Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus vs. 2/3rds 

message: Hi folks, I made the four tildes  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)
thread_title:  Tildes 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Deletion policy polls" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undeletion requests 

message: 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)
thread_title:  user: namespace 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of user subpages - please vote

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  When VfD votes are kept 

message: 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)
thread_title:  editing Life in Hell 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there a rush? Martin 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Escalating deletion to speedy deletion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal - suspension of VfD

message: 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)
replies: text: As there have been no objections, I've updated Wikipedia:Deletion policy accordingly. • Benc • 09:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD maintenance: early un-inclusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those changes had no objections either, and were implemented.  • Benc • 09:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD template changes 

message: # This is a reasonable policy which makes it easier for people to post controversial data --l0de 06:00, Sep 28, 2004 (CMT)
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Yes

message: # 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)
thread_title: No

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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
# anthony (see warning) 14:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another new vote

message: 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)
thread_title: Read the guidelines for deletion