Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion/Vote2

message: IMO, in most cases suitable for preliminary deletion consensus on deletion can be reached even with the page author. Many vanities are created not because the contributor is utterly insane, but from lack of knowledge of vanity & auto-biography policy. (assume good faith). In this case any "forced deletion" process is evil, because usualy biting the newbie (yet another completely unnotable highschools student vanity, delete!!). 
The better possibility - "friendly deletion". If we are able to communicate to the author the important part of Wikipedia policy, in many cases even he would agree with deletion. Than, page can be safely speedy-deleted. 
How to do that? A proposal can be found here. I think this can be expanded to other cases and made into recommentadion.
Some objections against preliminary deletion proposal
*It's too fast.
*If we won't communicate with the page author, it will frequently fail on his disagreement. 
*Instruction creep. 
*It's too similar to VfD. Has potential to become as big as VfD & harder to follow, because of higher speed.
--Wikimol 23:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily agree. I feel this worked into the proposal. I don't feel too bad that this vote is obviously going to fail, because I've worked out a lot of ideas about how to write a third draft of the proposal based on opposition from fellow Wikipedians like you. I'm quite at a loss as to what to do to handle concerns about instruction creep/VFD-alikeness and making deletion too easy/trivial, though. On one hand, people don't want one or two people to decide about an article's deletion (i.e. Managed Deletion). On the other, they want it to be simple and non-bureaucratic. You have to have one or the other. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you restrict deletion somehow, or you don't. I'm really surprised there are people who think this proposal is a deletionist conspiracy, because as you can see, a lot of people find it overly restrictive. Must be one of those things like snopes.com (where the site owners have received mail from both conservatives and liberals accusing them of being one or the other). Johnleemk | Talk 10:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other posibilities 

message: What in heaven's name is the reason for this requirement?  This goes well beyond the usual sock-puppet filter, and introduces an artificial wall between "real" Wikipedians and the hoi polloi.  Notably, it also was not part of the first vote.  Why 250 edits?  Why two weeks?  I'm pretty sure I've had this account for that long, but it shouldn't matter.  In particular, the edit count requirement is just silly; on Wikipedia a single edit might be the contribution of a full-length, finished article, embodying a week or more of work.  This provision appears to demonstrate a serious lack of Wikilove, and that leads me to feel even more that the proposers are trying to divorce the Wikipedia from its fundamentally open nature.  -- Visviva 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've only worked on one article, there's a good chance you don't know enough about Wikipedian policies/guidelines. 250 edits is half the requirement for the ratifying of amendments to the arbcom policy, so I think it's quite okay. Two weeks also seems fair to me, especially seeing how there was a similar requirement for the arbcom policy amendment ratification poll, and the voting for new arbitrators requires that a user be here for three months. There is indeed a history of trying to ensure that all voters at least know something about what they're voting to approve/amend, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly restrictive voting requirements? (moved from main page) 

message: Someone who had minimal experience running any kind of vote for any kind of official organization should have maintained and run the vote on this process. It is a complete mess, and this is a damn shame as I think this policy proposal has a lot of merit.
First off, yes, "Question 2 Is A Dumb Question". Question 2 is entirely pointless if Question 1 does not pass.
Secondly, yes, it is completely invalid to presume that votes for amended versions of the policy are also votes for non-amended versions of the policy. That cannot be foreseen, inferred, or presumed. The lack of objectiveness on the part of the proposer (who was also the vote organizer) coupled with his inexperience in voting on amended issues led to this being a complete mess of a vote where people were forced to invent their own voting options (after the voting had already begun, which is invalid.)
Thirdly, clearly the ending time of the vote was indicated without a basic understanding of 24-hour time, or else the person really did intend to run this vote for fourteen and a half days, which I doubt. But SimonP is right. 11:59 UTC was about ten hours ago. The page has stated since the beginning that the voting would close at "11:59 UTC". Not "23:59 UTC" (even "11:59 PM UTC" would have been clear, if technically invalid), which I'm pretty sure is what the vote coordinator actually intended.
Sigh, big sigh. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:59, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
:In my defense, this vote was based on the first vote, which received extensive vetting from those on the mailing list. Two or three users far more experienced than I am (at least one of them is, as of this writing, an arbitrator-elect) made some minor changes to the voting structure when it was first proposed, but nobody has bothered explaining the real problem until now, which I think is a shame considering that another notice was made about this vote on the mailing list a week in advance. And the time issue was an honest mistake; IIRC I wrote 23:59 on Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion, but somehow managed to screw it up and turn it into 11:59 on this page. All issues with this vote were my own fault, and I take full responsibility for them. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This vote was a complete and utter bloody screwup