Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote2

Voting opens at 00:01 9 December UTC and closes at 11:59 23 December UTC. The vote is currently closed.

The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * I raise concerns that this vote may be ill-timed; see discussion page. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 19:22, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

This page is for conducting a second round of voting on the proposal Preliminary Deletion. The first round was held at Preliminary Deletion/Vote but was inconclusive.

Rationale

 * Several changes to the proposal have been made in an attempt answer the worries of those who originally objected.
 * To get a clear mandate, restrictions and specific criteria have been put in place to ensure smooth voting and to determine the correct course of action after voting.

Differences between then and now
This is the difference between the proposal as it was when voting closed and as of this moment. Here is a summary of these changes:
 * The provisions for preventing abuse of the process gained a very large following, and as such, have been severely reduced in size and merged with the original proposal;
 * The criteria have also been reduced in size, but not in meaning;
 * A 9-point Q&A section answering common concerns has been added.

Determining the course of action post-voting
For both questions, the option that will be considered to have "won" is that which garners 70% or more of the total vote for its question.

Voting restrictions
Important: Only users who have made their first edit more than two weeks before 9 December UTC and have made more than 250 edits are allowed to vote.

''I'm fed up with people voting "no" but not saying why. If you want the proposal to improve, then say how and why. If you want something changed, say so. This poll is now a discussion free-for-all; while you still can vote, I'm hoping you will actually discuss the proposal. Let's take advantage of this forum to improve it so we can come to an agreement.'' Johnleemk | Talk 03:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question 1
Should Preliminary Deletion become official Wikipedia policy?

If no option manages to grab more than 70% of the vote, the votes for choices two until four shall be added to the tally for the first choice.

Yes

 * 1) Johnleemk | Talk 03:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) &#8212;No-One Jones 04:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) gadfium (talk) 04:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  06:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC): Yes. Many cases do not need the full VfD treatment, but speedy is and should remain used for objectively rejectable material.
 * 6) Rje 06:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I voted for it last time, I'm voting for it again. [[User:Lubaf|Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French]] 08:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) David Gerard 16:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Jayjg 17:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) MPerel 00:19, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Cool Hand Luke  07:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Iain 13:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Cimon (there definetly are arguments pro and con, but my vote is only pro)
 * Vote made by anon IP 213.243.182.236. Please log in in order to vote. [[User:Lubaf|Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French]] 13:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) R. fiend 23:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC). Do this AND expand speedy deletion.
 * 2) Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Slowking Man 00:16, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) TwoOneTwo 11:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Drstuey 11:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I'll support this any way you can pass it. Andre ( talk )A| 01:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Only one word to say:Keep. Luigi30 16:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Mrwojo 22:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Meelar (talk) 07:31, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) G Rutter 14:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think this is a sensible proposal which will help manage Wikipedia.
 * 12) Carnildo 00:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Take a decision only if the participation on this poll exceeds 17.7% (as percentage of the total certified wikipedia population). In order to decide get an agreement of at least 52.2% of those who voted. Keep this poll for 18 days and 11 hours then archive it (but dont hide it) and in case of a full disk, delete firstly the polls with less participation. Iasson 09:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only permit keep votes
(see #Alternative)


 * 1) RadicalSubversiv E 07:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but add an incentive to rewrite articles
(see #Incentive_for_improvement)


 * 1) -- Scott  $e^{i \pi} \,\!$ 04:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Aerion 23:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ben Brockert 23:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Geni 00:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Norman Rogers\talk 00:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) For example, the final [[Dominique article was totally different from the original, so it should not have been burdened with that version's Delete votes.
 * JerDW We need to give the article a chance to be fixed before deleting it, just like we put drug abusers through rehab before sending them to prison
 * Sorry, you do not have more than 250 edits, so you can't vote. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1)  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  02:11, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * 2) Korath&#20250;&#35441; 03:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Goobergunch|? 21:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) R. S. Shaw 23:59, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC) "the perfect is the enemy of the good"
 * 5) Whosyourjudas\talk 02:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) - sounds good
 * 6) Shanes 03:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *Comment: Given the criteria for Preliminary Deletion (advertising, vanity, innate POV, jokes, non-encyclopedic) I don't see how a "major rewrite" would usually be of any help. Eg - a vanity stub on a non-notable band is listed, but then gets rewritten into a complete history of the band ("X and Y grew up together, Z joined at college, Y left", etc). I'd still want my delete vote to be counted. Also, if there isn't a clear definition of what a "major rewrite" is, then we're going to spend more time arguing about that then anything else. Furthermore, people can (and do) change their votes after rewrites (as happened to Dominique- which only survived due to a completely different topic having the same name). G Rutter 14:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Niteowlneils 03:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) I support expanding speedy to at least match current reality, but we need this as well.

Yes, but only permit keep votes and add an incentive to rewrite articles
(see #Alternative and #Incentive_for_improvement)


 * 1) BrokenSegue 00:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) although i think it's kind of soon to be doing this again...

Yes, if we add an incentive to rewrite articles, but don't count this as a yes vote otherwise

 * 1) anthony &#35686;&#21578; 04:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Der Eberswalder 14:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. RM 14:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I think I can vote. --JuntungWu 09:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unsorted votes

 * 1) No.  Better define speedy deletion criteria, and institute a simple tag-n-bag procedure for CSDs, so that one person marks the page for deletion, and someone else needs to concurs and perform the deletion (exception is vandalism).  -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it wouldn't work very well for what this proposal is supposed to address. You need to leave room for a margin of error; community approval generally works better than just one or two individuals making the decision. As Managed Deletion proved, the community doesn't trust admins to vote on deletion, so instead, we're letting any two individuals decide? Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. A little complicated. And I think there should be a third option. That is, not just "delete" and "VFD", but also "keep". Maurreen 05:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Once the discussion goes to VfD, "VfD" votes become "keep". Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, this vote is too soon after the previous one for my liking. Please give it a rest for three months before trying again. Shane King 16:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Regulation creep means creepy regulations. Eclecticology 20:11, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you make it easy and simple to delete articles, or you restrain people with laws. It's hard, if not nigh-on-impossible to work out a proposal that can do both. Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctant no. The fundamental problem is that VFD and CSD need to be reworked. --MarkSweep 22:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, but how would you suggest we do so? Any ideas? Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No; oppose. - RedWordSmith 22:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Thanks, but no thanks. Mark Richards 22:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) No. RoseParks 03:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't believe decision by majority is a good way to control the quality of wikipedia. An opinion by a person very knowledgable in the topic should count more than mere laymen. -- Taku 04:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit Nupedia-ish to me. In addition, this proposal covers stuff in the domain of What Wikipedia is not, so decisions are generally clear-cut; either it's a vanity page or it's not, for example. Another thing: The "expert" on my neighbour's garage rock band is my neighbour himself. Should he have the final say on whether that article should be kept or deleted? Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. And no each time it's reintroduced. Dr Zen 05:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. If this option were available it would rapidly become the preferred option - fstr - no matter the caveats and qualifiers. - Amgine 06:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Enforcement. Are you suggesting that people are incapable of enforcing these rules? Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. See talk. JRM 15:51, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 * No, encourages deletionism. --Librarian Brent 04:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Instruction creep, and IMO has bad cost/benefits ratio. See talk. --Wikimol 22:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, increases complexity for very little benefit. --fvw *  23:10, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Interesting proposal, and better than in the last round, but mistakes would happen, if you could add an article to preliminary deletion on the ground of its vanity. You don't have to hurry in deleting vanity articles. -Hapsiainen 13:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

No. Maintain the status quo.

 * No, too much deletion happens already. Enforce current deletion criteria. The Recycling Troll 19:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No.  Too much of our communal energy is taken up with deletion and deletion policy already.  The presence of bad articles does far less damage to Wikipedia than the absence of good articles.  Therefore, anything which draws even more energy into deletion is misguided.  The existing deletion mechanisms, although overused, are more than sufficient.  -- Visviva 17:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No.Why don't the deletionists try to improve the site, instead of trolling to delete things? --Mononoke 18:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Make deletion more difficult.

 * No, I oppose anything that makes deletion easier. Intrigue 22:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Why don't the deletionists try to improve the site, instead of trolling to delete things? Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * No. This is all just a big troll by deletionists. Trollminator 18:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have less than 250 edits, and are not qualified to vote.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  02:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

No. Expand speedy deletion criteria instead.

 * 1) No. Expand speedy deletion instead. Neutrality/talk 04:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keith D. Tyler has a great explanation of why this wouldn't work on the talk page. In addition, the current proposal to expand the criteria is only making formal what is already done informally; thus, the situation on VfD would not be altered. Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I prefer expanding Candidates for speedy deletion instead. BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 04:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need more complications, expand CSD instead. - SimonP 18:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Expand CSD. Vacuum
 * 2) Tuf-Kat 17:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Gamaliel 07:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) No, expand CSD and shorten VFD waiting period instead&mdash;Trevor Caira 15:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question 2
Should a two-week trial of the policy outlined at Preliminary Deletion be held before a permanent implementation?

Yes

 * 1) Johnleemk | Talk 03:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Scott  $e^{i \pi} \,\!$ 04:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &#8212;No-One Jones 04:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) gadfium (talk) 04:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) David Gerard 16:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) MarkSweep 22:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Ben Brockert 23:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) MPerel 00:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) BrokenSegue 00:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Tuf-Kat 17:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11)  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  02:13, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * 12) Meelar (talk) 07:33, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only if the first question passes

 * 1) The Recycling Troll 19:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Aerion 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Dr Zen 05:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Cool Hand  Luke  07:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) GeorgeStepanek\talk   01:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Trollminator 19:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Having less than 150 edits, you are not allowed to vote in this election.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  02:01, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * 1) Shanes 03:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I think I can vote (if I read my contributions part correctly). --JuntungWu 09:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No

 * 1) I prefer expanding Candidates for speedy deletion instead. BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 04:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * 3) A trial period is a halfway measure. It could confuse things. If we're going to do this, we should just do it. Maurreen 06:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  06:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC): No, we should start doing it as soon as possible.
 * 5) Same reasons as Maurreen. Rje 06:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) No for the same reason as I said no to question 1: this vote has come up again too soon for my liking. Shane King 16:05, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, - SimonP 18:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Eclecticology 20:11, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want it at all. Intrigue 22:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Mark Richards 22:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) No. RoseParks 03:19, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) No. - Amgine 06:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) No. If the Q1 vote is yes it should be implemented. What are we going to do with a trial? - vote if it succeeded or failed then vote again on implementation?; vote on trial xriteria? etc, etc. No thanks! TwoOneTwo 11:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) No. Implement it without a trial. - Drstuey 12:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see that giving any new information. --fvw *  23:11, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Question 2 is a Dumb Question

 * 1) We should never consider any policy to be permanent. All policies should be revokable at any time, and users should be able to vote for or against them at any time. We should consider every moment of every day to be a "trial period". Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * 2) Der Eberswalder 14:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) What Lir said. Korath&#20250;&#35441; 03:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Why do we insist on having so many rules? I swear, Wikipedia has a bigger government than real governments.  I remember when we had a few hard and fast rules that were setup (like NPOV) and everything else were contradictory guidelines.  Wikipedia policy should be considered to be temporary guidelines that change as the community changes.  Stupid question. RM 14:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)