Wikipedia talk:Cleanup process/Delete

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Cleanup.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the page.

Listed on VfD on October 11.


 * Cleanup
 * This new system, which seems plausible on the surface, but actually makes no sense at all, was suddenly sprung on us fully formed and "operating". The people who sprang it on us, and their friends, are the only ones who claim fully to understand it.  GrahamN 16:06, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally claimed I understand it fully; nor could I, since it is still far from finished or fully formed. It is nothing but a strapling, waiting to grow and form itself. We can all mould it (or "mold" it, if you like). -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * DELETE! How is this different from Pages needing attention *or* Possible copyright infringements? Cleanup is redundant, And why was Pages needing attention removed from the utilities list on recent changes? Kingturtle 17:44, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Part of Wikipedia:Cleanup is being used to DELETE articles which have not gone through the VfD process. Cleanup avoids the week-long time-period and avoids a voting and discussion process. This is WRONG. This must STOP. Kingturtle 15:34, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity... Just which pages are those? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:17, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * Consultant, for example. Kingturtle 16:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I checked the entry on CU, and deletion was not even mentioned. Maybe the person who deleted Consultant could enlighten us whether she/he thinks Cleanup played a decisive role in validating their act of deletion? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:21, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * BTW, just to make you happy, I have undeleted Consultant. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 23:34, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * WP:PNA was taken off RC because a request was made that Cleanup be on there, and I thought it was better to replace PNA than to replace VFD. That said, PNA had a long enough name, that there is still room for another Utility with a short name. I had already typed in WikiLove, but then I remembered that it is not a utility. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. An attempt to impose unneeded layers of bureaucracy on us.  RickK 19:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Liable to suffer the same probems as TTBMTW. Angela 23:47, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep it for now to give it more of a chance to prove itself. It might work. Angela 22:49, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * It might. That is the extent of my claim as well. If it does not, I WILL be the first and loudest voice asking for its abolition, or reining in. I think frex Wikimoney should have been buried a long time ago, likewise some other moribund institutions. Just because I suggested this thingummy to begin with, does not mean that I won't support its abolition in a blink of an eye, if I believe it doesn't work. (mark that down, and quote it back to me later, if it becomes necessary) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:15, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
 * Not voting either way, but as I see it, the page should not be deleted for the sins of TTBMTW. Don't really see what the problem exactly is with that page anyway, since I haven't really used it. IMO the page should be deleted if there is a better way of breathing life in to the utilities which Angela and Kingturtle list. I think cleanup could even reduce the number of pages ending up on Pages needing attention, if we are lucky and it catches on. As for bureaocracy (sp?); the page is intended to be a wholly non-bureaucratic training-ground for newcomers, who may have difficulty navigating the bureaoucratic system we already have, or at least ease their way up the learning curve to our community editing procedures and exception handling methods. Anyway, its fate is very much up to wikipedianship at large, vote as you like, but vote! -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 14:16, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's in use. The fact that it duplicates other functionality is irrelevant in my opinion. Wikipedia can survive having multiple schemes for urging people to work on bad articles. -- Onebyone 10:17, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind. None of the arguments for deletion merit even abstention. I vote to keep Wikipedia:Cleanup; with continued improvements... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:20, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, until deletion process is formally overhauled. I have a feeling that had I more time to pay attn to this, then maybe Angela (a key vote and a former user of CU) would have a better feeling for it. The real reason this is here, is because people completely fail to understand it, or dont like improvements on process. In fact WP:CU is working quite well, thank you. If youve considered that VFD honly has 70K worth of blabber on it today, as opposed to almost 100K -- then if can rightly be asserted that Wikipedia:Cleanup has taken 30k worth of space and ua corresponding number of edit conflicts off of this page here. If youre interested in dealing with its merits --then join the general discussion on deletion policy. Otherwise its foolish for people to want to delete something just because it was "sprung on them" --which is why theres a policy change in the works. This was a sucessful experiment, regardless of all the naysayers --all of whom, coincidentally, happen to not bother using it. &#25140;&#30505sv 18:17, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem with Cleanup is the explanation for it and the details of its procedures. I still am not clear on either of them. Kingturtle 22:02, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Isn't the fact that this page got listed on VFD a hard proof that people prefer to delete problems rather than discuss and solve them? Keep aneway. BL 22:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)