Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Normal deletion processes do not apply to policy violations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 20:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Normal deletion processes do not apply to policy violations
Stubby "policy" proposal (by an admin, surprisingly enough) that seems to propose to abolish the deletion process, insofar as it proposes anything at all. It is going nowhere and probably violates WP:POINT and WP:POVFORK (of Deletion reform). See also talk page. Sandstein 05:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. POV forks are bad enough.  But, POV proposed guideline/policy forks are intolerable.--Rob 08:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The does not violate WP:POINT; it was made as a proposal.  If it doesn't gain consensus, I'll be happy to mark it inactive/historical.  The proposal itself doesn't abolish the deletion process either; it says that despite a vote to the contrary, admins can and should delete policy violations (copyright violations, inflammatory templates, or whatever.)  Ral315 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not what it says. Its only operative part (that is, the only part that is actual policy, not commentary) says that "Normal deletion processes do not apply to policy violations." Which by itself is meaningless, as pointed out on the talk page. Even the initial commentary says nothing on who then should be able to delete what under which circumstances. If the proposal would be changed to include the wording you now use, it would at least make sense. But it would still be a WP:POVFORK of Deletion reform, where such issues are discussed. Sandstein 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We have dozens of proposals to change the way we run the deletion process. I don't think they qualify as forks.  They are, for the most part, honest attempts to address what many see as a problem of scalability.  Depending on your opinion of this particular page's status, mark it proposed, rejected or historical.  But deletion seems unnecessary and inconsistent with all the other reform proposals.  It is safely in the Wikipedia-space so it won't confuse ordinary readers.  Rossami (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because a proposed policy is insanely vague and unusable, it does not thereby become deletable. Xoloz 15:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an honest attempt to deal with the problems of AfD voting. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I may have been somewhat hasty in nominating this for deletion, as I am not yet really familiar with policy discussions. For the record, I quite agree with what appear to be the author's sentiments about AfD. But please do look at the proposal itself - apart from the POVFORK issues, if it were an article, it would nearly merit a (CSD A3) tag, because it's really only a rephrasing of the title. Do we need to use the "Proposed Policies" page for the expressions of frustration (however understandable) of individual users, instead of, well, for proposing actual policies? Isn't expressing individual sentiments what user pages, user talk pages, etc. are for? Sandstein 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize. I like policy proposals that start off short and to the point; they'll get wordy and convoluted soon enough. I think something needs to be done about deletion discussions. I just haven't seen any proposal yet that I think will make a real difference without fundamentally changing the way the community works. I do think we need to explore different approaches to the problem, and not just reject something out of hand because it seems vague or inconsistent with other policy. However, the process for finding consensus on policy seems to work better than the deletion process, and it doesn't look like this proposal has much chance of getting accepted. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Hoort 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.