Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion

message: How long are articles listed on preliminary deletion? anthony 警告 15:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How long?

message: My biggest problem with this is that any votes made before listing on VFD should be removed if the article has significantly changed after the vote was made. anthony 警告 15:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that's too big an issue. Articles change constantly while on VFD. The votes are at the sysop's discretion. Currently, I don't know of any policy/guideline that votes made before a major rewrite should be discounted. I don't think such a change would be within the purview of this proposal. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about changes while it is listed on VFD, though, I'm talking about changes made before it is listed on VFD.  Without such a clause, I guess I have to object to this proposal.  The purpose is supposed to be to reduce the size of VFD.  If an article is fixed during the preliminary deletion process (and the reasons for listing an article here suggests that many of them will be), we shouldn't be wasting people's time by then putting it through the VFD process.  anthony 警告 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's fixed is subjective. I remember withdrawing a nomination for VFD once after it was cleaned up only to have the article renominated by somebody else — the article was eventually deleted. If we could work out a way to fix this, it would be great, but this policy is supposed to preserve deletion policy status quo unless otherwise necessary. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it's subjective.  Sometimes it isn't.  But counting people's votes who haven't even looked at the page doesn't make sense.  We can work out a way to fix this.  I just presented one.  anthony 警告 18:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Your understanding is correct. However, what would happen if such a thing happened to a current article on VFD (I have seen this happen many times before)? How to count the votes should be left to the sysops' discretion. Often the point is moot because if an article gains many delete votes, it is likely to be almost certainly unencyclopedic. If it doesn't, two keep votes should be enough to prove a lack a consensus. If the sysop mishandles this, then it's an issue with the individual sysop, not the policy. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens when such a thing happens to a current article on VFD is outside the scope of this proposal.  What happens to an article on Preliminary Deletion isn't.  Nothing should be up to the admins' discretion.  Admins merely perform the deletion, they don't decide whether or not to delete.  anthony 警告 19:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, we don't need this anyway, because an article will get two or three keep votes once it has been rewritten appropriately, enough to hold up the deletion (and in borderline cases, enough to prevent consensus to delete), and because sometimes the reason for deletion is not related to the article content — for example, tell me how a vanity article about my best friend could ever become encyclopedic (unless he became a celebrity overnight)? Johnleemk | Talk 20:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Two or three keep votes is not always sufficient to keep an article from being deleted, and besides, the point is more to waste less of people's time. tell me how a vanity article about my best friend could ever become encyclopedic  It could be rewritten by someone not related to your friend.  But in any case, I never argued that all articles listed here could be fixed.  It just seems that most of them could.  And I don't think you can argue against the fact that some could.  anthony 警告 15:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Without some sort of incentive to improve an article before it gets to VFD, this proposal is useless, and I will oppose it. anthony 警告 19:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote reset

message: I would like to suggest removing all reference to 'notability' from this. It has no objective meaning, and is purely a value judgement. Mark Richards 16:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Adding a further level will give more to argue about.  Is that what we really need?  Then there's the added work in transferring the material.  Of course the shorter period will improve the chances that nobody will notice that something is there, and enhance the chances that it will be deleted.  But I guess that that's all part of the scheme. Eclecticology 01:14, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
:No offense, but assuming there's some scheme behind this reeks of the cabal accusations some trolls like Lir have hurled. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's fair. Suggesting there is a scheme to get more articles deleted and more quickly is hardly trolling you, John. It's precisely the outcome you're looking for. There's nothing wrong with that. It is a worry, though, that you suggest that the sysop should disregard keep votes at their own discretion. This would rather allow a group within the community to ensure the rapid removal of articles it doesn't approve of -- if such a group can be said to exist.Dr Zen 05:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you can judge whether such comments are trolling when you yourself accuse such an outcome of being the one I'm "looking for". And vote-handling is something the sysops are entrusted to do. After all, if sysops are allowed to disregard delete votes at their own discretion as anthony has suggested, why can't they disregard keep votes at their own discretion as well? All in all, a problem of deciding how to weight a keep vote would easily be solved if people don't maliciously troll the system or put forth a decent reason for their vote. Johnleemk | Talk 07:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm awfully sorry. I thought the idea was to clear the VfD page and bring in another means of deletion for deserving candidates. If it isn't, then I've misread, and yes, it would seem to be just more bureaucracy. The problem of weighting votes is not going to be helped by the insistence that people are trolls, surely? Dr Zen 08:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean. As I pointed out, often the problem with the article in the first place isn't the content; it's the topic. The only criteria under which this would apply would be substubs; vanity pages, original research, etc. — no matter how well they're rewritten, they aren't encyclopedic. Throwing out the votes just because the article was rewritten makes no sense at all if the issue with the article isn't its content, but its topic. Johnleemk | Talk 04:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only criteria under which this would apply would be substubs; vanity pages, original research, etc. — no matter how well they're rewritten, they aren't encyclopedic.  Huh?  When you expand a substub, it's no longer a substub.  When you rewrite a vanity page or one that is original research, it's no longer vanity or original research. anthony 警告 00:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was saying was that the only reasonable case where throwing out votes might actually be justified would be substubs. As for original research, some topics are just so *original* (i.e., have not even been peer reviewed nor made known to the scientific community; something a college student just cooked up and threw onto Wikipedia) that no matter how well-written, they'd still be original research. And for vanity pages, kindly read Wikipedia:Vanity page. The definition of such a page makes it clear that if a page really is a vanity page, it has no chance in hell of ever making the cut as encyclopedic, no matter how well-written. After all, I could write several pages worth of information about me, but that's not the point — it'd still be a vanity page, because such an article about me would meet all the criteria for vanity pages listed there. Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I named two other categories.  Vanity pages and original research.  Maybe some topics are "so original" (as far as my guess as to what that's supposed to mean) that you can't write a good Wikipedia article about them.  But I guarantee you these won't be the only articles that are listed here.  As for "vanity page" that page you point to (which only has 5 different editors and is primarily the work of a single editor) is by no means the only definition of "vanity" which people here on Wikipedia use.  If you look at VFD probably less than 5% of articles listed there as "vanity" qualify as vanity according to that page.  Sidney Morgenbesser was listed on VFD as "vanity", for instance, and it fits none of the definition.  If preliminary deletion was limited to vanity pages about which there is no verifiable information available, then you might have a point.  But that's never going to happen.  anthony 警告 15:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More bureaucracy

message: A lot of people think this policy would be a good idea, but problem X would nullify any effectiveness/create more problems. So why don't we hold a trial run? I'm not sure what a good length would be, maybe two months? Anyway, I added a second question to the voting to reflect this, although it conspicuously doesn't contain a length for running the process. Suggestions? If I don't get any, I'll probably put it as two months the night before the vote. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to a trial of a week, perhaps, but two months is way too long. anthony 警告 19:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a month? I think we'd need at least two or three weeks before being able to make any serious judgement on this. Johnleemk | Talk 09:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to reread the proposal, but I guess three weeks won't hurt.  I'm not really sure what the improvement is, and there are some things which I see as a drawback (more complicated being the biggest).  But maybe having preliminary deletion can convince admins not to speedy delete as much. anthony 警告 13:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trial run? 

message: Hi there.  I have a question about the corollary for handling a possible caveat of the preliminary deletions policy.  It says "that each article must receive at least two "keep" votes before going to VFD." Later, it says that "if 90% or more votes are for delete, then the article will not be listed on VFD until the percentage of delete votes drop below 90%."
So what happens if the article has two votes (which should normally send it to VFD), but the percentage of delete votes is over 90%? If no more "keep" votes are added, and the percentage of delete votes never drops below 90%, what happens to the article? Is it declared that consensus hasn't been reached? Is it deleted? Is it sent to VFD anyways? Will votes by striked out? I tried asking on #wikipedia, but nobody seemed to know :(.  Thank you for your anticipated response. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your query. In the case you mentioned, then the article would be deleted, because if there's more than 90% delete votes, then there's a clear consensus for delete — note that this is even higher than the standard for consensus we use to elect admins, which is 80%. If there's a lack of a clear-cut consensus, then the article goes to VFD. Hope this cleared the matter up. (btw, I will be reposting your message and my reply on Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion). Johnleemk | Talk 06:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: True, I used the wrong terminology. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal itself seems to use neither term, using the phrase "unanimous agreement for deletion". anthony 警告 20:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the original unadulterated proposal. We're currently discussing the alternative that adds precautions to prevent abuse. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the term "rough consensus".  anthony 警告 15:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the alternative in question wisely avoids calling it a consensus of any form, instead merely providing a definition of 90% and two keep votes or more being the threshold for moving the listing to VFD. Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Preliminary Deletion 

message: I would have expected dicdefs to be among the categories valid for this method. A dicdef that has no room to expand into an encyclopedic article should be quick-deleted. This is another category of article that we have a lot of. - KeithTyler 19:22, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
*Do we really?  Most of the dictdefs I see can be easily expanded. anthony 警告
**I base that on the frequency which dicdefs get submitted for VFD, and more often than not get deleted i.e. transwiki'd to Wiktionary. The preliminary deletion process could speed up the movement of idle dicdefs to Wiktionary. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:16, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
***Most of the dictdefs I've seen on VFD were quite easy to fix.  They might have ultimately been deleted anyway, but whether or not something gets deleted by the VFD process has little bearing on whether or not it could have been expanded.  The preliminary deletion process would speed up the process of moving dictdefs to Wiktionary, thereby decreasing the number that get fixed. anthony 警告 02:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about dicdefs? 

message: In response to Johnleemk's request on the mailing list, I'd like to start this section so we can have a dialogue on why some users opposed this proposal. Rhobite 04:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
*I'll start. I voted no because I believe problem resolution is already too complex here. When a user has a problem on Wikipedia, there are a dozen or more places it can be listed. Some of these places result in little or no action, but one of these places, VfD, is known for "getting the job done." This is why it's overused and abused. Here's the list: VfD, Speedy Deletion, RFC, RFM, RFAR, PR, Cleanup, Current surveys, PNA, and the pump for good measure. I won't vote yes on another problem resolution section until one of these existing sections is eliminated. I still don't know how Cleanup and Pages Needing Attention are fundamentally different, maybe we kill one of those. And it's hard for me to see the value in three separate deletion paradigms. Maybe we should take a step back and think of realigning both VfD and Speedy. Be bold, right? One more thought, the reason VfD is so effective at cleaning up articles which should never have been listed, is the time limit. VfD is one of the only problem resolution pages with a sense of urgency. Rhobite 04:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
**I won't vote yes on another problem resolution section until one of these existing sections is eliminated. But how would PD dreadfully overload things? This would be easier to understand if you think of Preliminary Deletion as a part of VFD, except on a different page. It's merely doing the same job as VFD for articles that crowd VFD. If you reread the proposal (I've rewritten it to include a section answering nine questions/objections), you'll find that in a listing comparing the purposes of every page handling problems, deletion of articles, which has a workload comparable to discussion on the pump, has only one page for handling it (speedies don't count because they're more of a category instead a page, and are handled very fast); the pump has seven — one main page and six subpages; any of these pages can be read separately and remain coherent (while VFD has subpages, they are all centralised on one page; the pump has six subpages for placing a discussion; article deletion has one for listing articles for deletion). Preliminary Deletion is necessary because VFD is overloaded as it is. I still don't know how Cleanup and Pages Needing Attention are fundamentally different, maybe we kill one of those. Whew, I thought I was the only one who thought that. And it's hard for me to see the value in three separate deletion paradigms. It makes little sense lumping articles of dubious encyclopedic value and articles definitely lacking encyclopedic value together on one page. It stifles discussion for both types of articles. One more thought, the reason VfD is so effective at cleaning up articles which should never have been listed, is the time limit. VfD is one of the only problem resolution pages with a sense of urgency. As you can see, I agree; people argue VFD is only for deletion, but I disagree. It's the easiest way to get a page cleaned up; I think that we need to reform cleanup so that VFD is no longer so necessary for this; it's simply easier to find an article you can fix on VFD, than trudging through cleanup. Johnleemk | Talk 09:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we voted no 

message: Does anyone have any plans to implement the policy now that the vote passed?
Don't look at me, I don't feel like doing it right now, I just want to use it :).
Thue | talk 22:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, the vote did not pass. The "consensus" was very tenuous, if it existed at all. So, this won't be implemented any time soon. Johnleemk | Talk 05:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote was 114-41, or 73% in favor (adding the yes votes together and ignoring accusations of sockpuppetering). That is not consensus, but it is pretty good. I consider it a good enough mandate to implement, but if you feel we should get a wider consensus before a new policy is implemented then I respect that. Thue | talk 19:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: What percentage do you mean by consensus?  I view this resolution as having passed and have been quite mystified up to now as to why no action has been taken on it.  I think it's very unrealistic to expect a better voting margin than this.  However you phrase a proposal there will always be those who disagree with it.  I view 73% as an overwhealming majority.  If we don't accept even such wide margins we will find ourselves paralised.  Barnaby dawson 11:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When will this be implemented?

message: Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 05:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm still receptive to comments... Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. I've been checking on a lot of old RFCs, and you're one of the few people who have answered. Maurreen 17:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC?