Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 7

message: There are too many requirements which, if allowed to continue, will, for all practical purposes, make it impossible to get a page deleted.
Nothing can be deleted for at least a week after being put on Votes for deletion.  This is too long a time.  What are we to do about nuisance articles being created by banned users who come into the Wikipedia to cause trouble, or those like Michael who keeps coming in and creating articles even though they know that they've been banned?  Do we just let those articles sit around forever?  There are users such as MyRedDice who will vote to keep any and all entries from banned users because he doesn't believe in banning anybody for anything. -- Zoe
:A week is not a long time. There's no restriction on editing articles immediately. If banned users create useful articles (not saying that that's what happening) then there's no need to delete the articles. --The Cunctator
:: To put the above in context, articles created and edited solely by banned users are now on the list of "candidates for speedy deletion" on deletion policy. However, Zoe's comment was part of a wider point about how difficult it is to delete a page on Wikipedia, so I presume that she would generally support reduced lag times, which is why I copied this here. Similarly, the Cunctator's comment that a week is not a long time could probably be read as a general comment.
:: See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Skipping_the_Votes_for_deletion_page for the original discussion, in full context. Martin 11:58, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 May discussion (Cunctator vs Zoe) 

message: Editorial note: someone added a "fast track" header to VfD and 2-3 pages were added there.
I unilaterally removed the fast track section, which was unilaterally added. Of the two possible copyvios proposed for fast-tracking so far, neither is a definate copyvio, and neither will cause any harm in remaining a week before being deleted. This kind of misunderstanding is precisely why we have a policy on not deleting alleged copyvios until a week has passed. The idea of a seperate page for possible copyvios is probably a better approach - I've seen it proposed a fair few times, and no objections, but nobody's implemented it yet. 
On a related note, I think we need to amend deletion policy to include on the list of exceptions: 1) deleting redirects to make way for moves, 2) temporarilly deleting pages to merge page history. I don't think this is at all controversial, but I've been wrong about these things before. Martin 18:11, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 Aug discussion (fast track) 

message: I've now read more of the discussion/edit war from last time, and I take your point. I agree that discussions be moved after 5 days. I additionally propose that pages be deleted after 48 hours if nobody has opposed deletion or if everyone who has opposed it has stated that they've changed their minds. Also that articles be removed from VfD after 48 hours if nobody (other than the original poster) has supported deletion, or if everyone in favour of ditching the article has recommended things like "rewrite", "stubbify" or "redirect". In that case it moves to a one-liner on Pages needing attention. For the sake of accountability sysops probably shouldn't use any of these 48 hour rules on pages they nominated themselves, or across public holidays. -- Onebyone 14:47, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect there would be objectons to 48 hours but I shall wait and see. I strongly oppose the "removed from VfD after 48 hours if nobody has supported deletion" - often articles which are so obviously deletable attract no comments. This doesn't mean no-one supports it. It probably indicates an implied consensus that the article should be deleted. Angela 19:50, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  how about articles which have more than 2 votes of support and no votes to delete?  That seems more the norm.  +sj+ 14:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind. Please note everything I've said above is very out of date. VfD was a different place last October, with articles often left a whole 5 days with no-one voting at all. This doesn't happen anymore, so a 48 hour rule may be more appropriate now than it was back then. Angela. 17:23, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
On the "48 hour nobody-pro" rule, I realise it's a bit controversial. I checked the current page when I wrote the above, and what you describe applies to about 4 or 5 things on it, plus a block of 3 that could be interpreted as not having been commented on. So what my policy would cost is that someone who is aware of it would have to make a single short comment on each of 4 or 5 ( call it 10 if you like) such instances a week. Not a problem, it just requires that if there isn't already a comment on an article and you agree with the request, you have to comment instead of just leaving it. Onebyone 14:36, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: It may be time for a 48 hour exception rule, particularly in cases that have attracted an overwhelming response to Keep. It seems that some may be using VFD to call attention to problems in the article, rather than from a valid reason for deletion (like that's anything new). In extreme cases like VFD:MCOIATIPC, removal from VFD should be an option. -Stevertigo
Agreed.  Something like this:
After 48 hours:  If there are at least 8 votes to Delete, none to Keep, and common sense dictates (to the deleting user) that the article was not created with goodwill (and therefore waiting a week for the article creator to notice the VfD tag and comment is an unnecessary politeness), it can be deleted.  After 48 hours: If there are at least 4 votes to Keep, and none to Delete, save perhaps a minimal comment by the user who listed it on VfD, the listing and VfD notice may be removed.
+sj+ 14:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: This comment was added by anonymous user:62.38.170.165 whose edit pattern is very similar to user:iasson.  Rossami (talk) 00:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 hour exceptions 

message: Lag time concept is meaningless. You had better define a minimum participation for each Vfd poll, in order for the poll to be a legitimate. Imagine two Vfd polls:
The first poll remained active for 5 days and received just one vote for deletion.
The second poll also remained active for the same time, but received 195 votes for deletion.
For God's sake, are those two polls identical? So it is not the lag time that matters, but the statistic values (numbers of votes/time) and (minimum final participation percentage) that turns a Vfd poll legitimate. 
So please remove the lag time directive from the Vfd policy, and introduce the (participation percentage/time period) and the (minimum final participation percentage) directives..
: This comment was added by anonymous user:62.38.170.165 whose edit pattern is very similar to user:iasson.  Rossami (talk) 00:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lag time is meaningless

message: Why does it stay so long... 24.54.208.177 03:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Daniel L. Lurker]]