Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 23

message: I found a page which is sufficiently long and sufficiently wrong to require a complete rewrite, which itself would only be possible if the subject of the page actually properly existed as a subject.
I *eventually* found the link for "votes to delete" in the "contact us" page - which I had turned to in my final extremity, having failed to find any reference to deleting pages anywhere else.
I then read the page about proper basis' for deletion.  No problems.
I then read the long list of how to delete, followed by the short(er) list of how to delete.  Thanks, but no thanks - getting a page listed for deletion is far too complicated.  I mean, if you have a procedure and then you need to create a shorter version in the first place, that should be a warning!
I don't have the desire (or time) to try to grapple with overly-complicated procedures; the cost in time and effort is far too high for the tiny immediate benefit of bringing up a single page for a vote.
I might suggest there should be some discussion on putting an entry about voting to delete in an FAQ or two and simplifying the submission of a page to voting for deletion.
User:Toby Douglass
*It sounds harsh, but it's probably a good thing that you found it too difficult to list an article on VFD.  (It's not that difficult, though, and it's certainly not "overly" complicated.  It requires 3 page edits.)  By the sound of it, what you wanted was Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, in particular , not deletion.  (Cleanup-rewrite requires 2 page edits.  You'd even done one of them already at Talk:Swarming (Military).)  There are several tools in the toolbox, you know. Uncle G 06:02, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
**The process to list a page for VFD is absurdly complex. I realize this is, in some ways, a good thing because it slows down people who would otherwise put many more articles into the hopper. But jeezelouise this seems like a roundabout way of doing things - trying to solve one huge problem by creating a huge PITA for everyone. Theoretically, a vfd could be as simple as adding a tag with comment to the page and leaving the rest up to the computer. --Lee Hunter 13:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties finding/using Vote for Delete 

message: I hit edit and all I could find was gibberish and lots of comments saying "don't add things here". Lots of things not to do, but not a single mention of how you're SUPPOSED to do it. Shouldn't that be the first thing on the page? I still can't figure it out.
Maury 00:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions are included from a template; you won't see them after trying to edit. Before hitting [edit], look at the top at the page; inside a box you will see a link to the instructions, which are on the bottom of the page. Follow them; you won't have to edit the VfD page, you will edit a template (via a section edit link). I know this all looks confusing, but it is a way to manage such a huge page without having edit conflicts all the time. Notice there are two sets of instructions; both do the exact same thing, you only need to follow one of them. --cesarb 01:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the heck do you add a page? 

message: After RickK's comment on my proposal ("the VfD process works fine just the way it is"), it occurs to me that it doesn't and cannot cover the simple question of whether any new proposals are actually needed.
Hence a quick straw poll, deliberately among VfD'ers themselves, because I expect you to know it best.
Do you feel that the combination of CSD, VfD and VfU is good enough? In particular:
*Do they delete what has to be deleted?
*Will they scale well enough as Wikipedia grows?
The question here is not whether we should "tear down VfD" or "speedy everything", or nonsense like that. The only question is whether you think it all works well, and if there's any room for improvement. If most people feel everything's fine, there's obviously no need for coming up with more proposals on deletion.
This is just a straw poll. It opens now and it doesn't close. Keep it short and simple, don't enter discussions. Please do that behind the poll, if you feel the need. This is just testing the waters and doesn't determine anything. All I want is your four twiddles somewhere: # ~~~~. JRM 00:26, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
*Could you make that "CSD, VfD, and VfU" because VfU is an essential part of the self-repair process? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll: are our current deletion tools working well enough? 

message: # Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree: it all works well enough

message: #VfD has some problems, in that an article can be majorly improved during the period, and yet delete votes before that improvement still count against it. --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree: there is room for improvement

message: ====Major changes to articles during a VfD period====
*VfD has some problems, in that an article can be majorly improved during the period, and yet delete votes before that improvement still count against it. --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *VfD has some problems, in that an article can be majorly improved during the period, and yet delete votes before that improvement still count against it. --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes to articles during a VfD period

message: *The scope of VfD:  The first problem I see is that VfD is now the presumptive course for all articles that do not meet the intentionally rigorous standards of speedy deletion.  Therefore, VfD is asked to handle articles such as this: "Ashleee is so cool.  Britney thinks shes her friend but shes not plus she has a cool boyfriend Jason. He wishes!"  If I speedy delete that (and I would), I am technically violating the criteria.  Technically, that should go to VfD.  Similarly, "3DO is a computer company in England that makes graphic software" needs to go to VfD.  I would speedy delete it as a substub that's also a commercial ad, and the deletion log has me from time to time saying, "A predicate nominative is a fact, not an article," but, technically, that should have gone to VfD.  No single deliberative process can handle the kind of volume that VfD is supposed to cover.  A while ago, I proposed an Early Deletion scheme.  My idea was to broaden speedy delete while making it a matter of consensus and therefore to spare VfD some of its silly bulk.  People thought I was trying for a Sysop power grab and missed the point entirely.  Whatever the process, VfD is not possible for the speed with which we gain bad articles.  Watch New Pages for any length of time at all, and you will see that Wikipedia gets far too many articles of questionable value for all of those questions to be settled by VfD.  The only way to allow VfD to handle this volume is to change its rules, to make it a non-deliberative or non-consensual process, and that, I think, is not VfD. Geogre 03:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletionist Demurral

message: *I am concerned that some people are voting on principles rather than on the individual articles, i.e. automatically voting to keep/delete all articles on a theme (e.g. schools, pokemon) regardless of the content of that particular article/subject. This has led (imho) to articles being kept that should have been deleted or merged, and probably also to the reverse. Other than requiring everyone to give an explicit reason based on the article for every vote they make I don't know. This would be an inconvenience, and also dificult on some articles - how many things can be written about a five-line article that gives very little information about an actor who once played a walk-on part in a minor soap opera? Thryduulf 01:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cut-and-paste, etc votes

message: How about a Speedy redirect option? There are many nominations of things which obviously should just be redirected, and often a consensus emerges quickly, and yet it continues to clutter up the VfD page. But the Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion forbids someone boldly doing it during the VfD process. (I originally headed this "Speedy merge" but merging is a dicier proposition.) People pretty often do it during VfD anyway, but maybe the guidelines should be reconsidered. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy redirect

message: In my opinion we need to add an explicit requirement that one properly uses edit summaries when listing articles for deletion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion AND on those articles.  Otherwise the creators and contributors of those articles are not actually given notice.  Perhaps we could go so far as to require the contacting of the creator of an article when it is listed on VfD? Hyacinth 20:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries