Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IX (Deprecation)

Proposal IX (Deprecation)

 * (Vote) (Discuss)

If any specific proposal from I to VII (or proposal X) receives a 70% majority of disagree votes, Candidates for speedy deletion should explicitly rule it out as a criterion for speedy deletion.

Agree

 * 1) Smoddy | Talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ld | talk 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ground 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Xtra 00:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) max rspct 00.34 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) ugen 64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 9) MarkSweep 01:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Vamp:Willow 01:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) A lot of these are vague. How would we explicitly rule out something that's already unclear?--Sketchee 01:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Rje 02:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Kevin 02:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Carnildo 02:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Sc147 03:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Ливай | ☺ 03:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Antandrus 03:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) DJ Clayworth 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Ben Brockert 05:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Korath (Talk) 06:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Unnecessary. If an article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --Slowking Man 07:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Jeff Knaggs 09:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Serves only to muddy the waters. RadicalSubversiv E 09:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Rafał Pocztarski 10:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Agree with Slowking Man. Wikimol 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Pointless. David Johnson [ T|C ] 13:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Tuf-Kat 14:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) BrokenSegue 15:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Jrdioko (Talk)  17:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) RickK 21:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Thue | talk 21:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) hfool/Wazzup? 23:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Makes the whole thing a mess.
 * 40) BSveen 00:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Joshuapaquin 02:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) gK ¿? 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Frazzydee|✍ 04:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Walt Pohl 06:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) jni 10:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) R yan!  |  Talk  11:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Gentgeen 11:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Xezbeth  11:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Bucephalus 12:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Cyrius|✎
 * 51) Naive cynic 13:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Tompagenet 13:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Gamaliel 14:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Mailer Diablo 16:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Proteus (Talk) 17:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Either it is a candidate for speedy deletion, or it's not. I don't see the point of pointing out what's not on a list of what is outside of "everything else". -- Francs2000 | Talk  20:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) Pointless.
 * 58) Shane King 01:43, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) All policies should always be open to review. Why block off the potential to change our minds as circumstances dictate?
 * 59) Dbiv 21:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Deathphoenix 00:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Not necessary.
 * 61) Superfluous. Wyss 04:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Unnecessary. And what's a 70% majority? 50%+1 is a majority, you don't need to point out that 70% is. [maestro] 12:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) Warofdreams 13:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:19, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) Plato 23:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Hapsiainen 07:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) SocratesJedi 07:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) There is no need for that. Josh 11:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) Speedy delete criteria should be clear enough that there is no need to spell out what they exclude. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) ike9898 02:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) That's not what many people meant with their disagree votes. Many of the disagreements are not absolute as this proposal would suggest.
 * 74) Strictly speaking unnecessary since CSD already specifies that "For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion." --JuntungWu 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) Mikkalai 03:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Jiang 08:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) most of the proposals are good ideas for certain circumstances. Explicitly ruling them out is a bad idea imho -Thryduulf 10:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 78) Norg 15:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) AlexTiefling 18:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) Dejvid 20:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) User:Premeditated Chaos 08:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 82) bernlin2000 ∞ 16:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): My reason is here. As stated in the link a survey generates a concensus with Wikipedians. Just because a majority disagree doesn't mean the proposal should be rejected by Jimbo or any commitee that controls these things. That would make Wikipedia a pure democracy, which it is not.
 * 83) foobaz·✐ 19:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 84) Opinions may change soon. Paddu 21:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 85) RedWordSmith 22:10, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 86) Already implied. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:18, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * 87) jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 88) Unnecessary 23skidoo 06:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 89) Indrian 07:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 90) Markaci 10:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 91) Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 92) Martg76 16:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 93) Am I reading this right? A vote on having a policy about not having another policy? GET REAL PEOPLE --Cynical 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 94) CryptoDerk 22:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 95) JoaoRicardo 04:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 96) Starblind 20:58, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 97) kaal 01:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 98) bbx 02:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 99) [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 07:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Unnecessary and redundant.
 * 100) BesigedB (talk) 17:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Redundant
 * 101) you have 3 cows... if 2 of them are horses... Pedant 03:46, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * 102) Eric119 Er, what? By definition, candidates for speedy deletion are those specified. Anything unspecified is therefore not a candidate for speedy deletion without need to explicitly say so. 05:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 103) Proposal bad. Make brain hurt.  Edeans 08:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 104) Aphaea 02:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 105) Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  03:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 106) AlexR 14:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 107) No need to clutter up the rules when those don't fit are by definition then not CSD. RedWolf 21:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 108) Rich Farmbrough 23:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)