User:MacGyverMagic/Deletion/Reform

Articles for deletion has been under heavy discussion lately and while most people agree AFD needs to change to keep it up to speed, we disagree on what way to go when it comes to solutions. Some say we need to expand speedy criteria, others say we need to stop AFD either temporarily or for a longer amount of time.

With this page, I hope to bridge to gap between Wikipedians and reach a common ground with regard to the way AFD needs to be addressed.

-- Mgm|(talk) 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of this page

 * Please use this page only to sign your name if you agree or disagree with a suggested point or fact.
 * If you disagree, suggest an alternative on the talkpage.
 * Don't edit this page to add your own facts, otherwise this will return to being a discussion like any one we had before on the matter. With the structure I use here, I'm trying to keep disputes out.

Current State
1 AFD currently serves as a net catching articles that are not yet covered by speedy deletion policy, but are still unanimously considered delete-worthy by the community (examples are blatant advertising, band vanity and not quite patent, but still nonsensical nonsense). Agree Agree As a regular participant, AFD is a good net. It is in my view, a good way, of sorting out the wheat from the chaff as giving us a bit more lead time to consider what is the best thing to do with it. Deletion reform should aim to involve more people in the process. Capitalistroadster 05:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously. I rarely vote on AfD, but I close a lot of debates everyday, and there are tons of unanimous deletes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

2 Admins who delete things outside of existing policy are routinely accused of abuse of their power to delete articles. Agree
 * I guess so. I don't recall any recent cases of this, but I certainly know that some rabid inclusionists would jump on any admin who didn't follow policy. Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

3 'Point two' makes it impossible for the articles mentioned in 'point one' to be deleted unless they receive either community consensus or unless they are covered by speedy deletion. Hence, we need changes that don't leave these articles in limbo. Agree
 * Of course. I even wrote the first (and to date) only major reform of deletion policy to tackle this head-on which received a majority support (Preliminary Deletion). Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose


 * Those that don't establish concensus either way should stay unless a clear reason is established that they should be deleted leading to a concensus established through AFD. Capitalistroadster 05:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)