User talk:MarSch/deleteproposal

Hi there! By your request, I've looked over this. I think it is a good idea in principle, but it may be a hard job convincing enough people thereof. What I think would help is adding a paragraph at the top explaining what problem this proposal is trying to solve, and why you think it would work. Also, I'd just replace X and Y with 'seven days' by default, and add a line at the bottom stating that the exact amounts of time are open to debate if people want. Finally, I'd cut out the part where you put items back on the 'uncontested' list, because it's a bit confusing and the extra rule doesn't really help. HTH! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions. I have made some changes based on them. If you are happy with them what do you propose to do next? --MarSch 14:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Radiant, I have contacted a few people whom I think will support this idea. I hope that together we will spot most loose ends. Also I think it would be better if we could propose this as a group. --MarSch 15:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You could check at the 'reducing VFD load' thread for people who are likely to agree with this in principle, and ask them what they think of the wording. Or you could open it for comments (preferably not outright voting) by moving it to mainspace, and advertising on WP:W, WP:RFC and WP:VP. And expect a lot of criticism from people who have read only part of the proposal and would call it instruction creep, or who fear this will delete too many or too few articles. I'm not saying that will happen but you should not be surprised or disappointed if it does. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the wording is pretty good, and I do support this idea; see Managed Deletion for a very similar take. User:Geogre has tried to do something like this before; if you want to try to get it through again, you might want to mention it to him. Meelar (talk) 15:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have contacted him. Also I didn't list managed deletion, because its page says it became Preliminary Deletion, which I think is closer to this proposal. --MarSch 15:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a good proposal IMO, and certainly has my vote. I do agree with Radiant about cutting out the "candidates that only get a keep vote from their creator" part; maybe it should just be mentioned on the talk page and not in the proposal, to keep the proposal more streamlined. IMO the rule is unneccesary, as it is easier to just vote the article into the ground when the creator does vote keep, which currently doesn't happen all that often, than adding extra rules.

A quick check tells me that the overload problem currently only exists on vfd; it may be a good idea to limit the proposal only to that page (which would also make the proposal easier to relate to). As it is now, the proposal is forcing a solution onto pages like WP:TFD, which works fine as it is. If the proposal is accepted and the other deletion pages later get overloaded in the same way, the fact that the proposal is running on the vfd page will make it a small step to adopt it to the other pages. Thue | talk 18:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've now removed the extension:

"===Extension===
 * An extension which may be useful.

There is another class of candidates which are clear cases. The candidates that only get a keep vote from their creator. It may be useful to move these back to stage 1 as soon as they are identified. An additional rule for the voting stage which says that an article with only the (disagree) keep vote and 4 delete votes (including the nomination) may be moved back to stage 1, would accomplish this."

from the core proposal. --MarSch 18:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * About restricting/specifically targetting this proposal to vfd. I was thinking that we might test this proposal on tfd and if works implement it at vfd. Tfd is usually not that much trouble to handle, but that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. --MarSch 18:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I would vote against the proposal if applied to WP:TFD. The advantages of your proposal is not worth extra complexity of the changed procedure on such a low-traffic page IMO. Thue | talk 19:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea for pages like VFD where there is such a ridiculously high load, but I think that TFD is small enough to manage at this point. There are currently 9 entries on TFD- surely people could find the time to vote on only 9 cases. Maybe if the lag time for stage 1 were smaller there would be a greater benefit for TFD, but I still think that we can manage with the ol'fashioned way for now. If we adopt this approach, then we must also realize that it may translate into less eyeballs, since some people will divert their attention away from stage 1. In summary: Good for big places (VFD), bad for smaller ones (TFD). -Frazzydee|&#9997; 15:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I like this for VFD. Maurreen 01:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. I can immediately see how the inclusionists would object, though. They would complain about the system being delete by default (if it's not moved to stage 2 in seven days, it's gone). Some would probably cut and paste every article in stage one to stage two. It's worth a try, but you should really poll the inclusionists instead of the preaching to the choir. ;-) Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the big stumbling block I see with this proposal&mdash;the mass migration of articles from Stage 1 to Stage 2 by (at best) well-meaning but misguided inclusionists or (at worst) deliberate griefers and vandals. I suppose that under those circumstances, this proposal just reduces to the current scheme, so it doesn't get any worse.... --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, where would be the best place to get the inclusionists' attention? --MarSch 13:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please explain
I don't see what's the point. The one should still check both stage 1 and stage 2 to be sure he didn't miss anything. Also the time before placing the article on VfD and its deletion/keepage(is that a word?) increases up to 14 days, which is kind of long.  Grue  13:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The point is that one should _not_ check stage 1, but leave that checking to the people that work on/with the candidate. If even they cannot be bothered to vote keep, than you shouldn't be wasting your time checking it.--MarSch 13:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, there are a lot of reasonable stubs created by anonymous users. A subject matter expert may make a contribution in a somewhat esoteric area and never be heard from again on Wikipedia.  (A geologist who contributes a few articles to Category:Minerals, for example).  For that matter, a contributor might be on a Wikivacation for a week&mdash;if I were in Hawaii, I probably wouldn't be overly concerned about monitoring my articles.  Under such circumstances there might well be nobody with an article watchlisted.  I'm afraid that it will be necessary to watch the Stage one entries.


 * As I see it, the chief advantage of this scheme is we're saved from having to make thousands of "me too" votes on obvious (but not speedy) deletions. Only if someone objects is the full discussion necessary, so we can save a ton of bandwidth and editing. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load
You're probably all aware of this ongoing discussion. It has also mentioned several kinds of gradual deletion, but several people have considered it instruction creep. However, this discussion is likely to turn into a proposal for new Speedy Deletion Criteria some time soon, which would also solve the problem (if in a different way). So I would appreciate it if this deleteproposal was not put to vote or anything like that until the Speedy proposal is done, to keep them from interfering with one another. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and I'd be vote for it if it came up for voting. I don't follow VfD much, but this proposal seems like it would be helpful. JesseW 22:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

old and new articles
I have been doing some New Pages patrolling and I think that this proposal should not be used for pages that are so new that very few people have had the chance to notice them. Perhaps we should split vfd accordingly. What would be a good time for this? I'm thinking along the lines of a month, but perhaps we need to investigate the age of vfd candidates. --MarSch 28 June 2005 16:20 (UTC)