don't think one can logically determine which words are borderline and which words are not. It is the usual meta problem. As long as you consider words only as references to things, then one can at least limit the borderline words to nouns, but when one considers the possiblity of articles about words themselves, than anything is likely to be fodder for an excellent encyclopedia article. The more I look, the more difficulties I see with this proposal. Jallan 01:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Responding to your points one at a time:
  • Any troll that creates hundreds of soft redirects will be treated the same as any other troll: all their edits will be reverted and they will be blocked from editing if they continue.
  • IMHO, it is incorrect to say that every word has a potentially great encyclopedia article. A lengthy article that solely covers the etymology, history of meaning, etc. of a word does not belong in the Wikipedia, but rather the Wiktionary. The Oxford English Dictionary contains all that stuff and more, you know. Encyclopedias are generally not concerned with the word itself, but rather the impact of what the word stands for in human society.
  • I don't think we need to stress ourselves over deciding whether a given dicdef deserves deletion or the {{wi}} tag. Just follow the simple rule: if a newbie creates a dicdef (and it's not a non-notable neologism), always use the tag, because it's very likely a second newbie will make the same mistake. After an extensive length of time we may end up with a fair number of soft redirects — but we will have saved ourselves the effort of constantly deleting and redeleting.
The only real concern I have with this policy is that it doesn't do enough to help educate people on the differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries — in fact, some might see it as an attempt to blur the line between the two (it's not). Fully understanding Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary takes time — time that the average newbie is not likely to spend. Regards, • Benc • 02:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like this proposal. Jallan has a good point about cross-links between Wiki-projects causing problems for mirrors, though. If the process we end up using will work seamlessly with mirrors as well, I think we have a winner. This system would save us a lot of time, reduce the number of listings on VfD and still let us provide users with access to the (non-encyclopedic) information they may be searching for. I would love to see something like this implemented. SWAdair | Talk 07:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please note, my first post here solved the cross-link problem. Just use external links. As to articles on words and linguistics, I have read many articles of a general kind on words and their uses and so forth that are not at all in the same format as a dictionary article would be. Even the Oxford English Dictionary does not give such material in the format one would expect in a general article or as it would be discussed in a linguistic paper though some of the information might be the same. They usually don't discuss why words have changed their meaning. As to how trolls are treated, if indeed it is proper to make links to Wiktionary for some words, why not for every word? Once you have opened the door to that policy, I don't think an RC Patrol will have any authority to shut it, unless you get it defined as vandalism, that creating any page that contains almost nothing but a single link or group of related links to Wiktionary or other wiki project without shown consensus for that page would be vandalism. The rule would be that single-page soft-links of this kind can only be created by VfD or some other list when there is consensus (and could be moved to VfD later if someone didn't like it)? Otherwise what is to stop anyone from creating hundreds of such links from non-trollish motives. Jallan 20:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Special:Shortpages

I'm withdrawing my support for this suggestion (which I proposed in the first place) because of something Angela pointed out on Template talk:wi:

This template makes Special:Shortpages less useful since all articles using this template show up on that list. Angela. 01:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Unless a technical workaround can be found, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Special:Shortpages is a very useful part of Wikipedia. • Benc • 20:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A technical fix for this has been requested at MediaZilla:455. Angela. 21:02, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Policy proposal: Excessive detail from works of published fiction

On the discussion page for votes for deletion on some pages I had created, I mentioned that there was a separate page for each of the rulers of Numenor, which is background material for the Lord of the Rings series. Several others encouraged me to nominate these pages for deletion, but I got to thinking about it. It seems to me that it might be useful to have a policy on detail from works of published fiction. In an encyclopedia, it seems that detail about fictional works (novels, movies, television programs, etc.) should be minimal and should concentrate on their impact on the society or common figures of speech that might originate in them. Otherwise, detail about plots, characters, or trivia should be minimized. Indeed, any information that is little more than a duplication of appendices or supplements to a fictional work (like lists of rulers of Numenor) seems particularly inappropriate. Doubly so when the information is background material that is not explicitly addressed in the work in question. Such a policy would also be a further protection against a level of appropriation from a fictional work that might run into copyright problems. Acsenray 13:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I might agree with you entirely if Wikipedia was intended to be a scholarly work within the field of sociology or similar. However this is not the case. Wikipedia is intended to become the premier target for seekers of information on the Internet. As such, I feel that it is entirely appropriate that background details should be made available to anyone looking for them (subject always to copyright). Wikipedia is not just your encyclopedia, it is everybody's: what if the information you were looking for was removed because someone else decided that it was "not worthy of inclusion"? Where were you thinking that detail about fictional works should be appropriate? This is not to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the incorporation of reams and reams of fannish information, or the appropriation of whole regions of Wikipedia for the construction of what appears to be yet another fan-site. Always remember that you have recourse to NPOV: if an article is excessively sycophantic, balance it out. Don't just jump in and VFD it. --Phil | Talk 14:41, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, such detail has been removed (or is in the process of being removed). Material I myself wanted to reference and put into Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion for lack of notability. -- I was told that election results for local offices in Montgomery County, Ohio, is too fine a level of detail. The arguments you make for keeping detail on fictional works apply exactly to that information. I didn't come up with the idea to VFD it myself. How can such detail be "balanced"? How do you address an NPOV issue when every fictional figure that appears in an appendix written by Tolkein has an entry page? The reams of detail on Tolkein are copied right out of the books. How many encyclopedias include that level of detail on fictional works? Where do I think detail about fictional works is appropriate? In the fictional work itself, of course. Is Wiki's goal to be the premiere fan site for fantasy fiction? Acsenray 15:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see that you're a bit surprised and annoyed at the apparent imbalance here. Why delete local factoids from the real world, but keep fiction factoids? The reason is the relative number of people who would want to access the information. Few people will access local election results; a surprisingly high number of people want to read a lengthy article about Dobby the House Elf in Harry Potter.
As to your election votes being listed on VfD: this is borderline non-notable information. IMHO, it's just barely notable enough to be included. It happens. FWIW, you have my keep vote. • Benc • 16:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Other encyclopedias don't include detailed plot analyses for fiction simply because:
  1. They don't have the resources to hire editors to write them.
  2. They're made of paper, and have much stricter space limitations than we do.
We are not limited as strictly on either of these concerns. See the oft-repeated adage, "w:Wiki is not paper". For any article that has the consensus to exist, I see no reason to limit that article's depth so long as there are editors willing to write it. • Benc • 16:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We're not talking simple plot analyses here. Even if such resources were available, would an encyclopedia really go to the level of detail of every character who appeared in a story plus every character who was named in a supplement? Acsenray 16:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the ideal encyclopedia would go to that level of detail. I hate to be pedantic, but encyclopedic means comprehensive. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the flood of stupid fancruft stubs ("Fireball Spitting Pokemon's Hat is a type of hat worn by Pokemons that spits fireballs"). But I have nothing against the existence and depth of single articles covering all that trivia. Prime example: Sexual slang. I'm all for depth, not breadth. • Benc • 16:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Besides, the logistics of enforcing such a policy would be downright impossible without resorting to something akin to Totalitarianism. Mentioning Totalitarianism in any discussion not directly related to it is generally melodrama, but it's really not in this case. Just consider such a system. • Benc • 16:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Did you have any comment on this part of my proposal? -- Indeed, any information that is little more than a duplication of appendices or supplements to a fictional work (like lists of rulers of Numenor) seems particularly inappropriate. Doubly so when the information is background material that is not explicitly addressed in the work in question. Acsenray 16:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's clear that you've put a lot of thought into your suggestion, and I applaud you for helping to keep Wikipedia as clean of fancruft as possible. I'm not so sure about this section either, though. It seems a little vague: would we be disallowing any tidbit of information that came from the appendix? What about two or three tidbits? A quarter of the tidbits? Half? Where do you draw the line, and who enforces it? • Benc • 16:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. Although we have gone into some great detail on a lot of fictional stuff that goes beyond what *I* would consider worth having, it's not worthless to a large number of people. Disclaimer: I wrote List of rulers of Numenor. RickK 18:41, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

One key is notablity. Is the subject widely discussed and referred to. Another is whether the subject invites explanation or further commentary. In an encylopedia one expects to find full information about historical references that would otherwise be obscure and which bring together information from various sources. One wants articles which explain the background against which what most would consider the center of history to have been played. One wants articles on obscure Assyrian kings and German princes of the Rhine, on prominant nineteenth century British civil servants and military officers, along with dates and genealogical information and so forth. One welcomes an article on an obscure German prince that is almost the same length as an article on Julius Caesar because information on Caesar is far more easily available. One should want the same for prominent fictional works. A reader of Austen Tappen Wright's Islandia is more grateful for an encyclopedia article that pulls together the background of Wright's imaginary country than one that just details the story as told which the user who wants more information already knows. Similarly for the Oz books and so forth. Articles that fill in the background for literary works or films are encyclopedic. One wants these tidbits.
I am not however defending their current implementation here. A separate article for each king of Númenor, most of which almost nothing is told, is indeed far less justifiable than a separate article on every obscure Assyrian king or every known German prince of the Rhineland. But one finds this concentration on breadth rather than depth in historical articles also. And generally, in cases where stub articles of that kind come onto VfD, whether fictional or historical, the consensus is to merge the stubs with a main article and change the stub articles to redirects.
But some time ago someone submitted an article on VfD which was a summary of an individual early issue of Spider-man, but not one that was either especially early or especially notable. The vote was to delete. While it would be useful to have somewhere summaries of every comic book and every story magazine and every scholarly journal and every science periodical and every issue of Playboy and so forth, that is currently far too granular for Wikipedia. Similarly it seems to me that the results of some local elections in a particular year is equally too granular for Wikipedia. If there is an unfortunate tendency for too much fictional material to be documented in Wikipedia (too much in respect to balance in the encyclopedia rather than too much in an objective sense) there is also an unfortunate tendency for a large amount of current events to appear in Wikipedia, too much for balance.
If a group of people want to set up a project to include election returns from every country and all divisions within every country of which any record remains, that would be a good thing. A subset project covering only a single country and a particular level of government would be a good thing. Simlarly data on rainfall and temperature in various places over the years is a good thing. But such projects feel to me to be something better organized as databases rather than as text. Within Wikipedia a single article covering a single set of elections in a single place (or the temperature and rainfall for a single place in a single year) doesn't feel right to me in the same way that summarizing a single issue of Spider-man doesn't seem right to me. There is an unnatural abritrariness about it. It is raw data at a level below the encyclopedic level unless you are intending to be complete at that level, to cover every issue of every magazine and every election at every level throughout the world or some reasonable subset of that.
Similarly "fancruft" on television shows and so forth has this same modern current-events artibrariness about it. The balance is wrong.
There should probably be an article on Númenor, with a list of kings, and maybe separate articles on four or five of those kings at most. But if there were no article at all on Númenor, it would be badly unbalanced to have one single article on just one of the obscure kings of Númenor of whom nothing is known save dates, father and heir. Similarly, if there is only one article on electoral results in a particular year in a particular place in Wikipedia, without context to a larger general article or as part of a growing web of such articles, then I don't think it should currently exist in Wikipedia.
Jallan 19:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm against any sort of official rule here. The potential for mass hysteria (or witch hunts) is too high. The more rules there are this sort of thing, the more difficult it is for new editors to start working on Wikipedia.

Some of the Tolkien-related articles that go into excruciating detail are extremely useful and are not available elsewhere. Do they need work? Yes. Are some of them silly? Yes. Are some of them excessively specific? Yes. Should they incorporate information from more than just the Appendices? Yes! (Does information exist from other sources? Yes, definitely!) Those of us who are interested in the subject are working on correcting that. Legislating it is not necessary. We will eventually reach some point where we have the degree of specificity that the community is comfortable with. Right now we don't have it, and we may never have it, but we are working toward it, which I understand is the whole point of Wikipedia.

The same goes for Harry Potter characters and even Pokémon articles. The community is working on them. Yes, a lot of them need work. Yes, a lot of them don't need to be articles. But unless we are about to run out of server space, why get worked up about it?

I haven't studied sociology. I can't always write about the impact on society. I can write about whether Celeborn was Telerin or Sindarin, and there are plenty of people who would like to read what I am writing (maybe they just want to know what's up with the powerful Galadriel's husband in the movies). There are kids who are learning to use Wikipedia and writing about Harry Potter or Pokémon. There are also kids who want to read those articles. I say, let them. They will grow, and learn, just as we all grow, and learn, and eventually Wikipedia will be the better for it. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Like Benc, I'm all for depth, not breadth. I probably come across as a bit of a deletionist, since most of my votes on VFD are "delete!", but really, all I feel truly strongly about is self-promotion. Whilst I personally (despite being a Tolkien fan!) don't care even a little bit that Tar-Telemmaitë's name means "Silver-handed", reflecting his greed for the precious metal mithril, I don't think that someone's effort in putting that in the article should be stomped over by VFD.
However, I do think that people are much, much too hasty to start large numbers of individual articles where they'd be better served creating one large one, which could be broken out at a later date, if it proved necessary. I glanced at a handful of the links from List of rulers of Númenor, and they all had only a sentence or two, after you removed the context, the category and the status box. Looks to me that they could all easily be put into a single article, and it would be much clearer and easier to read besides.
Happily, this is something that people can do without seeking the approval of VFD. Be bold! If you're seeing excessive fictional detail, do some merging and redirecting! —Stormie 00:08, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
And I will repeat: If anyone does that, I will revert it immediately. RickK 19:09, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't personally make such a rearrangement to an actively-edited article without discussing it first, but I'm curious to know why you think 25 one-paragraph articles and a list of links are better than a single 25-paragraph article? —Stormie 21:03, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Because they're easier to search for, because they're more than one-paragraph articles (even the briefest is more than one paragraph), because the way it's set up is more elegant, because there have been large numbers of editors working on these ... how much more do you want? RickK 21:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
(moving this conversation to User talk:RickK#List of rulers of Númenor) —Stormie 00:10, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Trivia

Davodd was bold and added the following line to the table of "Problems that don't require deletion". However, as evidenced by some of the current discussions on VfD and even some of the discussion thread immediately above, this is still a hotly debated topic. I believe it should be much more thoroughly discussed here before adding it to the policy page. Rossami 21:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article content is trivial Encyclopedias specialize in trivial facts: Wiki is not paper  
  • Yes, I jumped the gun. But I really think editor personal taste and POV on what is or is not "notable enough" is interfering with Wikipedia's goal of being the premiere internet knowledge base. For instance, why is trivia like Alan Pardew or IBM 1712 acceptible while Brookfield High School (Ottawa) may not be? All three are trivial and have limited potential audiences. Upon reading the WikiMedia guidelines and policies, most point to: if it's accurrate and verifiable, can be useful to someone and not original research, then it probably deserves a page. It is troubling to me that VfD is in danger of turning into a popularity contest rather than doing what it's intent is: weeding out patent rubbish or non-encyclopedic topics. - Davodd 15:51, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)


VfD Madness

Check out some VfD discussions: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ACORN and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asheron's Call 2. Now I'm all for letting VfD be as long as it needs to be, so each article gets a fair trial before being deleted or kept, but this is absurd, such VfD discussions should be removed as it comes to light that they are not actually proper, heck one was never even voted for deletion, simply "cleanup" on the vfd page. Such discussions make it harder to sift through the material that actually might deserve deletion, and make accurate votes. Is there a policy to remove such discussions before they lapse, or should we start thinking of one? —siroχo 18:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that fixed articles can be removed from VfD, but I'm not about to be the one to remove them. anthony (see warning) 18:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should be a condition of listing something on VfD that if there's an immediate consensus to keep and no possibility of the article being deleted, you have to withdraw your nomination rather than have the article pointlessly listed for days on end. This is particularly relevant to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ACORN. I have used this example before, but if someone was to list George W. Bush for deletion it would immediately be taken off. No one would allow the VfD tag to sit on the top of the page for a week, but on more minor articles there is no explicit policy (as far as I know) about removing spurious listings. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of talking about it why doesn't someone just remove it? And then, if you get reverted, then take it here, so we have something specific to talk about. anthony (see warning) 20:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. People really should be a bit bolder! Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hah! In some ways there is a culture of fear on Wikipedia. People are often afraid to take major action, for fear of the nasty response. Those who aren't afraid to take major action are often the inflictors of nastiness. Throw in the whole vandal/troll lot and it's a delightful little mix. But for the fact I regularly abstract myself from the whole thing and indulge in some light reading, editing my favorite topics, etc., I'd get wikistressed in a week and leave! (a regular wikipedian)


I find wikipedia a pretty nice place on the whole. Vandals never bother me, they always lose thier battles because we outnumber them. Trolls are more of a problem - if only we could get our act together and sort out a decent trolling policy- but still they are a bunch of losers who get their kicks out of startinfg trouble. They wouldn't do if they had girlfriends/boyfriends, I'm certainly not going to let them bother me. Inflicters of nastiness? I agree, they can be more of a problem. But there really aren't that many around. Most people here are very nice (group hug anyone?). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I object to this unwarrented attack against those of us who do not have girlfriends/boyfriends... ;-) Sometimes, it really doesn't seem worth it to be bold when you know that someone else is just going to turn around 2 seconds later and revert, owing to some obscure POV that he or she (and possibly 2 or 3 other people in the whole world) believe in. I haven't found a culture of fear here, but I do find a fertile battleground for the extremely marginalized to wage whatever wars they are obsessed with. AdmN 00:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(I really don't know if if I should be responding to a bloke who has shown me a picture of his longfellow and has publicly stated that "[he wants to] examine [my] Hilbert space with his unitary operator. But I suppose it's ok since he did offer to buy me Carbonara)Anyway on to my reply. Yes being bold does mean you sometimes get reverted - but in general I've found it rarely happens to me. Yes there are POV pushers, but they are very much in the minority. (Of course it doesn't always seem like that because POV pushers tend to be loud). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, folks, you guys are really acting out of line. I am dead set against people using VfD to make a point, and that includes Anthony's serial "keep" votes as well as people who list each others' user pages as well as people walking their political demons. All of this is abuse. However, we have the community. The ACORN vote was 100% keep, so what was the harm of its being listed? Leave it there for 5 days. It was going to be kept, and the whole of the vote would have gone in the discussion page -- making it instantly a quick removal in the future, if anyone nominated it again. We don't need to do the trollish thing and start removing VfD pages that we think shouldn't be there. If the community is voting "keep," that stupid VfD tag will do no harm for five days. It's just 5 days, folks. Yes, you can ask for early removal. But let's do this by the rules. You'll notice, btw, that I voted to keep the ACORN article & even accused the nominator of making a point, but that doesn't mean we should break the page to settle the score. Doing that is fully as bad as a hostile admin doing a speedy delete on a page he or she doesn't like. Geogre 02:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point on ACORN is that there was never a vote to delete! Not even the nominator did, he just wanted cleanup. That is abuse of the system, and makes VfD a tougher place to work in. I understand your desire to allow the policy to work itself through, and agree that no valid discussion should be removed early but as i'm sure you know, VfD has grown in leaps and bounds alongside Wikipedia, and we have to have some protection against people abusing VfD to suggest cleanup of articles. —siroχo 04:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Back before VfD got all legalistic, I used to routinely remove entries where the article had been fixed and there was no longer any reason for deletion. So did everyone else. I don't see why it is "trollish". VFD currently generates 674 KB of HTML, which takes quite some time to load on my 56 KB modem. I agree with all your other points about using VFD for stunts. Perhaps it would be useful to bring back the concept of moving long discussions off the main page, just leaving a pointer. -- Tim Starling 04:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. What's more I disaprove of all the legalistic nonsense. I didn't remove the listings to "settle a score" and I doubt very much that the original listers were deleberately "abusing VfD" .I mistake was made, which I corrected. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, y'all will notice that on the VfD page itself I said that the nominator could remove the tag, but it's not me who's legalistic. VfD has already been used as proof of "troll" charges. That means that we've got to follow the rules to the letter. Again, I would like it if it were as Tim describes it. (Kurt, btw, didn't make a mistake. He said he did the listing because he had heard that VfD is where real Clean Up takes place.) Anyway, I just think that it's worth having a request, in the votes, for an admin to make an early removal. If there are no delete votes at all, I agree with an admin (Theresa, Siroxo, me, any one of the 200+ of us), making the removal, but I don't want to see VfD dragged into yet another RfC. That's why I'm acting legalistic: it has been made evidence, so now it needs to have some kind of regulation. Geogre 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, btw, I want to propose a different category of delete, too. I'm working on a proposal now for a kind of "Nonsense, but not speedy delete" that is handled differently, with a default to keep. If we have a managed removal from VfD, we should also have a managed removal of articles. (See my talk page for the ongoing discussion of the "manage delete" proposal that is almost ready for prime time and namespace.) Geogre 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A practical suggestion

Sometimes, the consensus to keep an article is clear because:

  1. 24 hours have passed after the article was improperly listed, and there are at least 2-3 keep votes with no delete votes; or
  2. 24 hours have passed after a major rewrite that makes the listing invalid, with no further delete votes.

VfD discussions about these articles are relatively short, but they still clutter up the main page, resulting in ridiculous download times for modem users. Instead of summarily removing the discussion from VfD (which will raise eyebrows), wait 24 hours, then replace:

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName}}

with:

''After 24 hours, the unanimous consensus is to '''keep''' this article, though you are welcome to read and contribute to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName|discussion]].''

This will prevent the contents of the discussion from being displayed on the main VfD page while leaving the discussion quickly available. If the consensus changes (i.e., someone votes delete), then this can be instantly reverted to re-include the discussion back on the main VfD page. To prevent ridiculuous revert wars, if the discussion is re-included for any reason, then don't un-include it a second time. • Benc • 04:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that still leaves the vfd note on the page itself which is bad. Honestly what's wrong with raising a few eyebrows now and then? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with raising a few eyebrows, actually... it's when they're lowered that things go wrong. ;-) Seriously, I suppose you could remove the {{vfd}} tag from the page for obvious incorrect listings without arising anyone's ire. But, like Geogre, I don't recommend the unilateral complete removal of entries from WP:VFD. Just un-include them like I suggested above, keeping a link to the discussion. Keep at least some of the paper trail in place. It'll go away in a few days. • Benc • 07:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems sensible. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. The VfD tag should be on all and only those pages actually listed on VfD.
If the first few votes are to keep, IMO the person who listed the article should seriously consider closing the discussion and delisting it. An article should only be delisted early if all the votes are to keep. If anyone says delete, it should stay the full five days. Essentially, in delisting, the person who listed the article is changing their vote in the face of consensus against them. Such moves should be applauded and encouraged.
An article should never be deleted early unless it is a candidate for speedy deletion, and even then I preach caution. Andrewa 10:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find I must retract the last two paragraphs. They are contrary to policy, which allows early removal in some of these cases, and on reflection that's a good thing. See below. Andrewa 17:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like Benc's suggestion, but I agree that the tag does no actual harm for 5 days. If folks are being lax about removing tags at the end of 5 days, we need to be shaken and throttled for it. But I really don't see what the tag does that's so evil for such a short time. At any rate, what's going on is the the nominators really need to close discussion early. I know that I've done it several times. When a nomination is made for hobbyhorse riding, that's when we get trouble. Like I said, we're in a mess with VfD because of the way it's being used, since it's being abused, the obligation is for us to be more regular and legal than otherwise. I don't want trollish nominations or trollfeeding removals. I do, by the way, have a specific example in mind, where an admin took an article with 33 delete and 13 (or 8, depending on sock votes) keeps and unilaterally decided it should be kept, as that admin had voted to keep. There is no way to argue with that admin if we establish practice. Geogre 13:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how removing a ridiculous nomination feeds the trolls. As for an admin not deleting an article - I don't think that has anything to do with early removal of ridiculous votes. Remember that the only nominations that we are talking about are those who should never have been listed in the first place. Also remember that this is a wiki, and so a dodgy early removal can easily be put back. We should be flexible and use common sense. (Anyway I'm pretty convinced that being legalistic encorages trolling, as they think of ways of causing trouble but without actually breaking the letter of the rule) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Theresa, I think things have gotten legal in response to VfD being used as evidence in prosecution. All I'm saying is that someone who believes that a nomination is absurd -- other than the article author -- should ask for consensus on removal. Let 24 hours go by, and then an admin can do the removal, with copying of decision into the discussion tab. If we do that, I think we'll be ok. What I'm worried about is folks acting without notice. I agree with you far more than you might suspect, but I'm worried about, well, I won't say who, people who will use the whole thing as proof of the caballa or proof that they're being persecuted or proof that someone is a troll, etc. Geogre 16:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem to be a common scold, but what I objected to was invisible and silent removals. That is bad. Just announce it, folks. Geogre 16:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That IMO makes a lot of sense. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Am I correct in thinking that no one here objects to the original nominator removing a vfd candidate early if voting suggest that there is another way of dealing with it or if there is clearly no consensus to delete? (We could add this to the policy if we have consensus) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that, although it's a lot bolder than what I suggested above, and I have a confession to make: I now see that is already policy! See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Unlisting a page from VfD.
So it is! (I really should have read the policy first before trying to gather support to add in what's already there) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Although I take (and agree with) your point about legalism above, I think that we should also develop the policy to make VfD more concise, and to move the rhetoric elsewhere. I think this is already the intention of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a nomination for deletion. But it's not explicit and IMO should be.
What concerns me most about these long debates is their tone. In particular it concerns me that some of our more active admins on VfD seem a little short on wikilove. While adminship is no big deal, I think it's reasonable to expect admins to set a good example, and in fact personally I don't think Wikipedia can survive if this trend keeps up. If that's true we'll need to address it someday, and asap is my advice. Andrewa 16:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course, Theresa. That's what I was aiming at. All I want is that we make it known that we're removing a page, that the VfD goes into the talk page (to prevent a future debate, if nothing else), that it be done by an admin, and, I hope, the time frame be 48 hours instead of 24. In the past, admins removing nominations have been done only in truly outrageous cases (VfD'ing the main page, or Richard Nixon or something like that). Geogre 16:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in policy that says you need to be an admin to remove a listing from VfD if the article is to be kept. And there's certainly no technical reason you need to be one. You do need to be a signed in user IMO, but that's all. Andrewa 17:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know, but I do want it to be as regular as possible, so I'm actually asking for a change by desseutude (rather than a de jure change). If we agree, by practice, to look for an admin to do it, we can at least be sure to have someone to blame or encourage. I don't want to open the lid on policy, just asking that we, by practice, try to leave it to administrators -- the ranks of which grow every day. Geogre 00:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I really don't think that is necessary. I don't like admins having special authority. The point is, if someone removes an article early without cause, it can easily be reverted. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, crud! Now Netholic is on VfD deciding things for everyone after an hour because he wants quick removals. He points to a discussion going on somewhere else altogether. Let's not make unilateral decisions, please. Geogre 01:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I presume Netholic is doing this because he/she thinks it's appropriate, but please Netholic, what you are doing is way beyond any consensus and very liable to make others insist that it's never OK to do anything before the full five days. -- Jmabel 08:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's much worse than that, Jmabel. I have been asked to open an RfC on Netoholic for what he's doing, and I refuse, but I can't say that others will be as conflict-averse as me. Further note that this is a proposal to do away with VfD, and he's going ahead and acting upon it. I can "propose" that Wikipedia delete all Pokemon and redirect to Games, but I can't imagine acting upon that. (I also don't like the idea of edit wars over reverting redirects or the servers filling up with redirects for every possible deletion candidate. I don't trust myself to determine if some things are deletable, and I sure don't trust anyone else. That's why I trust everyone else in a VfD forum.) Geogre 01:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal - suspension of VfD

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Proposal - suspension of VfD. The proposal is to completely discontinue VfD (except for speedy deletions and copyvios) by encouraging editors to merge and redirect as best as possible. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, don't see red at the extremist suggestion above, and instead join in the discussion with the intent of looking at how to fix VfD, make VfD better, cut down on use of VfD – generally review VfD as it is now. That is my stance (I'm not an anti-VfD person, but the current situation is a mess). zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD maintenance: early un-inclusion

My suggestion above in the "VfD madness" discussion has evolved into Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance. If you haven't done so already, please give this page a look.

I propose changing the "Unlisting a page from VfD" section on Wikipedia:Deletion policy to reference the above page instead of suggesting that editors remove the listing entirely. Un-inclusions are a non-controversial way to accomplish the same thing (pretty much), so why not make it official policy? The suggestions on VfD/Maintenance have been used at least a dozen times on VfD without a single complaint (to my knowledge). • Benc • 06:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've updated Wikipedia:Deletion policy accordingly. • Benc • 09:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VfD template changes

On a completely unrelated note, there's a couple relatively minor things about the VfD template that are bothersome. Please comment on the proposed changes at Template talk:Vfd. Thanks, • Benc • 07:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those changes had no objections either, and were implemented. [2] • Benc • 09:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed new rule: No repeat submission of articles

NOTICE:

Some Wikipedians have questioned the validity of the below poll. Having originally opened the poll, let me say that it was intended to be a vote on whether there be a three-month relist block after an article has "passed" VfD (without getting deleted). This was what was intended from the very start. The confusion over the poll's direction is probably my fault and I would like to apologize for it.

The confusion probably arose because I tried to make it clear in my choice of words below that I decidely would favour a much stricter rule, but intended the 3-month relist ban as a compromise. This diff shows the original wording, which includes the reference to the three-month hiatus. (There is already a vote there because I originally posted this poll in the wrong place and moved it here after Pgunn(Improv) had cast his vote.)

I now declare this poll closed, to avoid further confusion.

Again, I apologize for the confusion, but I submit the following:

  • There is a clear majority for a relist-ban (of some sort). Even without the potential votes of anybody who might have misunderstood that an "eternal ban" was not being intended there still is a clear majority for a (time-limited) ban. Conjecture whether any of the "naysayers" would hypothetically change their vote is thus irrellevant.
  • Most voters support the 3 month ban, while some of the YES-voters are also expressing additional alternative preferences and comments into either direction.
  • Even if some of the yes-voters preferred a longer or slightly shorter ban, this would not likely cause them to vote "no ban at all".

It is my firm belief that the poll demonstrates a community consensus towards a 3-month relisting ban. I would plead all involved that we accept the below results to that end and make the proposed "no relisting on VfD for 3 months" rule official.

I would like to appeal to everybody's common sense here:

While the instructions might have made it easy to misunderstand them, the instructions did state what was intended. At every election/poll, there always are voters who make mistakes and/or misunderstand the instructions. Also, this is a clear 3 to 2 majority. Attempts to invalidate the below poll and hold a new one will just cause extra work. It will not result in a majority for the "no"-voters. At most, it will cause some of the current "no"-voters to vote "yes". Let people who wish to change their vote still do so, but unless a majority (more than actual "yes"-voters) objects to this poll being valid, then let's accept this majority decision, move on and codify the rule.

Thanking you,

Ropers 22:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted by this statement. You held a poll, violating just about every single one of the survey guidelines, and more than 40% of the people voting voted against your proposal. Then, approximately 2 days after you began the poll, you declared it closed, say that it is "valid", say that it shows a consensus in favor of your proposal, and say that barring a majority objection to the validity of the poll it therefore becomes adopted as a rule. Let me just state, for the record, that I disagree. anthony (see warning) 05:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) P.S. don't move this to another section unless you move your comments as well.

I would like to announce that I have asked for help with resolving this issue because while I started this poll, there appears to be an erosion in trust so I feel unable to conclude it. Mark Richards (who happens to be a senior Wikipedian and admin) has indicated that he would be happy to help establishing a consensus and take things from here. Again, my apologies, but I am bowing out of this discussion. I may return to cast my vote in case if there is a further poll. Thanks to Mark for his readiness to take over a difficult task. Ropers 23:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) [3] [4] [5] [6], (etc., etc.)

Thanks Jens, although to be fair, I don't think that I described myself as a 'senior Wikipedian', nor am I confident that a concensus can be reached at this stage - see discussion below. I would like to point out that Jens has put a considerable amount of effort into trying to move this forward, and it is a shame that he feels that trust in his good faith has been erroded. Mark Richards 20:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Original poll follows:

The Gay Nigger Association of America article, while controversial, has already gone through the VfD process (twice if I recall correctly). Consensus was to keep. This is now prompting some contributors who are obviously unable to accept a consensus to list it again and again, in the hope that some day they will get what they want.

I request that repeat submission of articles which have already gone through the VfD process be disallowed and that a rule be made to that effect. At the very least an article that has been agreed to be kept should be disallowed to get listed again within the next three months. Do people agree with this proposal?

Afterthought: The 3 month time limit is part of the proposal because something that seems Really Important today may fade away to obscurity. The time limit allows for a reassessment while preventing the current abuse of the VfD process.

Yes

  1. This is a reasonable policy which makes it easier for people to post controversial data --l0de 06:00, Sep 28, 2004 (CMT)
  2. Within certain time limits this is an excellent idea. Allowing quick successful VfDs tilts the tables in the balance of the Delete factions of any article, which is not good for Wikipedia. You are much more likely to get an article deleted eventually if you just keep hitting the machine over and over every day, waiting to get lucky just once. I am very suspicious of frequen VfDers. DG 21:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ropers 16:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Obviously, it is harassment and creates instability --Pgreenfinch 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Agree, with a time limit. Over time, our standards might change and thus an article can be reconsidered, but I'm against back-to-back resubmission of articles hoping for a better result the next time. —Morven 18:04, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Agree, but only with a time limit of at least a month and at most three months. -Seth Mahoney 18:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  7. I thought this was already policy. I guess it was unofficial. Let's codify. --Golbez 18:24, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Agree, as long as there's a time limit and it's not permanent. — Gwalla | Talk 18:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Agree, on condition that there is a time-period after which it can be re-listed. Preferably, the time-period would increase after each re-listing. For example, the first time an article is listed and kept, it cannot be re-listed for 30 days. The second time it happens, 60 days. The time-period should be capped, though, at something like 180 days. This way, after an article has been listed a number times for deletion, it can only be relisted a couple times a year. That seems fair to me. It would also help if there was a way of automating a note in the VfD listing that the article had been previously listed (and how many times). Chuck 19:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. What else can I say? I heartily agree. GNAA Popeye 19:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Agree, preferably with an increasing time-period after which it can be relisted. -- Dv 20:03, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  12. Agree. I agree with the point of view proposed in the article's talk page saying that repeatedly adding a page to VfD just because it didn't get deleted the first (or second, and looking like a third) time is not an acceptable use of the VfD process, any more than the past sys op harrassment of that article was. Additionally, the article hadn't changed much between the the most recent vfd. If my content made the article vanity or POV, then that should have been reverted, instead of this whole repetitious vfd.Goat-see 20:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Yes, we can't continually have people listing articles they don't like in the hope that people will not be watching one week and they will get deleted. Intrigue 21:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Yes, enough with this filibustering of the VfD process. —siroχo 21:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Yes, with a 6 month time limit. Ich 22:55, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Yes. I must confess I rather like the system proposed by Chuck above. As the point here is to reduce the ability to abuse the system, that seems the ideal way to do it. αγδεε(τ) 23:17, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  17. Agree, preferably with a 6 month limit. More or less is okay. ElBenevolente 23:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. An article should never be relisted for the same reason. If it's notable today, it's notable enough to keep tomorrow. We should not send articles down the memory hole simply because "most people" have forgotten about the topic. I am not opposed to relisting if a new reason has come up and a certain amount of time has passed since the previous listing. Guanaco 00:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. Agree deletion is getting completely out of hand. Stopping people from re-listing the same article as some kind of escalated edit war is just common sense. Mark Richards 06:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. Agree. This is getting silly. I think Chuck proposed a good idea. In addition, would some sort of punishment be in store for those who frequently launch VfD wars for political reasons? --dylain 06:40, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  21. I support limiting repeat Vfd listings to once every three months. Perhaps it would help reduce the page's clutter a bit. --Slowking Man 07:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Agree, though I would prefer only one month's grace. zoney ♣ talk 09:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. I vote yes, but only if it's a time limit involved. --Marco 10:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. With the time imit in place, yes -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Agree -- Darrien 12:01, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
  26. Agree, with a time limit. I think it would also be good to prevent anybody from nominating a page more than once. Modargo 16:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. I agree - there is much too much abuse of VFD. Intrigue 19:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  28. Agree: Articles that were put up for a VFD and kept shouldn't be resubmitted over and over and over by someone with an agenda until it is finally deleted. Luigi30 19:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Agree with time limit. –Andre (talk) 19:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. Agree with a time limit, perhaps 3 months. AdamAtlas 21:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. Agree. The person who re-enters something that has already been kept has the burden of proof for establishing that there is a new basis for reconsideration. Otherwise he is just wasting everybody's time. Eclecticology 11:21, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
  32. Agree but only if there's either a timelimit (three month seem to be enough) or - even better - just blocking a particular person to list the article twice... --Musschrott 14:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A thousand thank yous to User:RedWordSmith for bringing to my attention a most heinous offense. I voted twice in several polls over the past few days. I can only kneel before you, proclaiming ten thousand appologies, and throw myself on the mercy of the Wikipedia, pleading insanity. In my defense, I submit that anyone wanting to subvert the voting process would be careful not to vote twice with their own name. Only an idiot who was unable to keep track of which polls he had voted on already would make such a transparent and shamefull error. I recant. Yours, in contrition, Intrigue 16:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No

  1. I vote nay on this, although I would approve of disallowing any particular person from ever VfDing the same article twice. --Improv 16:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. I disagree completely with this policy. For the last couple of months I have been the one doing the majority of the deleting and in many cases each day I make the final call on whether an article should be kept or deleted. I think it is unconscionable that these decisions will be blocked from being reviewed by others. I interpret rules in ways others disagree with and I also make mistakes by missing or misreading a vote and in other ways, just as anyone clearing out VfD/Old does occasionally. We have Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion to review articles that were improperly deleted, we should have a similar avenue for deleting articles that were incorrectly kept. I do think this process should be better regulated, however. First off while I believe permitting appeals is essential, I also believe that if an article is kept a second time it should not appear on VfD again until a great deal of time has passed, say a year. I would also institute a new rule stating that the same admin who made the final call on an article the first time should not make the decision a second time. - 18:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. No, though I wouldn't object to limiting the time between submissions. RickK 18:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  4. No. Use consensus, not regulation. It would be sufficient to have a softly defined consensus with a shortish time limit. For example, suppose there is a consensus that normally an article should not be relisted within three months. Someone relists an article sooner than for some bad reason. Well, early in the discussion someone would say "According to Wikipedia:Consensus on VfD resubmission, articles should not be relisted within three months." Assuming there really is consensus, one would many followup votes saying " Keep, premature resubmission;" " Keep, premature resubmission." After a few such discussions people would realize that there was no mileage to be had in resubmissions. The reason why I do not want to see a rigidly stated policy is that I think it would open the door to gaming the system. Not being a good system-gamer I can't give particulars, but I have been simply amazed at what a skilled parliamentarian can do. Let me see, if there were no double jeopardy for articles, it would provide an incentive to do things like asking all your Heathcote classmates to create accounts, then deliberately submit Heathcote Elementary School it for VfD onesself at a time of one's choosing, have all your friends vote, and voila! Heathcote is in for life! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh My God! You're right... We'd have... An Article About A School! It would be awful. Now I see why you opose this! Erm, actually, I don't think this is what anyone has in mind, the terrible consequences aside... ;) Intrigue 05:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. No. Just because a page survives once, it becomes immune forever? That's not a good idea. If the first decision was wrong, it must be possible to reopen the case. There should not exist a limit on the number of times a page may be listed. There may, however, be a rule that disallows relisting of pages within a fixed-length time interval (about 1 month long). Eric119 20:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. No. Repeated nominations means there is no "consensus", and some "elections" have bad results that must be rectified by renomination. Immunity from deletion is a very bad idea. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. No. GNAA probably should not have been relisted so soon, if at all, but it is the exception, not the rule, and issues may come up right after a vote completes, or as a vote nearly completes, which require re-examination. - RedWordSmith 21:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. No. A page that survives VfD may be sent to clean up (for example) if it stays in clen up forever, someone may decided enough is enough and relist it. There are other perfectly valid instances in which a re-listing is appropriate. -Vina 22:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. No. Several valid reasons have already been noted for a re-listing (review of the decision made by the deleting/keeping admin in a contentious case; lack of cleanup of a "keep and cleanup" article; gaming the system). I wouldn't object to a required time limit between submissions, but that doesn't seem to be what we're being called to vote on here. —Stormie 23:44, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  10. No - agree with Improv.
  11. No - though I think there should be some time between VfD listings. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. No. Ambi 08:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. No. I agree with Dpbsmith. Anyway, if someone abuses the VfD process, it can be handled as any other abuse is. If Wikipedia's system of good-faith tempered with arbitration isn't sufficient, people should be considering how to better control the whole system of open contributions, instead of adding regulations to attack a symptom. -- WOT 19:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Fight Instruction creep. There are better ways to handle this, like Dpbsmith's suggestion. Hard cases make bad law, and all that. --Michael Snow 19:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. No. Pfff, among other things, it didn't have consensus to keep, it had no consensus whatsoever. ugen64 00:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Any and every deletion should be solely on merit at that time. If a bad article escapes deletion there should be nothing preventing double jeopardy. user:80.255
  17. No. Agree with comments above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:28, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  18. No. - Absolutely not, reasons listed above. Not opposed to a minimum time between nominations though. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. Quoting myself: "While I agree with [the] sentiment, I don't think it should be a strict rule. There are times when it is reasonable to reopen voting on a VfD even when notability doesn't change (this just isn't one of them). [....] As for an example [...] consider the case of where only 2 or 3 people comment on the matter. I could see reopening VfD at that point, but if nothing has changed the old "votes" should be kept. VfD shouldn't set binding precedents, either for deletion or against it. Binding precedents should only be set explicitly, on broad issues, after a long period of discussion and a strong showing of consensus among a large group of Wikipedians." anthony (see warning) 14:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. No. If you think a relisting is unjustified and premature you are free to vote "keep", as many people seem to have done on GNAA. I also think it should have waited longer for relisting, but nothing ought to require it. Cool Hand Luke 15:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. No - It is better to have a "cooldown" period of a month or so per person. If one guy lists it on VFD, and then another guy lists it on vfd, that should be okay. WhisperToMe 22:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Nay - 3 months is too long IMHO. I'd prefer something shorter. Perhaps a month, or 6 weeks. Pellaken 10:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Would this be called the "Gay Nigger Clause" of the Wikipedia bylaws? Ich 01:12, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Whoever is going to tally up this vote is going to have to be careful. Some of the people in the Yes camp want no more nomination of an article after the first VfD doesn't reach consensus to delete, and other people in the "yes" camp want to implement a time frame between VfD nomination. Perhaps the original submitter could modify the category to better reflect these votes? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not voting for either because I don't believe it is as cut and dried as all that. If an article has ben through and consensus is to keep then yes, definitely, stop it from being re-listed. However if consensus is not reached then I think we risk damaging the encyclopedia more by disallowing renomination after a certain period of time. I propose that a third option be added, that an article that has not reached consensus the first time around may be relisted after a certain period of time, then we need to have a discussion as to how long that is. I am certainly not voting for either of the options above. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that allowing relisting only after a certain period of time is what is being voted on here, not a time limit for relisting. -Seth Mahoney 18:45, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • While I like the idea of a courteous delay before relisting an article, I can not vote for it without some clause such as "unless new evidence is presented which was not considered in the prior discussion". We need the ability to correct honest mistakes. Rossami 20:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would say that there is emerging a consensus that immediate renomination of an article is not considered acceptable, that either some time should pass or new evidence presented. Is that an accurate summary? —Morven 21:31, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I can agree with that. Goat-see 21:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Beyond the consideration of new evidence, there is also the consideration for new editors, who may not have had an opportunity to vote on an article posted for VfD that may interest them, previously. Of course, there should be a time frame (3-6 months or so) to allow new members to accumulate. Fire Star 22:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to distinguish between articles where a clear keep consensus was reached, as opposed to articles which were kept because there was no clear consensus? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Yes. The GNAA article was not voted to keep by consensus, it was kept because no consensus could be reached. The misstatement of facts by certain contributors is quite appalling. Mike H 03:16, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd support this if a few caveats were added:
    1. Time limit between listings of 1-3 months.
    2. If within a relatively short time frame (~6 months), prior voting should have either failed to reach consensus either way, or must have been probational "keeps"; in other words, "keep, send to cleanup" failing to result in actual cleanup can and probably should result in a second VfD.
    3. New evidence suggests that the article, or the reasons given for retaining the article, were erroneous, misrepresentative or outright false (if an article survives VfD but is later revealed to be factually incorrect it should be VfD'd again).
    4. Of course, if the actual deletion process was hijacked in some way (for example, if an admin with a vested interest in the page's survival removes the page from VfD and keeps it in spite of consensus to delete), the page should be resubmitted to VfD if not deleted outright.
  • Sean Curtin 01:26, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • I can support with Sean Curtin's clarifications above. I must rebut Guanaco's comment that "If [an article]'s notable today, it's notable enough to keep tomorrow" (affirmative vote 18 above). That may be true for sciences and physical objects but that is a point of view which I strongly disagree with for articles based on the popular culture. One of the tests for whether or not an article is "encyclopedic" is whether or not it will be remembered in 10 years. This is important because it translates to whether or not the critical mass of interested and informed editors still exist to monitor the article and keep it safe from vandalism. An article can survive for notability this year and honestly be non-notable next year. Rossami 14:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A good idea; I assume that use of sockpuppets or other user accounts created for purpose of voting in favour of an article being kept does qualify as "hijacking of the VfD/deleting process". -- Mike Rosoft 19:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that neither of the extreme positions (no renominations ever and renominations whenever) have that much support, and that the broad middle position (some time limit between nominations, with possibly an exception for cases when new information comes to light) has the most support. So either a new, rephrased vote should be held that has those three positions as choices (no renominations ever vs no limits on renominations vs some time limit between nominations), or a vote should be held to iron out just what type of time limit and exceptions should be had (since that general idea looks to have the most support). (By my count, over half of the Yes votes and a third of the No votes expressed support for some sort of time limit). I'd personally suggest something along the lines of "No article listed on VfD that was kept can be relisted until (two or three) months have passed." With various exceptions for new information, lack of consensus on an article that was kept anyway, and so on. Though after a few no-real-consensus-but-keep votes on an article, it shouldn't be relisted either for a while. And some limit on the same person nominating an article more than once or twice. Modargo 16:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks like there is wide support for a time limit between re-listings of the same article. Intrigue 05:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The above poll is invalid.

There are three options being voted on: never relist; minimum time between listings; no limitation on relisting. Thus we have people voting "yes, time limit" and "no, but the time limit is okay". This poll needs to be thrown out and started over because it's hopelessly confused. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New Vote

Enough people have complained about the ambiguity of this vote that I suggest we start over. Please record your name in the table below to show your vote. Please also record the numbers of the exceptions that you consider acceptable. All other comments and qualifiers should be listed below the table. Note: Any vote for the position that it is acceptable to renominate after a short period (for example, one month) will be taken as a vote that is also in favor of each longer period (for example, three and six months). An unqualified vote for "immediately" is a vote to retain the current standard and not to add any new rule. Rossami 14:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed: If an article went through a full VfD discussion and the decision was to keep, the article can be renominated for deletion:
Exceptions:
# The same person may never nominate an article twice
# May renominate early if new evidence is available that was not considered in the prior discussion
# May renominate early if the "keep" votes were provisional (for example, "Keep, send to clean-up" but clean-up did not occur in the time allowed)
# May renominate early if the deletion process was violated
# May not renominate if the prior decision was a clear consensus to keep (as opposed to a "default keep" because consensus was not reached)

Immediately (the current standard) After one month After 3 months
  1. Rossami 2,3,4
 After 6 months Never

Comments:

Another new vote

If you don't like the results of a poll, you can start a new one:

While the old one is still ongoing (the current standard) Immediately After 1 day After 2.5 weeks After completion of a poll on whether or not to start a new poll
  1. anthony (see warning) 14:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 Never

Comments

There are too many damn things to vote on. anthony (see warning) 14:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to me My interpretation is that we're voting on one "thing" and the only question is what period of time to plug in. Nope, I was confused, so I must conclude that it looks confusing to me. I guess we're supposed to be entering a vote on a time period and individually voting on exceptions??? And, by the way, how do the votes on the poll get counted? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Re Anthony's remark. It seems to me that if there are five exceptions, there are 25 = 32 possible sets of exceptions one could be voting on, and the exceptions are meaningful in four of the categories, so one is actually casting a vote for one particular proposal out of 1 + 4 * 32 = 129. How do the votes get counted? I'm not really suggesting this, but one could argue that this is a rigged election for "immediately" because all the immediate votes would go in one box, while all the other votes would be split between 128 different candidates... so "immediately" would like to get the plurality! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fortunately Wikipedia doesn't run on plurality :). My comment wasn't directed only at this poll, though. There are far too many things to vote on on Wikipedia in general. The idea that anyone who comes up with an idea has to start a poll is far too widespread. It's no wonder we have so many articles listed on cleanup. I'm reminded of my high school "Social Studies" classes where I was taught that a "pure democracy" was infeasible because people would spend their whole day voting on things. anthony (see warning) 04:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This new vote looks like an interesting way to get a visual sense of where people's preferences are, in terms of time periods and exceptions. However, it will undoubtedly draw less attention than the original, and gleaning the consensus from this scatterplot-type approach is a bit challenging.

In the end, I still wonder why any time limit on renominations is necessary. When an article is kept after a VfD listing, the outcome of an immediate renomination is quite predictable. The listing will fail, just as an immediate renomination of a failed candidate on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship will also fail. To paraphrase Wikipedia:Banning policy, if the "deletionists" lack the self-control to stay away from renominations for an appropriate length of time, they merely make it all the more certain that the articles they so badly want deleted will, in fact, remain in the encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 16:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sheer volume of items listed for deletion, and the relative tenacity of the deletionists makes it likely that, with persistance, repeatedly listing something will eventually achieve it being deleted just by attrition. People who actually spend some time writing defacto have less time to spend on trying to stem the tide of deletion. Intrigue 17:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could you give a couple of examples of articles which have been inappropriately deleted due to the "relative tenacity of the deletionists"? Or are we trying to deal with a problem that isn't actually a problem? —Stormie 00:02, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Whether or not the articles have been deleted "inappropriately" is a subject of debate, but there are a large number of articles which survived deletion, come back to VfD later, and were deleted. The VfD system is inherently set up to make it difficult for an article to be kept unless it is supported by the majority of regular contributors to VfD (who are a tiny fraction of Wikipedia editors). This is the case because an article can be listed over and over again trying to get support for deletion, but once a small supermajority of voters (sometimes as little as 1 or 2) vote to delete there is no recource but votes for undeletion, where a majority support for undeletion is now required. anthony (see warning) 13:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You will, of course, provide us with examples article which have been listed "over and over again", and then deleted with an "as little as 1 or 2" vote majority? Because I genuinely don't believe that is the case, and suspect that your personal position at the extreme inclusionist end of the Wikipedia philosophy is causing you to exaggerate. —Stormie 22:36, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I never said there was an example of this extreme. I said it was possible. I could provide hundreds of examples of articles which were deleted "inappropriately", but we probably don't agree on what is appropriate. Furthermore, these listings cause a problem even if the article isn't deleted, because they waste our time. anthony (see warning) 13:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All that said, I'm not in favor of this particular proposal as a solution to the problem. I think the real problem is we're making these votes far too fine grained. The same issues come up on VfD over and over and over again. But because there is no consensus on the underlying issue, it comes down to what people happen to be looking at VfD at the moment. At best this wastes everyone's time, and at worst it makes us make the wrong decision. anthony (see warning) 13:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If my proposal for a resorting of the votes won't clear up the question, then figure out some other way. Otherwise, we've all wasted our time. No one can sort out the mess of conflicting opinions in the "Yes/No" listings above. anthony, it's your turn to try. Rossami 20:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although 60% is a clear majority, I don't believe it represents a consensus especially because some of the support comes from GNAA partisans. I therefore suggest that this poll only demonstrates the built-in opposition one will encounter when relising articles. I believe people who support the limit should do as they're doing now—vote to keep relisted articles—rather than try to create additional rules. Cool Hand Luke 23:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Moved the above comment from the actual header down to the comment section here.
Maybe Cool Hand Luke could be convinced to read what Luke says about this?
I recommend the following section: Luke 14, 8 through 11.
Ropers 02:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Simply following your lead for putting your own interpretation of the poll in the header itself (after closing it since it's been open for all of 2 days). Good thing you've moved all comments except your own into this section. Otherwise, it might have appeared biased! Cool Hand Luke 06:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If my proposal for a resorting of the votes won't clear up the question, then figure out some other way. Otherwise, we've all wasted our time. If you're talking about these polls, we've all wasted our time. There's no consensus, and no hope for reaching consensus. It certainly isn't a time to be starting polls. See Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts." "Surveys should not be used for the purposes of 'fact finding.'" anthony (see warning) 04:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read the guidelines for deletion

How about this? Make everyone who lists something on VFD read the guidelines, and stop listing things that don't meet them? That would help! Intrigue 21:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)