Wikipedia:Random deletion

Yet another VFD overhaul idea. Edit this proposal!


 * 1) Every page has a 1% chance of being deleted per day. Blank pages have a 25% chance.
 * 2) If a page was wrongly deleted, bring it to VFU.
 * 3) There is no other way to delete pages than at the craps table.

Support

 * 1) Great idea! --SPUI (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This policy would be Turbo-Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MaximusNukeage 06:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah! Maybe this page might get deleted!!! --D.Penner 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I have an even better idea! Let's delete every page made by a newbie, then we'll make fun of them and publicly humiliate them at Afd for it! -- D -Day  My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Are these oppose votes for real? savidan(talk) (e@) 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Canadianshoper 04:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I'll Support anything to do with VFD! umm, yeah, okay, uhh, etc umm, yeah, okay, uhh, etc Monkey13! 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Let's get started with Xinjiang! umm, yeah, okay, uhh, etc Monkey13! 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Soy Isoflavones umm, yeah, okay, uhh, etc --Monkey13! 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Some people have been living in a rabbit-hole to not know what humour is. The Updater would like to talk to you! 11:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I like weird --frogger3140 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) I Support this idea. Let's put the plan in action Swag Gangster  ★ 22:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) AlbertR 03:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Dave (talk) 17:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC) This would delete 6000 pages a day. If a perfectly good article has no active editors, POOF.
 * 3) STRONGLY OPPOSE EdwinHJ | Talk 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Am I correct in interpreting this as to completely remove the human element from the deletion process? What possible justification for that is there?  I believe the answer is "None whatsoever."  What desirable result does it create?  Again, I believe it's "None whatsoever."  Furthermore, this proposal demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how articles are (and should be) deleted. An article is investigated and judged, and if judged inappropriate for wikipedia is deleted.  There's nothing random about it, nor should there be. Better to make deletion impossible than to do it randomly.  I'm hard pressed to imagine a worse method to implement than this.  Hopefully this is something intended for Category:Wikipedia humor and not a serious proposal, right?  The Literate Engineer 20:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * YHBT. YHL. HAND.
 * 1) Articles with text should have a 50% chance of being moved to [article name] ON WHEELS on any given day, blank articles should randomly be placed as FAs.--Niroht | Smoke signals 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Less stupid than some of the ideas I've heard for this. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And just as stupid as all the other ideas. - ulayiti (talk)  20:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats probably how most articles show up on VFD anyways: someone clicks the Random article link. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What sort of random number god are we thinking of to oversee this process? Would it be susceptible to human sacrifice? JRM · Talk 10:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that. What we need is a system for random article creation. Surely we can pick up a used AI program for cheap that can do this, and better than some human editors. "BLXT SNRD is our band that ROXXX!!! we dont havany instraments but that dont mater cus we cant play tehm N E WAYZ but we are planing are frist gig next year." Surely we can get a program to do better than that. Herostratus 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we can get a program to do create that, then that is proof of AI. Any computer that can survive creating the inherently illogical "DUDE I rly <3 nsync bcuz they r teh best band n da wordl yeah!!!!!!11!!" must be an AI. &mdash;ScouterSig 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this was a joke, people. --Unknownwarrior33 01:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about deletion with probability of $$P = e^{-kS}$$ where S is the size of the article. This gives probability 1 for blank articles and tends to 0 for long articles. There is 50% chance for deletion for articles of size $$\frac{ln(2)}{k}$$ Smartech 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That actually makes sense, Smartech. We're obviously putting in too much thought into this...  Wyvern 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)