Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Active Vfd Voters

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

List of Active Vfd Voters
Unencyclopedic. Gzornenplatz 10:44, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

oh really? is your Vfd policy an encyclopedic article? Of cource not! I am going to ask for the Votes for deletion article to be deleted also, as long as it is as Unencyclopedic, as the List of Active Vfd Voters is.
 * The Votes for Deletion page is in the Wikipedia: namespace; this list isn't. -Sean Curtin 22:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. No self-references.  I would have suggested moving it to a User subpage, but this article was created by an anon (probably really User:Iasson).  RickK 10:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * No its not me. but I think I can guess who wrote this. Iasson 10:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somebody in the WWW 10:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * move it to Active Vfd Voters then delete. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 7 days voters' participation should exceed 12% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. The decision method that should be used in order to decide what to do should be the majority rule method. Whatever the poll's decision is, it should be valid for 1 month then reconsider.Iasson 10:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Presumably the creator has a gripe about something of theirs that was listed for deletion. I'd agree that the rules and procedures need to be simpler and more accessible, but this list is just a mess. Deb 11:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page would have to edited every single day just to remain up-to-date. CheekyMonkey 11:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You could try edit every single day, but I think you are going to get approximately the same number of active voters. Active voters population does not change that fast. So editing the list once a week will be fine too, as long as this list is used for statistical calculation of the population percentage that has to participate on a Vfd poll, in order for the poll to be valid. If you really want accuracy, why dont you try to hire a daemon to do the job for you. Also, could you please answer me why active voters are the people who voted for the last 5 days? Why not the last 7 days? You seem to want accuracy for the list of active voters and the fact that it is not edited every day bothers you, but you cant explain why this 5 days initial value is considered an accurate and correct value, can you? All lists are similars, they change when time passes.  Whats the difference with that list?
 * Yeah! correct. If you really want accuracy, put this 5 days initial value in a poll. As long as this 5 days initial value is decided by a small minority, it is not an accurate value. Active voters should vote in order to define what the correct number of days is. Its Active voters' responcibility and right to define how small or how large their community should be.


 * Delete. I don't see what purpose the page serves. It seems like its an attempt to get a list of people to complain at by J.Random User following an article of theirs being deleted. However, it doesn't distinguish between who voted in the poll for that article, whether any user has voted in one poll or 100 polls or what someone's vote is (i.e. there is little point hassleing someone about the deletion of your article if they voted to keep it) - it therefore doesn't improve on the VfD page for each article. If a list like this is needed (which I don't agree with at this point in time), then a list at Wikipedians who have voted in VfD polls would be more apropriate. -Thryduulf 12:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this list is to define Active Vfd Voters, and use that number for the calculation of the minimum voters (as a percentage of the active ones) that have to cast a delete vote on a Vfd poll, in order for the poll to be valid and for the proposed for deletion article to be deleted. I hope that you agree that if you have a population of 400 active voters, you just CANNOT delete an article in case in a time period of 5 days just 4 voters voted for deletion. can you? So a minimum participation in a vfd poll should be defined somehow, in order for the vfd poll to be a valid and legitimate one. I dont care about the name. I agree with you that a list at Wikipedians who have voted in VfD polls in the last 5 days and a list  Active Vfd voters as a redirect to the same page is more appropriate. Thank you for your recommendation.
 * (Please sign your comments, Iasson.) The deletion process does not work in terms of "polls" being "valid". Delete. Uncle G 18:03, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that having 4 voters vote for deletion is quite sufficient in many circumstances. If an article has been recognized quickly as junk by the first four voters to pass by, I don't feel the need to add a 'me too' vote that just bloats the VfD page.  (It would waste almost as much space as Iasson's 'policy statement' votes.)  The commments with each vote are far more important than the votes themselves.  Oh, and delete. --TenOfAllTrades 03:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (Disagree): Do you think that having just 1 voter's vote for deletion is also quite sufficient? And what about 4 voters' vote for deletion in a population of 9000000? I think that you also define a minimum participation. Your defined minimum participation is just small,it is about 1%, but you do have a minimum participation defined, and what I am trying to say to you is that this minimum participation should be defined by all of us, and not only by you!. Iasson 14:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * note: Iasson edited his own comment above at 07:34, 13 Jan 2005. Thryduulf 09:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely appropriate to delete in most cases - 4 users voting delete, none opposed, and the rest don't want to waste their time adding 'me too' comments. Average Earthman 15:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE with extreme prejudice. sjorford 13:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least move away from the main namespace. jni 15:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible to keep up to date, makes no real sense. And it was created by an ANONYMOUS user to boot. At least register if you're going to do something like this. 23skidoo 16:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for uselessness and nonencyclopedicness. Move to a user subpage if you want, but it isn't an encyclopedia article and would be pointless in the Wikipedia namespace as well, since AFAIK no particular number of votes is required for deletion to go through. Tuf-Kat 16:15, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless article which certainly doesn't belong in the encyclopedia space. --LeeHunter 16:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Condense to two sentences as follows, then insert those sentences in an appropriate proposal in Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion or Village pump (policy). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The two sentences are:
 * "I believe deletion should require a majority of the active VfD voters. As of today, as established by counting all the unique usernames on the current VfD page, there are 307 active VfD voters."
 * In detail: not encyclopedic. Self-referential, so does not belong in main namespace. Inappropriate for Wikipedia namespace too because my perception is that this list was made to push a particular point of view, not to provide information. Specifically, my perception is that he wants readers to infer the proposal stated explicitly above. He should state the proposal explicitly in the appropriate forum and see whether he can get consensus for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've made it into an encyclopedia article! Delete. Josh Cherry 18:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too! Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!  Delete.  Edeans 20:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Me three! XD Delete. --Andylkl 08:48, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Me four! Now you don't have to write a vanity article to get your name deleted from the article space! (This is a delete vote, by the way.) Szyslak 05:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to wankspace. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this will be out of date in a week, and there's no point in having someone babysit the page to keep it topical. Plus it should've been created at List of active Votes for Deletion voters rather than in the article namespace.  I would vote keep if there were a way to keep it automatically up-to-date, but even then, what would be the point of it?  -Sean Curtin 22:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of stuff belongs in the user space, if anywhere. GeorgeStepanek\talk  23:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, un-encyclopaedic article. Megan1967 00:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is just disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Take it to the village pump or the talk page here, don't make an article about it. Shane King 00:31, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, even though it saddens me to remove my one claim to fame significant enough to get me mentioned in the main article namespace. --Stormie 01:19, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as User:Iasson's pet project in the wrong space. Getting a majority of 'Actice VfD Votes to vote on EVERYTHING would be impossible.  Iasson, please see your talk page; I've tried to answer some of your burning questions there. hfool/Roast me 03:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As punishment the creator of this should be forced to keep it up to date, adding the name of everyone who votes on VFD and removing everyone whose name drops off the top of the list. DJ Clayworth 05:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Kinda ironic, eh? K1Bond007 06:41, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are we up to a majority yet? Raven42 08:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course we are majority! As I said in my vote, in order for this poll to be valid, after 7 days voters' participation should exceed 12% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. Current participation is 28/307 (9%). But as long as majority rule is going to be used to extract the decision from this poll and as long as all current votes are DELETE votes, this means that the result is not going to change even if the rest 3% cast a KEEP vote . So this article is a candidate for speedy delete, I think we dont have to wait for 5 days. (unless of course a lot of people change their mind suddently wich I think is not very likely, or unless suddently 29 new people arrive and vote KEEP, witch also I think it is unlikely to happen too). So What we are waiting for? Delete it, then reconsider in one month.... Iasson 09:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - irrelevant. Iasson's attempt to form a "deletion council"? Most people vote only when they are interested about a subject or know something about it (or its nonexistence, as the case may be). - Skysmith 10:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Markaci 11:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm loosing my nerve with you Iasson. One more VfD poll you contribute garbage to, you're gone. I'm willing to debate your point to infinity on the talk page, but don't waste all of the community's time here. --  user:zanimum
 * Delete. I feel left out, I had no idea that I'd spent so long away from VFD that I wasn't considered "active"! Although this article is, to use a term I enjoy, codswallop, I wouldn't mind seeing something along these lines; it would certainly give the deletionist/inclusionist factions something to talk about, if their records were up on display. On the other hand, if such a page actually began to form, it seems like certain users might abuse the VFD process to manipulate their statistics on the list. Although accountability is nice, I'm not sure we need this. And who'd go to the trouble to maintain such a page? Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  13:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another unmaintainable list, and un-encyclopedic. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Under what methodology does a Wikipedia newbie get to be in such a list?  (Besides which I don't think John Q. Public cares.) Steven Luo 08:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Active_Voters_List shows people who cast at least one vote in the last 5 days (thats why they are active) Iasson 07:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, although I'm one of the happy few...we few, we happy few Lectonar 09:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * very disapointed im not on the list :). delete Xtra 13:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! I'm on a list that soon will be deleted! - Jeltz talk  18:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it's nice to see my name being recognised, it's definitely useless as an encyclopedia article, and hard to maintain as a Wikipedia article. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just had another look at the page and it seems that some user names appear more than once e.g. TenOfAllTrades and Tregoweth, possibly casting doubt on Iasson's figure of 307 active votes. Thryduulf 12:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (Agree): The author of the List of Active Vfd Voters wrote: "The above list has been extracted using the below linux command, then doing some editing: grep "User:" Wikipedia\:Votes_for_deletion.html|cut -f2 -d"\""|cut -f3 -d":"|sort > wikivoters". He has to find a more accurate linux command to use in order to extract the users directly and avoid erroneous editings like the one you are mentioning. Iasson 14:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting idea, but half-baked and in the wrong namespace to boot. I notice I'm not on the list, who cares, it has no standing IMO. Originally by an anon with no other contributions. Let's not waste time on it. Andrewa 10:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete--Boothy443 10:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well isn't that just creepy. I wonder if my name's in there now. Delete. Riffsyphon1024 21:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an attempt to subvert the VfD process. Martg76 23:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete disruptive list. Fire Star 06:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While not perfect, VFD would not be improved using this 'system'; thus this list is pointless and unencyclopedic.Sc147 21:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No point to it. Stombs 01:33, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.