Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

If you need a page deleted, add the Category:Delete tag to it, and present your reasons for wanting it removed on the article's discussion page. (See Wikipedia:DPL deletion for a proposed implementation of this.)

This policy is intended to replace Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

SPECIAL REQUEST: The term "Requests for deletion" is used by Wiktionary for its deletion process; it was chosen to avoid any confusion with Wikipedia's process. If you are going to give a new name to the procedure please choose something else. Eclecticology 01:00:10, 2005-08-02 (UTC) (Speaking as Wiktionary Admin)
But it's the best name :-). Why can't we both use it? Pcb21| Pete 10:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for Deletion? (WP:NFD)? (not that I like the idea, but it's a better name, with no similar wikipedia acronyms I can think of) Proto t c 15:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD), so as to parallel TFD, RFD, and CFD. ~~ N (t/c) 19:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes edit

  • Clarification: I don't necessarily agree with the above suggestion. I do think VFD is so broken it should just be taken out and shot. What to replace it with (there is a need for a deletion mechanism; I've done Special:Newpages patrol, and you don't know horror till you've done newpages patrol on a Sunday evening US time, when it runs 30-50% shoot on sight) is another question, one to be debated - David Gerard 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tally (12/47/4/16) edit

Agree with deleting vfd edit

  1. --malathion talk 21:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do not delete it until there is a solution everyone agrees with. Then VfD it, for the irony. The policy suggested here doesn't get my approval, though. Hedley 22:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Snowspinner 23:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Bryan 00:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC) By all means shut it down immediately - Wikipedia isn't going to suffer greatly if there's a few weeks' backlog of deletable pages accumulated in it. If it turns out there are no better alternatives VfD can be reactivated.[reply]
  5. Jamesday 00:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC) ... but only the central one. :) Who's surprised that running all deletes through one place has scaling problems? One key strength of wikis is everyone working in their own areas and articles. Should be the same for deletion, with each topic area doing the work. That actually scales as the work grows.[reply]
  6. I've wasted too many precious minutes monitoring VfD. I would wholeheartedly support its annihilation. -- Visviva 08:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yeah, it's not the nicest place in the world. Deleting it (and the subsequent undeletion) was also a great example of being bold, ignoring the rules, and also the fact anything can be undone :-). Dan100 (Talk) 20:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. If most VfD end in consensus why can't we just implement a pure wiki solution? VfD by far beats out POV pushers and trolls as the worst part of wikipedia. --metta, The Sunborn 23:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. VfD is the most broken thing on Wikipedia and takes too much time, creates way too much backlog. Delete. Though I agree there needs to be a very clear consensus before we do something too rash and work out the contingency plan. =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Reforming VfD is hard because there are so many opinions. Deleting the thing is an excellent stunt to get a proper debate going that will lead to a legitimate (and long overdue) reform. Pcb21| Pete 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oooh, yes! Let's disrupt Wikipedia to make a point! That'll surely lead to credibility and legitimate reform! -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Ever tried reforming VfD? If there were ever a special case, that it is and so IAR applies. Btw WP:POINT is a horrible mess of a page. Perhaps you could refactor it so it is clear what is an acceptable way of bringing about change and what isn't. Pcb21| Pete 16:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Get rid of it as soon as possible. Give the delitionists a delitopedia and they can play around there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Delete --67.182.157.6 20:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Delete -- I proposed putting the vote for deletion tag on VFD and was called a vandal by deletionists. The VFD process is broken. dml 23:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 66.213.119.98 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the deletion of VfD edit

  1. Come up with a workable solution first. Placing 150 articles a day into a single category isn't workable. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you missed my suggestion that the "delete" category could have sub-categories? Uncle Ed 01:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think this poll is premature. We can hardly delete VfD until we have a better system to replace it with. (Well we can, but that doesn't mean we should.) --Canderson7 22:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I can't see this solving the problems with VFD. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The proposed solution will not list articles chronologically, and will make it hard to follow proposed deletions. --SPUI (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't see a major problem with VFD, and RFD is a terrible name, because it can't be shortened to WP:RFD. WP:RFAr and WP:RFA are already too confusing. --Phroziac (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If it's broken, fix it. No matter how broken it may be, there needs to be some system in place for deletion of junk articles while whatever new proposals there are begin to take shape. Not everything that needs to be deleted is covered by CSD. android79 00:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Some revisions to the VfD process may be needed, but the proposed solution is not workable, and the present system should IMO say in place until there is consensus on a new workable system to repalce it, or on revisions to improve it. DES (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Now the VFDs are concentrated in small number of (long) pages of deletion candidates (yes, I know that VFDs are effectively subpages, but they are collected in couple of pages). If we spread all the comments of possible deletion to talk pages and the like, that means dozens and dozens of pages that concern deletion candidates. I think that would be very disruptive and divert attention, working for the benefit of any dubious contribution. And the longer the page keeps up, the more WP mirrors will absorb it. - Skysmith 07:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As per Canderson7. Also, sub-categories don't provide enough information about why things are being deleted ("non-notable people" includes both aspiring garage bands and state senators). Meelar (talk) 14:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Strongly disagree with deleting it. VfD is useful. DS 16:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree with most of the above; especially Skysmith. Eugene van der Pijll 16:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. VfD is only bloated, not actually broken. By far, the vast majority of decisions arrived at through VfD are sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Agree with Starblind and Skysmith. To get rid of VfD, we first need to come up with a replacement that will expedite the deletion of pages that are slightly above CSD criteria. There's tons of articles on VfD that are deleted without opposition and we need to be able to get rid of these easily. Until a proper replacement is developed, VfD must remain..Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The proposed replacement by adding a Category lacks detail on the deletion process. Perhaps there would be automatic deletion within five minutes of each article to which the Category is added. That does not seem desirable to me, and seems unlikely. Clarification needed. (SEWilco 17:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  15. keep Vfd. It works well for marginal pages, and merely suffers from bloat that comes from all of the obviously deletable pages that are nominated. Find a way to expedite the deletion of those, and we've got a winner. Brighterorange 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. As Canderson7 and others, it is unreasonable to remove VFD without discussion and consideration of what should come next. Maybe VFD should be reformed, maybe it should be replaced, maybe a lot of people think it is good enough, but until we truly have an open discussion with problems and alternatives discussed we won't know. Simply deleting VFD is the equivalent of saying it is better to have nothing at all than the system we have now, and I certainly don't agree with that. Dragons flight 19:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Keep the current system until a workable alternative is developed that will actually improve on the current system. This isn't it. What exactly is the new mechanism for determining whether pages that have been nominated for deletion should get deleted? Is there no such mechanism at all, but just automatic deletion of any page with the tag on it? Is there to be a new, select group that does the decision-making for the whole of Wikipedia? Is it left up to magic fairies? This proposal is simply not ready. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I am unclear exactly what we are voting on here. If we are voting whether we agree we should get rid of Vfd, then my answer is, not without more discussion and a better idea what to replace it with. If we are voting on whether we agree with Ed deleting Vfd, with no consensus and little discussion, then my answer is definitely no. Paul August ☎ 21:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose until someone creates a workable alternative that the avarage editor can understand. Sabine's Sunbird 23:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No way. VfD is fine for now. You can't just get rid of it right now. Keep. 69.208.65.186 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my vote (forgot to log in). When counting votes, count it as mine. ral315 00:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  21. This is ludicrous. Like Winston Churchill said of democracy, it's the worst form of coping with bad articles except for all the others. Unless and until an acceptable culling method comes up, maintain. --Calton | Talk 00:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Obviously we don't just remove something that serves a useful purpose (regardless of how poorly) without a carefully thought through solution for what would replace it. Who on earth would do that? -Splash 02:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Vfd shouldn't go away without a suitable replacement. --Mysidia 05:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Keep VfD is a working system, where bad articles are deleted and other are improved or even completely rewritten to conform to Wikipedia standards. Without centralised place for article deletion the quality of articles would suffer a lot.  Grue  11:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong keep - VfD is fine, all it needs is some form of speedy removal from VfD (that actually gets used) if the article has been VfD'd in an attempt to get it improved / to make a point etc. In conjunction with the new criteria for speedy deletion (vanity etc), that should work fine. No need to munge in some ghastly category system all of a sudden. Proto t c 15:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. VfD has a very useful purpose. Oleg Alexandrov 15:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Deleting VfD without a proven, workable alternative in place is sheer idiocy. A category-like solution won't work for the reasons stated. Cleanup, which works on similar principles, is now just a big hole to throw crummy articles in. This would be the same, but with worse articles. -R. fiend 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And did Ed Poor add names to the agree list based on quotes? That doesn't seem right. -R. fiend 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved them to Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#supportive_comments_which_were_made_elsewhere. Fair enough? Uncle Ed 20:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's better. -R. fiend 00:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. VfD has its faults, but let's wait until someone has come up with a workable alternative before we go rushing to vote for its deletion. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. VfD currently works. Perhaps not as well as one might wish, but it works. I haven't seen a suggestion for an alternative system that I would be able to endorse. Ken 00:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  30. We can fix VfD. We have the technology. Gazpacho 01:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. In any case, there's still a need for VfD, at least until a better solution is proposed. --Titoxd 04:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. The problems with VfD could be easily fixed with technical measures to block non-registered users and users with fewer than a certain number of edits from editing the VfD pages, and with a speedy override policy that would encourage admins to quickly remove VfD nominations that are either candidates for speedy deletion or clearly frivolous nominations. Kaibabsquirrel 09:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Uninterested in getting rid of VfD without presentation of a competitive solution. Putting a lower limit on editing Vfd is biting newbies, who are often most likely to create articles for deletion. VFD could do with a good quick addition entry box, like on the reference desk. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. There are some problems with VfD, sure, but it needs amendment, not scrapping. Any attempt to reinvent the wheel will be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. (And changing horses midstream could kindle a snowballing bottleneck which could explode in our faces, or something like that). Categorised deletion, or using the article talk pages, will remove one of the most useful features of VfD - having everything in one place, one one page, for easy skimming. The only real problems at present are people putting up items for deletion to make points (usually quickly spotted, and quickly shouted down), and a small number of sockpuppets, which again are usually quickly spotted and ignored by the vote-talliers. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Primary problem with deletion process appears to be a lack of consensus on what is notable. A secondary issue is lack of consistency from day to day. I don't see this as a solution to either. — RJH 15:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Concur with RJH, the big problem with vfd is not the process, it's a lack of clear understanding of what to delete and what to keep. Example: on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not it states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, yet we have a whole category on slang that is largely definitions of slang terms, which belong in a dictionary. Removing vfd is a song full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. --Outlander 15:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Concus. No matter what proposal we end up with, we will need be best served by a central respository for, "Someone please double-check me: I think this is WP:NOT], and a second/third set of eyes will help." I see submitting something to VfD as a check on personal bias, and reducing resultant edit wars. Robert A West 17:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Keep unless someone comes up with a better solution, it is thoroughly discussed, improved, and finally accepted by community consensus. the wub "?/!" 22:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I would like to see VfD reformed rather than deleted. Reading through the discussion there are some good ideas. Try some middle-ground solutions before doing anything drastic like this.Tobycat 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. VFD is not broken. It currently works--perhaps not as well as it could, but it does work--so I fail to understand the claims that it is "broken." Chuck 18:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  41. keepDejvid 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Keep. VfD has problems, but simply deleting it isn't the answer. Niteowlneils 01:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. This is an attempt to create chaos and thereby force change which otherwise would not happen. Keep Vfd unless someone can find an alternative which still allows users to decide. That is the whole point of this encyclopedia.Sandpiper 08:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Keep. While I do not disagree with removing VfD in principle, it is clear we should agree on a new system before we get rid of the current one. --Grouse 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Rumors of VfDs ineffectiveness have been greatly exagerrated. The process works and generates some healthy disagreement. I wish it was less factional, but eliminating the process won't fix that either. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. VfD has problems, lots and lots and lots of problems, but this is not the answer. CanadianCaesar 02:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Keep per Fernando Rizo and Sandpiper. - Jersyko talk 02:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Keep. The mechanism for deletion is faulty, but I think a remedy could be reached by reinforcing the guidelines for deletion more harshly. Reform is needed however if this cannot be reached. --Knucmo2 21:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No alternative I coúld see at the moment, although I feel friendly towards categorized deletion Lectonar 11:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) changed to invalid vote Lectonar 12:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Keep. There needs to be consensus on a replacement first. Perhaps some suggestion could be tried as an alternate to VfD, instead of an immediate replacement? Of course some consensus on what to try is needed. After that, people vote with their "feet". --EMS | Talk 14:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/other edit

  1. gkhan [1] (yes that is me)
  2. I like this idea, but there's certain situations where I don't think it would work out very well -- such as a controversial article, where a single person's judgement is not enough. I'd be for a partial replacement, using RFD for articles that will likely be deleted, and reserving VFD for requests which might receive serious opposition (but who's to decide?)... I'm not sure, though, I'd like to trial it. I'm not sure I understand what this vote is about: is it whether we agree or disagree with Ed Poor's deletion today, or whether we want it deleted in the future? ✏ OvenFresh² 21:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like the technological idea presented here. I'm sure we can thrash out something with templates and categories which will make the handling of discussions more workable, and the processing of the VFD less effort for an admin, too. However, I don't really see how this will solve any of the problems people have with VFD - certainly, I can't see a single complaint in David Gerard's original mailing list post which would be solved (or made worse, or changed in any way) by this category system. Am I completely dense, or is this proposal completely perpendicular to the original complaint? --Stormie 01:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are two many policies preventing me saying what I want to say, so I'll just say "disagree". Angela. 20:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC) Moved to Invalid vote. Angela. 21:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree for the time being, since I think we should create the new system, should the community agree one is needed, and THEN remove the old one.--Tznkai 21:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
      Side note: Yes. I think VfD is broken and needs serious work. Go ahead and move my vote else where if you think thats the issue at stake.--Tznkai 21:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC) I have invalidated my vote. For my reasons, see my user page.--Tznkai 22:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This was an amusing and entertaining action by Ed, and it certainly acted to unblock the collective sphincter, but turning it into a vote is silly. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I dont see how this vote is going to help in anything. kaal 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is invalid edit

  1. As well as changing the voting options, there was no discussion related to this specific proposal before the vote began. The original option was "Agree with deleting vfd", which Ed was signing people up in support of, and then the wording changed, and Ed signed more people up. Angela. 21:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    I changed it back. Is it okay now, or should I revert to the version before the option's wording was changed, drop the whole thing, or what? I really respect your opinion, Angela. Uncle Ed 21:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    Please read Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Angela. 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, I read it. This is not really a survey, then. I boldly deleted a major page, and I'm asking for feedback of just two types: agree or disagree. The last time I created a project page, it caught on rather nicely - using just the same voting format (see Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log). Uncle Ed 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    In that case, the vote is unclear. Are people voting on whether ever deleting VfD might be ok, or whether your deletion of it (unilaterally and with no agreed alternative) today was OK? If it's about getting feedback for yourself, you may have been better of using the new self-RfC that Snowpinner created. Angela. 22:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I believe that this is a perfect example of a vote that is premature because of an absence of discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that something is wrong with VfD, but I am certain that this is not the way to go about fixing things. The fix should be thought out and planned, not hastily thrown together in a way that has not been fully demonstrated technically yet. Community input is more than necessary. [[smoddy]] 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I completely agree. This is poll is way premature. VfD works passably for now, and a great deal (well, more than a day, certainly) of discussion and planning is required to create a new policy. Again, this poll is premature, and Ed's use of it to justify unilaterally destroying VfD before the alternative even exists is outrageous. Nickptar 02:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is like dropping the bomb and then sheepishly asking, "Did I err?" VfD may be broken or not broken - that's the subject for another discussion, but the way this was done is just plain wrong. I have no idea what this page is supposed to accomplish. If we are to have a discussion as to what's wrong with VfD and how to fix it/nuke it/wrap it up in ribbons and put it under the Christmas tree, then let's have a discussion on that, clearly labelled, with clear parameters and objectives. --khaosworks 03:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  6. I have to agree with Khaosworks on this one. Someone obvious has a bone to pick with the VFD process, but the fact is no one has suggested any better way of handling articles that doesn't either do an end run around the democratic process (no matter how small scale it may be on VFD), or opens the door for people to just arbitrarily delete articles without seeking other options -- including giving people the chance to improve said article. 23skidoo 15:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I will repeat what I said above, I'm unclear what we are voting on. If we are voting on if we agree with Ed's deleting the VfD page with no consensus and little discussion, then it is not premature, if we are voting if we should now delete VfD, then this vote is way too soon. Paul August ☎ 02:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  8. It's unfortuate that there wasn't clarity on what was being voted on, but I agree that there is no clarity for whether this is about Ed's actions or about VfD itself in the votes or in the framing. Sirmob 05:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not a policy nut, but for something as important as the complete removal of a part of our encyclopedia, I'm going to hold fast. In order to delete a page, current Wikipedia policy must be followed. At the present time, except for speedys, that means using WP:VFD. Since that is impossible in the case of a deletion of WP:VFD(you can't do cleanup on the deletion if the cleanup page is already deleted...) you must propose a policy change officially. That would require a massive vote and community discussion. None of that has happened and this vote is not sufficient in place of it. If this was supposed to be the vote I'm describing, someone should have put a note at Talk:Deletion policy and a whole bunch of other places. None of that happened. Therefore, this vote doesn't mean anything. Even my comment that this vote is invalid doesn't mean anything. I just thought I'd make it anyway. Superm401 | Talk 06:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  10. VFD is the only fair way of doing things, and this vote was not nearly publicised enough to make it a valid means of changing such a major policy. Changing the wording of the proposal after people have voted invalidates it anyway Cynical 10:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While I agree that there are fundamental problems with VFD, this should be discussed rather than simply halted outright. Radiant_>|< 12:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Premature voting, discuss first. -- Joolz 18:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Once again, Uncle Ed has made a mockery of the Wikipedia community. And once again, he's gotten away with it. We need VfD, at least until we have something better. —Lifeisunfair 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. We shouldn't be voting at all until a workable replacement has been proposed. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. There's lots of confusion, and this vote/survey/whatever seems premature. Someone got a little too excited — let's slow down a bit. …Markaci 2005-08-4 T 01:39:13 Z
  16. I'm still pretty sure the process isn't broken (and I'm still inclined to take a friendly attitude towards categorized deletion), but this so called vote is invalid due to multiple reasons Lectonar 12:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supportive comments which were made elsewhere edit

  1. David Gerard wrote: its current operation and subcommunity is so pathological and damaging to the Wikipedia community that it should be removed entirely.
  2. Kelly Martin wrote: This has been discussed to death for months already. Getting rid of VFD is so far overdue that it's almost early.
  3. Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote: Well, I never liked it anyway :) It's always seemed to me like an awkard kludge, out of sync with the general wiki process.
  4. Maveric149 wrote: Way to go Ed! /mav runs and hides
  5. William M. Connolley wrote: Wow Ed, impressive! I'm with you, congratulations for boldness. Ignore the carpers...
  6. Guettarda wrote: Missed the fun. Good job Ed! All we really need are Speedy tags and copyvio tags - almost everything else can be solved with a redirect.
  7. Danny wrote: Way to go, Ed!!!
  8. Anthere wrote Action symbolique, mais courageuse ! Bravo petit frère. J'espère que les retombées ne seront pas trop difficiles.

What's wrong with VfD and what to do about it edit

There is no one thing that we can do to fix VfD. I believe that VfD suffers a number of afflictions which must be addressed separately:

  1. In general, there is no agreement on what sort of things we want to delete and what sort of things we want to keep. Debate on general policy on deletion is frequently rehashed when borderline articles are placed on VfD.
  2. Most mainstream Wikipedians who have been around a while are sufficiently fed up with VfD that they do not participate. As a result, most voters at VfD are either new, or are at the extremes of inclusionist or deletionist thinking.
  3. There is a lack of appreciation overall for the fact that most things listed on VfD are borderline and it really doesn't matter much whether they are kept or not. Most, if kept, will be rarely visited and therefore not affect Wikipedia's reputation. Most, if deleted, were unlikely to become brilliant prose, and even with their absence, Wikipedia will remain the broadest collection of articles in the history of the written word.
  4. The project-wide problem with sock puppets is particularly troublesome at VfD.
  5. VfD voters tend to make confusing votes, such as "delete and redirect," "merge and delete," "keep and merge," that by their sheer diversity make it difficult for the closing admin to ascertain exactly what should be done.
  6. There is a lack of discipline in separating votes and discussion, making it difficult for the closing admin to identify the unique votes.
  7. VfD's present structure encourages dealing with non-encyclopedic articles by deletion when this is unnecessary. A third of the articles on VfD could be turned into useful redirects, or in a few cases useful stubs. This is not being done, and is a real loss.

How to fix VfD edit

  1. Come to a community consensus on deletion policy, however difficult that may be. Certain groups of articles already have policy, e.g. WP:MUSIC. Broaden this. For most categories of articles, there should be some fairly clear rules about whether or not the article should be kept. These can be objective, even though no objective measure will reflect the actual merits of any one article. (See #3 above)
    • WP:MUSIC is not policy, it is a guideline. I believe it should be policy, but I know there are many concerns about instruction creep. Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  1. Make VfD be a discussion not of "whether the article should be kept" but rather "whether the article meets the inclusion criteria." Disallow attempts to legislate policy on an article-by-article basis. Disallow votes based on the premise that the policy is wrong.
  2. Use technical measures to deal with socks.
  3. Make it clear that VfD is an up-or-down vote. Actions to be taken at conclusion of the vote (redirect, merge history in the event of deletion, etc) should be addressed on the article's talk page.
  4. Add a discussion section to the vfd2 along with instructions to use it. Disallow discussion in the voting sections.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Add to these, cut obvious articles off at the pass. Reopen discussion on speedy deletion criteria to attempt consensus on such things as garage bands and websites. Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Another two cents edit

Four step fix.

  1. Admins cannot close a deletion debate that they voted in.
  2. Closing deletion debates no longer has any procedure. Period. Too many admins don't do it because of the procedure, so we have the VfD club.
  3. Admins are explicitly told that VfD is ONE OF the tools they should use in deciding if an article should be deleted.
  4. Create a page for admin-only discussion of how to close deletion debates and on whether or not a given closing was the right call. Immediately delete this page as instruction creep.

Snowspinner 23:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Admin-only discussion lacks WikiNature. --FOo 05:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinner would probably like an admin-only Wikipedia. Grace Note 06:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the tongue-in-cheek nature of immediately deleting the admin discussion page did not shine through. Snowspinner 15:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Move articles edit

Deleted articles should not be "deleted", but instead moved to a deleted name space. That way people can salvage what they want. Only truly delete articles that are copyvio etc. VFD will be a lot less controversial then.

Wow! Now here's an original idea!! Uncle Ed 13:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
So basically every worthless vanity article should be kept on Wikipedia for the sake of it? Quite possibly worse than VfD is at the moment! Cynical 10:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you're proposing here is the creation of an "alternate" Wikipedia composed of all the other stuff that got kicked off of the "main" Wikipedia. How long do we keep this stuff around, forever? This could quickly dwarf Wikipedia with thousands of pages of useless crap. --Outlander 16:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic for borderline articles edit

This is an absolutely fantastic idea, especially for borderline articles! Part of the problem with WfD is that the people voting don't really understand what the articles are about, but more importantly what they could become(especially for articles dubbed "not notable"). How many articles have been deleted because in their current state they were garbage? But once they are deleted you need to vote all over again just to improve them. By moving articles to a "deleted" section we show that the encyclopedia community doesn't approve of them now. But if they ever "prove themselves" they could could be voted on again, and the better versions could then be moved back.

This is as opposed to the current "undeletion" page, whose only real function is to make sure that nothing ever gets undeleted.

The "deleted" section could also be a place for people, without community approval, to endlessly hash out radical political ideas, crazy theories, etc. If anything serious ever comes of it - it can be moved back into the community-approved encyclopedia. If not, it remains forever with the rest of the garbage.

There could even be subsections: "Deleted-notability"; "Deleted-accuracy"; "Deleted-original research", etc. Dovi 11:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I envision a house crammed to the ceiling with newspapers, junk mail, and garbage bags, and think of the poor unfortunate who cannot bear to throw a single thing away. After a while, keeping things becomes a pathological act. Does anyone honestly believe that an article that has received a unanimous consensus for deletion should be kept anywhere? Denni☯ 01:36, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Storage Room Required edit

Would movement across namespaces retain edit history? What would happen when an old article of the same name already exists? How would one browse between the various versions gathering dust in the endless warehouse? (SEWilco 03:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Infrastructure exists? edit

m:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal) , IIRC we even already have the code in place for this, ask some developers, we could start using this as early as next week maybe (cross fingers). Kim Bruning 16:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no code for this, it's just a long-standing proposal. Due to schema changes in 1.5, it now should be much easier to implement than it used to be, so maybe someone will want to have a go at it. -- Tim Starling 16:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, simply implementing this in software would be non-controversial. Kim Bruning 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to monitor how such a system would perform? While I like it, it's a radical departure from current procedures and I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. Denni☯ 01:41, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Simplified deletion categories edit

Wikipedia seems to be suddenly filled with proposals for reforming VfD. I hesitate to add one more, as I'm sure something similar must have been proposed somewhere, but here is my idea. This is heavily inclusionist, but with a balancing emphasis on respecting the opinions of longstanding editors. This proposal could theoretically also subsume WP:CSD, but I am not specifically proposing that.

My proposal is:

  • Any editor who feels that a page deserves deletion, may add a "Proposed for deletion" template, and should describe the reason on the article's talk page. This places the article in a corresponding category, and gives instructions on how to proceed.
  • Any editor who disagrees may change the template to "Contested proposal for deletion", and should present the counter-argument on the talk page. This moves the article to a second category. This can be done by the editor who created the article or even an anonymous editor.
  • Any uninvolved, longstanding editor who disagrees with a contested proposal for deletion may remove the template, but must explain why on the talk page. In this context, "longstanding" is a fairly low bar, and might mean something like 3 months and 500 edits when the article was proposed for deletion. Uninvolved means never having made any edit whatsoever to either the article or the talk page.
  • If an article retains either template for a suitable period (say seven days), then it will be deleted by an administrator. To assist with this, we could use the DynamicPageList extension with the addfirstcategorydate parameter.
  • The instructions should make it very clear that simply removing the "Proposed for deletion" template, or removing the "Contested proposal for deletion" template when not qualified are forbidden.
  • The same article should not be reproposed within six months.

Advantages edit

  • No lengthy discussion to evaluate, making it quick and easy to close.
  • Builds consensus rather than giving the appearance of a vote.
  • Deals well with hit-and-run contributors.
  • Almost immune to sockpuppets.

Disadvantages edit

  • Errs on side of inclusion.
  • No archive of discussion.
  • Template can be removed without editting heavily watchlisted page.

Bovlb 06:48:19, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

Comments edit

Please. This should be proposed on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion policy later. However, right now on this page we just have to emphasize that this vote is invalid. Don't get distracted. (comment modified by me. Superm401 | Talk 19:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)) Superm401 | Talk 06:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is a terrible idea: There's no central location where I can access all the deletion debates without clicking on a hundred separate pages. Also, this would result in a maximum of three people having input per page. Honestly, vfd is working well enough--this would be a step backwards. Meelar (talk) 13:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of the the butt-simple option? It uses fewer templates and uses categories to let you see all the pages that are up for deletion. --FOo 16:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more complex than my proposal. What about the idea that voting is a bad thing, and we should be trying to gain consensus instead? Bovlb 04:06:18, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
Meelar, Regarding the three people, it is my understanding that most VfDs close without a "keep" vote from any established editor. This would have the same effect in those cases, but much more efficiently. Maybe you'd prefer that the established editor take it to VfD instead of unlisting it. Plenty of people seem to believe that VfD isn't working, and that having a central location isn't necessarily a good thing, so I won't rehash that here. Bovlb 04:06:18, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
  • People have already started to use the 'Requests for deletion' policy despite the obvious fact that it has no consensual support. That is improper; the proposal requires discussion first. As such, I've proposed Category:Delete for deletion until and unless this proposal has consensus. Radiant_>|< 10:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=1121500113"