Wikipedia talk:Countdown deletion

message: The VfD process works fine just the way it is. This is just another level of interference being created by people who don't want anything deleted.  RickK 23:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks. I disagree, but I do agree there needs to be more justification. Oh, and I do want things deleted. In fact, I want them deleted with less hassle than now. Keep in mind that nobody would be forced to use this, and this would not supplant VfD. If you think VfD works fine, then by all means just use that. I take it your argument is that it would just slow down the deletion process? I've tried to address those concerns, but apparently not well enough. I'll work on it. JRM 23:42, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
One of the benefits of VfD is that it is simple.  An article's nominated.  It's reviewed, edited, voted on.  A consensus is formed, and action is taken.  
This proposal is far too complex.  How are people going to find the articles with this template applied?  Peruse another list, just like VfD, except you can't vote until a week later?  Why make users track an article for a week if they're already sure it needs to go?  If it's a good policy, why restrict it to new articles?  Why make anyone wait to nominate something VfD if they want to?  
There's too much instruction about how, when and why to nominate and vote.  Two deletion processes are enough to keep track of.  --Unfocused 05:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Countdown deletion is unnecessary and harmful

message: The pages says that there is to be no central page (WP:CD is taken...) where articles subject to CD are listed (presumably the "what links here" from the template,  or whatever, will produce a list of the articles facing the chop anyway), but would it be worth using the process adopted by the reorganised Wikipedia:Requested moves: while  is added to the relevant articles' talk pages and all of the discussion occurs there, WP:RM includes a list of links to all of the articles and their talk pages, as a central repository, so it is possible to see all of the articles that are being discussed, rather than having to hop disjointedly from talk page to talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see the suggestions above. We could have a central page for CD that would not necessarily list every article itself, but it would provide the means for doing that. JRM 13:24, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how people are supposed to find an article with a countdown tag on it without a central page. Obviously, the article author and the poster of the message know about it, but everyone else would have to follow the "What links here" list, which doesn't seem very managable or convenient.</br>
Why doesn't the template simply add the article to :Category:Countdown? Then there would be a central repository for everyone to find out what articles are being looked at, without the need for anyone going through the process of listing the page. This would seem to combine the advantages of both systems. — Asbestos | Talk 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A central page for CD 

message: Would some people be interested in a dry run? We could run it here or on a subpage. Perhaps for dry-run reasons we could reduce the time to 2 or 3 days, so that the dry run runs a bit faster than reality so that we get quicker results. We'd need a template something along the lines of "this page is being dry run on Countdown Deletion, please contribute to the discussion there if you have time". :-)
Because it would be a dry run, we would put a "this page would/would not have been deleted by CD if this had not been a dry run", and those messages can be picked up later. This would allow people to either renominate certain pages for CD, or to send them to VFD.
Kim Bruning 15:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry run? 

message: I read the proposal, and it seemed unclear to me.  Are all new articles going to go to CD?  If so, then CD would have even worse of a load than VfD has.  I don't see how CD can be useful.  The WP:CSD doesn't allow speedy deletion of vanity pages, so we'd have vanity pages posted for two weeks instead of five days.  Also, we have quite a few articles on interesting, useful topics, that have only had one editor doing most of the work, but nobody calling for its deletion (see, for example, my article on Nightingale Island.  I had all of the edits on it for more than a month, and nobody called for it to be deleted.).  Clearly, VfD needs to have less of a load, but I would think that expanding CSD would be a better remedy in most cases.  Something like countdown deletion would work for some of the articles on VfD, say, those that require more expansion to assert that they are notable/encyclopedic/etc.  But just putting all new articles through CD would just give us more trouble. --Idont Havaname 20:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal doesn't say all new articles.  It says "To invoke CD, a template () is added to the top of the article page".  If no one thinks that a new page should be deleted, no one will put that template on it.  That aspect is just like VfD - if no one thinks an article should be deleted, no one puts a VfD template onto it, and it doesn't go under VfD process, and it doesn't get deleted. -R. S. Shaw 00:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are all new articles going to go to CD?

message: Maybe we can use the upcoming article rating system to establish an "automatic deletion of poorly rated articles" system.  
Each article could be rated positive, negative, or neutral by each editor.  The valences are summed, and if the article's rating is below negative 2, then it's automatically listed on a "Poorly rated" list on a "Cleanup" page.  If an article stays below negative 10 for 5 consecutive days, then any admin can review the votes and delete immediately.   (Scores and time frame are arbitrary and open for debate; I just picked three numbers.)  
I think some kind of "score reset" facility should be available, too, perhaps by asking an admin after a major edit, or by posting to VfD and surviving it, or a request to the community at large for consensus to do so?  
Any article could still be tagged "speedy delete" or nominated to VfD by anyone at any time.  
Is this worth setting up a project page for this early?  Having a proposed use for the ratings system ready could help guide the programmers.  --Unfocused 05:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible solution in the next version of MediaWiki?