Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Proposals/Votes for Deletion, the next generation

< Wikipedia:Deletion reform

Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, the next generation edit

VFD needs a little help. Deletion votes are for gathering consensus to delete an article, and is not a majority vote. Most articles should be kept, even if they are only sub stubs. Deletion votes should only be used when an article is not worthy of inclusion. If Bill Gates is a stub, expand it. If (insert name of 12 year old that nobody has heard of and gets 0 google hits) is not notable, Nominate it for deletion.

  • Votes should be sorted, similar to RFA, in separated and numbered lists. Votes for anything other then keep and delete will still be lumped together (and treated like comments), to reduce wasted space, as these are usually not needed.
    • In other words, voting must be done in binary logic, Yes/No. For gods sake NO MORE of these: maybe, perhaps, merge, redirect, semi delete, defragment, etc...
      • Votes like move to BJAODN and merge can be placed in the "other votes" section. That's what its for. These are a type of comment.
    • Users have 1 week (listing time) to fix whatever they want to fix/salvage.
  • Nominator should put a delete vote in, with no reason (There reason should be mentioned in the main deletion vote header!). If they don't do this, it should be assumed that they are not participating in the vote. This is a very unusual circumstance, similar to the last time the GNAA was nominated. This ensures the vote count is correct.
    • The nominator must convince us that there is at least some ground for us to even consider the possibility of a delete.
  • If a page survives the deletion request, the discussion and voting should be left on the talk page for future reference, and to prevent people from nominating it for deletion again.
    • Page should not be renominated for a period of time (open to ideas)
  • Article vote should be on articles talk page rather than a redundant template.
    • People who wrote the article should be asked to defend their article since they are supposed to know most. They should explain why the article is notable etc...
    • All deletions will appear in a category, anyway, so there will still be a centralized list automatically generated. Which means I don't have to click here type this copy that to there etc..
  • Establish firm and solid rules for criteria.
  • VfD has no future and usage. Trash it.
    • If something is deletable a quickie delete should do the trick. Which means we have less bureaucracy.
    • Primary problem we have are "fanatics" of any given topic. It only takes 2-8 "fanatics" *cough* GNAA *cough* to cause havoc.
  • (Optional) A community (like arbitration) specialized in this (deletion) process

It is hoped that all of this will reduce idiocy, sockpuppetry, "no consensus" closings, articles which are kept and nominated again, and articles that are wrongly deleted.

Comments edit

  • Problem with the category is that it's not sorted chronologically, making it hard to follow deletions. --SPUI (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree with an arbitration group, however, you'd end up with a group of users clearing up a load of deletion stuff, and not contributing to the project overall, which isn't fair to my mind. Perhaps users could opt into a month's "deletion duty" or somesuch?
  • Rob, I already do way more janitorial work on wikipedia then actual contribution. Most of what i know is already there! :( As far as I see it, it's still contributing to make the Wikipedia better, which is worth doing. I would support a comitte or opting into a time of "deletion duty" though. --Phroziac (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think almost all of these proposals would make the VfD process worse. Point for point: - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Only keep/delete votes allowed: at the moment, people vote e.g. "merge", because that is what they want to happen. Take that possibility away, and their opinion can no longer be heard. Unless, of course, they leave a comment in the comment section, which emans that the admin who closes should take that whole section into account... - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge should be fine in the "other" section, that's most of why i put that there. I'll update the text to show it. :p --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But votes in the "other" section count as comments: not at all. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only Yes/No votes. Merge, assimilate, exterminate and other comments belong to discussion. The merging should be done prior to the vote anyways. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other is sort of a type of comment by the way. --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with the binary approach to votes, because I think the different votes mean different things. "Delete" means that neither the information nor the article name belong on Wikipedia, whereas "redirect" means that the information does not belong but the name does, whereas "merge" means that the information belongs iff it's at another location in conjunction with other information but can not stand on its own or remain where it is, and "keep" means make no changes at all. Equating merge to keep or redirect with keep is a false equation that totally misrepresents people's opinions in an attempt to fix a "problem" that I believe doesn't exist. The Literate Engineer 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its a simple, you have a week before actual vote starts hence enough time to do whatever you want. Meanwhile you can merge/rewrite it. If it is indeed salvagabple people who innitialy want to delete it may go keep. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • To the admin who closes the vote, "redirect" and "merge" do count as "keep", as in: no admin-only action needed. However, they do convey extra information about what the voters want, which is good.
        • Anyhow, if I'm reading Coolcat's comments correctly, he is saying that "merge" should count as a comment, i.e. not as a vote at all. Which is ununderstandable. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merge should not be a vote. votes should be yes/no. Anything else is action that should be attemted prior to vote start. Merge means the material to be deleted should be deleted and presented elsewhere, I do not see a reason why this cant be done prior to a vote. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There should be two votes: 1) Keep/Delete, and 2) What to do next if deleted. Then people can vote "1) Delete, 2) Remove" (meaning just delete the article) or "1) Delete 2) Merge" (meaning, delete this article but add its information to a parent article). Of course, you could just as easily vote "1) Keep 2) Merge" ("keep the article, but if it is deleted, merge it"), or even "1) Keep 2) Remove" (which would mean, "I feel you should keep this article, but if you must delete it, don't try to merge it with anything.") Ravenswood 20:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. There are VfD's where there is a consensus (or nearly so) for merge. Under this rule, everyone will have to vote "keep", and then after the vote is closed, someone will merge & redirect. But because "merge" was not a vote option, there is no consensus for this to point at, and much discussion will ensue. Taking options away from people will not make them happier. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We arent reinventing VfD, just simplifing it. We dont want poorly formated/categorised data to be deleted if there is the slightest chance it will be converted to well formated knowlege. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just rename "Keep" to "Don't delete", and the merge people can vote there. Of course, this proposal starts out by saying that Deletion votes are for gathering consensus to delete an article, and is not a majority vote. If it's really consensus we're after, I don't see what the point is of voting at all. Voting gathers dissention, not consensus. - Unsigned 70.216.78.144 # Only allow "move to bjaodn": of all possible votes, "move to bjaodn" is the most pointless. If you want to streamline the process, this should be the first thing to go. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^ --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • bjaodn is fine. Same procedure form VfD can proceed I dont object to it. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What then if the original author fixes the page after a week? Are previous votes invalidated? If so, should everyone vote again? Say no to bureaucracy! If not, what is the difference with current practice except that you lengthen the VfD period by two days? - 70.216.78.144
  3. 1 week to fix the article: if you mean that voting cannot start until a week after the nomination: our aim should be to make the process shorter; not longer. This proposal means the voters will have to visit the discussion twice: once to comment on the weaknesses of the article; a second time to vote on the deletion. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, voting would start immediately. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A certain period of time should be given to the article prior to vote. 1 week, 15 days thats open to debate. see section above. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! I think 15 days is a little much, i'll vote a week. --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gave arbitrary numbers the comunity should decide. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a bad idea; many articles nominated for deletion are crap and unsalvageable (e.g. vanity, ads, spam etc). These do not need an extra week before voting starts. Radiant_>|< 14:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nominator should put delete vote in: why make the exception (nominator doesn't want the article deleted) the default? - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it screws up the vote numbers if they are lazy and don't. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote should nont be rushed. Nominator can change views. The point of this process is to try to improve the article. If its beyond repair a delete is then voted. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No immediate renominations: Good idea. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say no renominations for a mounth. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really support renominations, but i think 3 months would be a good number. --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this, what is the VfD requrement to renominate a page? Lets not reinvent calculus before a calculus exam and use that. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there is, but i know it's frowned upon to renominate soon. --Phroziac (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, I believe in making renomination of "no consensus" VFDs mandatory. And for renomination of kept articles, I believe a substantive change to the article's content makes the article eligible for renomination, even if that's no more than 5 minutes after closure. The Literate Engineer 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If opinions are exactly divided, this would mean that an article can be nominated again and again and again. At some point, people should agree to disagree. I would prefer that this happens at the first "no consensus" vote. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voting on article talk pages: if the pages are controversial, this will mean that there is already much discussion on the talk page. If the vote is also on the talk page, it will be harder to find, and it will refer more to the surrounding discussion. I fear this will make it much harder for the closing admin to tally the votes. Voting should be on seperate pages. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article talk subpage maybe? --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Voting and delete discussion should be placed above all discussion. If people on contraversial articles cannot refrain from personal attacks and/or abusive behavior they are violating wikipedia policies and will be dealt accordingly. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. firm and solid rules for criteria: There are rules. The reason there are so many discussions on VfD is that people disagree about how these rules apply to certain articles. You cannot change that by creating more rules: there will always be borderline cases, that will have to discussed individually. (And, by the way, that is partly how these rules are created: not a priori, but during VfD's.) - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably :( --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the US constitution when first declared there were lots of "should"s, they later were ammended to "must"s. I dont want new rules, I just want existing rules to be clarified and not open for interpretation. Wikipedia is not a soap box or a state court. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. every delete should be a speedy: I'm not sure you really meant that? - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, every deletion should not be a speedy. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coolcat, whose idea this was, thinks differently: [1]. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not make comments in my name. Comment on your own, I am capable of agreeing or disagreeing. Every deletation should be speediable. If there is a slim chance a speediable page is slvagable THEN it can be VfDed. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I am proposing a page be deleted it is best to mark it for quickie delete, if reviewing admin (delete committee) sees it necesary to delete no real reason to discuss. Just let people like Tony Sideaway decide. If they think there is room for discussion page should be deleted at once. This is neccesary against people with misguided energy (GNAA).
  9. deletion community: If you mean a committee, 5 or 6 people who have to decide on every VfD (dozens a day, every day); where are you going to find these people, outside of the "VfD fanatics"? - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll poke Coolcat with a fork on IRC until he responds. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have an arbitration community, certainly it isn't that hard for people to form a Deleteaton committee. Jimbo can appoint or we could think of some other way. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Many of these arguments also apply to the other proposals that are being thrown around at the moment. I'm afraid that wikipedia really needs something like the current VfD process: it's sometimes ugly and unpleasant, but it fulfils a need, and it works, mostly. And when it fails, it's on the most controversial issues. I don't see why another process would work in those cases. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The point of VfD isnt to get an article deleted or save it. It exists to improve wikipedia. In my view and many people out there VfD is over cluttered fails to achieve its primary function. Its a palce where random people throw each other personal attacks. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does "get an article deleted" differ from "improve wikipedia" if the article doesn't belong? The Literate Engineer 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. How to criticise. There are two types of criticism, usefull and useless. Useless: "Aw this articke SUX. delete!", Usefull: "How about we reword first paragraph like so and perhaps reoranise the page? ". After lots of usefull discussion, I do not believe a delete will be necesarty as the article will be improved beyond recognition. {{nonsense}} will still be {{nonsense}} and get deleted pronto. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "Aw this articke SUX. delete!" useless? It shows that the voter thinks the article is totally inappropriate for wikipedia, and that wikipedia would be improved if it were to be removed. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it has no details. You need to have a good reason to not want a page. It also prooves you havent bothered to read the page. If you are refering to {{nonsense}} pages those are/should be deleted without voting --Cool Cat My Talk 12:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

13. I'm in favour of retaining VfD, of course with a modification. One of the crucial problems raised in IRC the other day is that the criteria for deletion is not enforced strictly enough: And these are:

  • Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)
  • Original research (including the coining of neologisms)
  • Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases.
  • Vanity page
  • Advertising or other spam
  • Hoax
  • Completely idiosyncratic non-topic.

If any pages fall into this category, there are valid ground for deletion. However, too many pages outside of these end up on Vfd. There needs to be a reminder that stern consideration must be practiced before slapping a Vfdtag on it. The system would be smoother that way. A lot of the ideas on here sound promising (Enforcing the guidelines is the most fundamental one)--Knucmo2 10:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/delete only. Anything else should be marked or counted as a keep and should be put in comments. Consensus for deletion should be strict 2/3 + 1 majority with a minimum number of total votes or votes for deletion, otherwise it is a keep. That way, administrators do not use their own biased discretion to determine what is and is not a consensus.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Proposals/Votes_for_Deletion,_the_next_generation&oldid=1138428365"