Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, the next generation


 * Centralised deletion reform discussion at Deletion reform

VFD needs a little help. Deletion votes are for gathering consensus to delete an article, and is not a majority vote. Most articles should be kept, even if they are only sub stubs. Deletion votes should only be used when an article is not worthy of inclusion. If Bill Gates is a stub, expand it. If (insert name of 12 year old that nobody has heard of and gets 0 google hits) is not notable, Nominate it for deletion.

The Next Generation

 * Votes should be sorted, similar to RFA, in seperated and numbered lists. Votes for anything other then keep and delete will still be lumped together (and treated like comments), to reduce wasted space, as these are usually not needed.
 * In other words, voting must be done in binary logic, Yes/No. For gods sake NO MORE of these: maybe, perhaps, merge, redirect, semi delete, defragment, etc...
 * Votes like move to BJAODN and merge can be placed in the "other votes" section. That's what its for. These are a type of comment.
 * Users have 1 week (listing time) to fix whatever they want to fix/salvage.


 * Nominator should put a delete vote in, with no reason (There reason should be mentioned in the main deletion vote header!). If they don't do this, it should be assumed that they are not participating in the vote. This is a very unusual circumstance, similar to the last time the GNAA was nominated. This ensures the vote count is correct.
 * The nominator must convince us that there is at least some ground for us to even consider the posibility of a delete.


 * If a page survives the deletion request, the discussion and voting should be left on the talk page for future reference, and to prevent people from nominating it for deletion again.
 * Page should not be renominated for a period of time (open to ideas)


 * Article vote should be on articles talk page rather than a redundant template.
 * People who wrote the article should be asked to defend their article since they are supposed to know most. They should explain why the article is notble etc...
 * All deletations will apear in a category anyways so there will still be a centralised list automaticaly generated. Which means I don't have to click here type this copy that to there etc..


 * Establish firm and solid rules for criteria.


 * VfD has no future and usage. Trash it.
 * If something is deletable a quickie delete should do the trick. Which means we have less burocracy.
 * Primary problem we have are "fanatics" of any given topic. It only takes 2-8 "fanatics" *cough* GNAA *cough* to cause havoc.


 * (Optional) A comunity (like arbitration) specilised in this (deletation) process

It is hoped that all of this will reduce idiocy, sockpuppetry, "no consensus" closings, articles which are kept and nominated again, and articles that are wrongly deleted.

General Discussion
discussion moved to talk page...got a little too big!

Sample talk page layout
XYZ is not notable enough for Wikipedia standards. --Phroziac (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

''To vote, please place a vote in the neccesary section below, followed by a reason (if you think its neccesary). All votes must be signed with ~. Avoid unneccesary discussions outside of the Comments section. Please leave an extra # after your vote.''

Sample vote:

XYZ is not encyclopedic. --Phroziac (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep
''Vote here if the deletion of this article is unacceptable.


 * 1) XYZ has 4000000000000000000000000000000 google hits, how is it not notable? --Jim 3:14, 3 August 2005
 * 2) *Well, it only has 4,490,000 hits, but that still sounds like a lot. -Mariano 08:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Notable enough. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete
Vote here if you feel Wikipedia would be better without this article, as per current deletion policies.


 * 1) Phroziac (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Not notable and possibly original research. Delete or merge with ABC. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol, even this example shows some problems with this layout! The voter suggested "merge", which by definition means we can't delete because of GFDL issues, but somehow this is counted in the delete column! Pcb21| Pete 11:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That should have been in "other", but I won't move it there since it's just an example vote. It was not placed by any of the original contributers of this proposal! I don't know what you mean by the GFDL comment. Please respond on the talk page. Oh yeah, and your comment should have been in comments :P --Phroziac (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Other votes
''Please place votes for anything other then Delete or Keep here. The options here are Speedy Keep, Speedy Delete, Merge with XYZ, Transwiki to XYZ wiki, Move to XYZ''


 * 1) Merge with YZX --Cool Cat My Talk 10:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments
''Please keep all discussion of this vote here. Comments placed elsewhere will be moved here.''


 * 1) Although this isn't the best solution, it's good to know that others are beginning to realize that the current VfD system is broken (on oh-so-many different levels) and cannot scale in its current form.  Personally, I think that Requests for deletion is more in line with the direction we need to be heading.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, but, you put this comment in the wrong place! :) This is the sample deletion vote layout. Personally, I really dislike that name, as it can't be abbreviated without conflicting with Redirects for deletion. --Phroziac (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)