Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 28

message: If an article is up for VFD and is validly speedily deleted, either during the debate (usually because the nominator didn't know about speedy deletion) or because the nomination and the speedy coincide, does anyone have any objection to removing the vfd page from this list and deleting it? DJ Clayworth 04:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedying speedy debates

message: I wonder if the problem isn't so much with the way VfD is laid out as with the concept of voting for the deletion of articles. A lot of junk is added to Wikipedia every day. Some of it is deleted speedily by admins, but a lot of it goes to VfD. Yesterday, 12 May, 99 articles were added to VfD (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 May 12). This is ridiculous - far too many of them are obvious candidates for deletion, as a look at the voting results demonstrates. Of those 99, 42 received unanimous votes for deletion. If they are that obviously hopeless, there's no point voting on them.
To alleviate this, I'd suggest three changes:
# The speedy deletion policy should be widened to encompass vanity articles and the items listed under the Articles heading, viz. foreign language articles; articles whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link; and articles which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. Such articles should be speedily deleted for being intrinsically junk; we shouldn't need to vote on them to decide that they are junk. 
# More people need to monitor Special:Newpages to identify junk articles. The deletion log suggests that there aren't many people doing this at present.
# People should be actively discouraged from proposing articles for VfD; if an article is obviously hopeless, put a speedy deletion tag on it instead.
I think we also need to look at more radical ways of cutting down on junk articles getting into the system in the first place. The volume of crap is frankly awful - today alone, over 500 articles have been deleted and an unknown number of others have slipped through the net (and there's still 5 hours to go!). I've noticed, in patrolling Special:Newpages, that the vast majority of junk articles are created by anonymous users. Logged-in users, by contrast, seem to produce relatively few junk articles. The solution is obvious (though controversial, I'll admit) - stop anonymous users from creating new articles. If we did this I would bet that the number of deletions and articles being proposed for deletion would go waaaaaaaaaaaaay down. Perhaps we should try this as a trial measure to see if it makes a difference? -- ChrisO 18:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pattern observed: they get no keep votes. --MarSch 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Barking up the wrong tree?

message: First, let me say that I very much appreciate that VfD has been broken up into successive days. It is much easier to read, and it can become even more so. Just as an old version of an article has the Older Revision|Newer Revision links at the top, each day's VfD page should contain links to the day before and, where applicable, to the day after. This will make it easier to view VfD discussions for several days in turn while keeping the current, and quite preferable, simplified structure. NatusRoma 01:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... that was what Template:Vfd log was created for...  If you like the VFD Bot to add the link automatically, please let me know.  A sample can be seen on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 March 1.  So far, I've been linking per month after the month is up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd like a link to all of the open votes, like the previous seven days for the current day, on each page. It would be easier to click there when following multiple discussions on different days, rather than have to backtrack to the main vfd page and click on the next day. --Dmcdevit 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll work on that.  Please don't add it manually as I have to reprogram the VFD Bot's VFD List script. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be handy to have a template resembling the "Current votes" which could be transcluded on each day's pages. Heavy transclusion cost, but saves the VfD update bot a lot of work. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could put that in the policy discussion transinclusion which already is put on every page.  I rather not have the addition of another transinclusion page on a day-to-day VFD page.  The index is fine, but the way I have the bot programmed now will require for me to tell it to ignore the index so it doesn't show up on the VFD List. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding links to before/after daily pages 

message: For convenience purposes I've created several additional templates for VFD tagging. They are as follows:
*
*
*
*
More will be forthcoming. LevelCheck 23:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that all four of these are listed on TfD, and current voting is strongly in favor of deletion. --Carnildo 06:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verbose VFD Headers

message: Admins! There is an orphaned VfD entry page: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3,4-Methano-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline-3-carboxylic acid. It was listed on May 3 but isn't on the relevant log page (or any other one). The vote seems to be a clear-cut case, but nothing has been done about the article. Wipe 01:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  Even though the page was up for the required time, it wasn't listed properly and may not yet have gotten the visibility it needs to confirm the decision.  I'll re-list it with an explanatory note.  Should be non-controversial but let's give it another few days to be sure.  Rossami (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An orphaned VfD entry

message: Would it be possible to have the VfD bot include the purge link in daily pages, as it used to appear at the top of the VfD page when all was on one page?  --Tabor 21:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purge link 

message: How do you submit a VFd for a category on wikipedia? Such as Category: Scientific neologisms  I can't get it to work! Can someone help?--Deglr6328 17:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD Categories

message: I would like somebody to make a category called "Post-VfD locker" so that people can look through post VfDs for historic interest. --SuperDude 23:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-VfD vote casts