Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

message: The major reason for caution with  Deletion and Speedy Deletion is precisely that deleted articles are gone and therefore the decisions are unreviewable by most editors. (I have considered requesting some form of admin status mostly to be able to see deleted articles.)
I therefore put forth the suggestion:
:P2: The text and edit history  of deleted articles should be available, in protected form.
I can hear the responce now: "<arrgh> That's just an invitation for the dweeb to repost it!"
But I think that's a non-problem, for two reasons: 
*the reposted article will be speedied, and the dweeb banned.
*those dweebs who are computer-literate and stubborn enough to evade that probably have a copy of their text somewhere off Wikipedia anyway.
I await revision, and would have no objection to a time limit, if there is a storage question Septentrionalis 21:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "and the dweeb banned" That is an illusion. --Sn0wflake 21:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This has been proposed before, and the answer has always been the adminship is readily enough available that most people who are serious about Wikipedia and want to view the deleted articles can get it.  Several advocates of making deleted articles widely viewable have lost interest in said policy after becoming admins.  A good deal of deleted content is defamatory, detrimental to the project, or a violation of copyright and making it visible may be unwise for these reasons.  Finally, speaking as someone who occasionally goes through the deletion log, I can tell you that there is little of interest in the deleted pages.  Even if you were to pick out the most salvagable 1% of deletions, you would find little or nothing of any genuine informative value.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another new proposal: Safetynet

message: Just a thought, but why not trim down the votes for deletion page by hiving off any articles of three paragraphs or less onto a stubs for deletion page, and make the VfD page an articles for deletion page? Hiding 21:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but not really relevant to the issue at hand (speedy deletion).  — Gwalla | Talk 01:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But relevant to the causes for the current discussion, no, judging by the lengthy preamble on the proposal page.  However, suitably chastened I have moved discussion to Reducing VfD load Hiding 07:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new proposal: Stubs for Deletion 

message: The Proposals section states "Anonymous votes will be discounted, as will votes cast by any user that had less than 250 edits when this vote started."  People who don't read proposals like this one carefully enough annoy me, and I noticed a fair number of them, so I wrote up some javascript to simplify checking when a user's 250th edit was.  When in place, it replaces links to user pages from ordered lists (# in wikisyntax) on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal's subpages with links of the form http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&go=first&target=Cryptic, which show the user's first 250 edits (with the last of those, i.e. their 250th, at the top).  I've also gone through the votes already cast and noted those that my tool turned up.
There are a couple caveats, though:
#If a user has less than 250 edits, the top edit shown will be his most recent, and it isn't immediately obvious that he hasn't made 250 yet.  For these purposes, it doesn't matter (since it'll still be dated after the poll opened), but it's something to keep in mind if you want to reuse this script elsewhere.
#Links to user subpages (like User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage) break.
#It doesn't, of course, catch forged signatures; also, it relies on a link to the user's page being present in his signature.
#It's conceivable someone had more than 250 edits at the start of the poll, but some were to articles that have now been deleted.  Deleted edits don't show up in the contributions list, so they aren't counted.
#If someone changes his username, it won't, of course, account for edits made under the old user name.  (Case in point: ArmadniGeneral used to be Alex12 3.  There might be others that I didn't notice.)
#I didn't account for the fact that some of the votes started after the others.
If you're reading this because I've marked your vote, please don't be offended if it doesn't actually apply to you due to one of the caveats above (particularly 4, 5, and 6); just say so and move on. —Cryptic (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffrage

message: In response to the objections and weak support votes for the test run, I suggest we introduce a modified test run proposal:
Test Run B.1: New criteria stays enforced for up to a minimum time of 1 week up to a maximum time of 10 weeks dependent on the leftover popular percentage over 70%.
To figure the popularity factor:
1. Subtract 70 from the final percentage in favor. ex. for an 80% in favor vote, take 80-70=10
2. Divide remainder by 30. ex. 10/30 = 33%.
3. Round to the nearest week. ex. 33% of the maximum of 10 weeks is 3 weeks. The popularity factor for an 80% approval forces a 3 week test run before a recall can be initiated.
With 75% of the vote, there is a 16% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a 2 week testing time.
With 80% of the vote, there is a 33% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a three week testing time. 
With 85% of the vote, there is a 50% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a five week testing time.
With 90% of the vote, there is a 66% additional popularity factor, new criteria has a seven week testing time.
With 95% of the vote, there is an 83% additional popularity factor, new criteria has an eight week testing time.
Test Run B.2: A revote can only be called for when the test run is complete, and the number of requests match or exceed 10% of the number of vote originally tallied.
Example1: a criteria passed and 100 total people voted. 10 people would be needed to force a revote after the test run.
Example2: a criteria passed and 250 total people voted. 25 people would be needed to force a revote after the test run.
What do you guys think? Can this be added to the list of proposals?
-Inigmatus 16:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*This is getting far too close to bureaucropedia and instruction creep for me.  Wikipedia is NOT about setting vote thresholds and petition thresholds, policies and enforcements, it is about seeking consensus through discussion.  Wikipedia is not a democracy.  See WP:NOT.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test run proposal B 

message: I don't really know what to do with it, so I guess I'll add it here.
All ordinary elementary and secondary schools where a well-known encyclopedic event did not occur or that do not have any famous alumni or is not especially historically significant to a particular locale.
I don't know if I would support this resolution. I'm proposing in an effort to get a definitive and final answer about the inclusion of elementary and secondary schools. They have been consistently nominated for deletion on VfD and have usually been kept. There is also Wikipedia:Schools, but it has not been adopted and doesn't look like it's being seriously considered for adoption. Maybe this isn't the right place to do this, and I don't expect that it will be the final step in a solid policy about schools, but I think it's step toward that. Maybe it can be used as a solid policy. That'd be cool. Cookiecaper 20:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't take sides in this debate, but I'll say with confidence that it would never gain consensus for addition to WP:CSD.  -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This sounds like you're talking about a normal deletion policy, not CSD. That's something different entirely. Have you looked at WP:SCH? --Dmcdevit·t 20:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
*For once I agree full with Netoholic. This would never pass as part of CSD, nor should it. Determining whether a school meets your criteria is not a proper task for speedy deletion. Whether this or something like it should become part of the overall deletion policy is another matter, one I don't have a strong view on off-hand. DES 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey guys I have a proposal 

message: Isn't the "inactive tag" inapprpropriate given that some votes are still ongoing until a later deadline? Xoloz 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactive tag

message: ** 74% seems a little on the low side for such a radical proposal. I'll be watching the deletion log closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: proposal 1