Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Push-pull factors for colonists

I merged Push-pull factors for colonists and tried to put the page up for deletion because its a useless redirect now. Problem is it already has an old Vfd page (because it was voted to be merged). I dont know how to nominate it now. Could somebody with more knowledge of the workings of wikipedia do it for me? Thanks. Robinoke 22:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you merged content, then the right answer is to redirect. There is little reason to delete the redirect and several good reasons to keep it as a redirect.

• The redirect is the simplest way to preserve the attribution history - a requirement under GFDL.
• The redirect will catch any links still pointing to the old name. Even if you cleaned up all the current ones using "what links here", sometimes links can reappear - for example, if a page temporarily does not have a link because it has been vandalized causing the link to be restored when the vandalism is reverted. Redirects can also catch the cross-wiki links which won't show up through "what links here".
• The redirect may act to politely but firmly point the prior contributors to the proper place for their contributions.
• Redirects are cheap.

In general, redirects are only deleted if they are offensive, deliberately misleading or otherwise created in bad faith. I've been bold and removed the VfD header from the redirect for now. However, if you insist on nominating it for deletion, you should do so following the procedures at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, not this page. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 23:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you make a fair point. I suppose somebody might want to access the old article in the page history. Robinoke 17:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Difficulties finding/using Vote for Delete

I found a page which is sufficiently long and sufficiently wrong to require a complete rewrite, which itself would only be possible if the subject of the page actually properly existed as a subject.

I *eventually* found the link for "votes to delete" in the "contact us" page - which I had turned to in my final extremity, having failed to find any reference to deleting pages anywhere else.

I then read the page about proper basis' for deletion. No problems.

I then read the long list of how to delete, followed by the short(er) list of how to delete. Thanks, but no thanks - getting a page listed for deletion is far too complicated. I mean, if you have a procedure and then you need to create a shorter version in the first place, that should be a warning!

I don't have the desire (or time) to try to grapple with overly-complicated procedures; the cost in time and effort is far too high for the tiny immediate benefit of bringing up a single page for a vote.

I might suggest there should be some discussion on putting an entry about voting to delete in an FAQ or two and simplifying the submission of a page to voting for deletion.

• It sounds harsh, but it's probably a good thing that you found it too difficult to list an article on VFD. (It's not that difficult, though, and it's certainly not "overly" complicated. It requires 3 page edits.) By the sound of it, what you wanted was Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, in particular {{cleanup-rewrite}}, not deletion. (Cleanup-rewrite requires 2 page edits. You'd even done one of them already at Talk:Swarming (Military).) There are several tools in the toolbox, you know. Uncle G 06:02, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

• • The process to list a page for VFD is absurdly complex. I realize this is, in some ways, a good thing because it slows down people who would otherwise put many more articles into the hopper. But jeezelouise this seems like a roundabout way of doing things - trying to solve one huge problem by creating a huge PITA for everyone. Theoretically, a vfd could be as simple as adding a tag with comment to the page and leaving the rest up to the computer. --Lee Hunter 13:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How the heck do you add a page?

I hit edit and all I could find was gibberish and lots of comments saying "don't add things here". Lots of things not to do, but not a single mention of how you're SUPPOSED to do it. Shouldn't that be the first thing on the page? I still can't figure it out.

Maury 00:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The instructions are included from a template; you won't see them after trying to edit. Before hitting [edit], look at the top at the page; inside a box you will see a link to the instructions, which are on the bottom of the page. Follow them; you won't have to edit the VfD page, you will edit a template (via a section edit link). I know this all looks confusing, but it is a way to manage such a huge page without having edit conflicts all the time. Notice there are two sets of instructions; both do the exact same thing, you only need to follow one of them. --cesarb 01:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Countdown deletion

Countdown deletion, a new proposal for lifting some load off our unscalable deletion process! "The basic idea is that articles that start off as rubbish are put on probation: if nobody comes to improve them in seven days, they're out."

Let's all have a good time squeezing as much out of this proposal as possible. At worst we'll conclude that it's rubbish and we need something else. That would already be something, no? JRM 23:20, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Straw poll: are our current deletion tools working well enough?

After RickK's comment on my proposal ("the VfD process works fine just the way it is"), it occurs to me that it doesn't and cannot cover the simple question of whether any new proposals are actually needed.

Hence a quick straw poll, deliberately among VfD'ers themselves, because I expect you to know it best.

Do you feel that the combination of CSD, VfD and VfU is good enough? In particular:

• Do they delete what has to be deleted?
• Will they scale well enough as Wikipedia grows?

The question here is not whether we should "tear down VfD" or "speedy everything", or nonsense like that. The only question is whether you think it all works well, and if there's any room for improvement. If most people feel everything's fine, there's obviously no need for coming up with more proposals on deletion.

This is just a straw poll. It opens now and it doesn't close. Keep it short and simple, don't enter discussions. Please do that behind the poll, if you feel the need. This is just testing the waters and doesn't determine anything. All I want is your four twiddles somewhere: # ~~~~. JRM 00:26, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

• Could you make that "CSD, VfD, and VfU" because VfU is an essential part of the self-repair process? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, done. Thanks. The poll is intended to cover everything we have for handling deletion, in whatever way. JRM 01:21, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

• This poll seems to have a deletionist slant, it asks "*Do they delete what has to be deleted?" but not "Do they keep what should be kept?" Kappa 05:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I hope you realize they both encompass exactly the same. Since our deletion processes are meant to delete things (keeping takes no effort) the first formulation sounded more apt to me. It may have a deletionist slant, but the second formulation has an even worse inclusionist slant, because it more or less implies we shouldn't have a deletion process at all (after all, doing nothing certainly keeps everything that should be kept, regardless of what might need to be deleted—while nobody obviously advocates deleting everything). JRM 09:18, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Agree: it all works well enough

1. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Not perfect but well enough for now. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. It's far from perfect, but I really don't see how it could feasibly be improved. Some people want it improved to delete less. Others want it improved to delete more. It seems we're unlikely to form a consensus on it. Feel free to prove me wrong though. Radiant_* 15:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree: there is room for improvement

1. VfD has some problems, in that an article can be majorly improved during the period, and yet delete votes before that improvement still count against it. --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • see my comments on this in the discussion section below. Thryduulf 01:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. VfD has a couple of problems, imho, the major one is scale - the main VfD page is consistently the slowest page to load when the servers are running at less than peak speed. I don't have any ideas how to improve it atm though. Thryduulf 01:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   • Given that there are two other ways of viewing the VFD discussions, one of which is listed in the header, you only need to be looking at the "one giant page" version if that is how you really want to view things. (And one certainly shouldn't be bogging down the servers with all of that transclusion work if all that one wants to look at is the current day page.) Uncle G 06:35, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
     • The only time I use the full page is when listing an article I've nominated myself. Thryduulf 12:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. I would like to be clear, here. VfD worked well, and it was a reasonable approach for the project when it was 1) small and 2) desperate for content. However, it is a suit of clothes that has been altered repeatedly to fit a growing body, and I'm afraid that the seams are ripping. VfD should not be further tailored, in my opinion, but rather I feel and have felt that new methods are needed for ensuring that VfD deals only with articles that require actual debate and which are of sufficient value that consensus is actually required for deletion. I think far, far too little is deleted, and the process for deletion via VfD is laborious and biased toward keeping. I'd like to see its processes applied to articles that should be treated that way, and not for every stillbirth from the adolescent or lucre-hearted keyboard of the slashdotting or prematurely enthusiastic. Believe it or not, I have comments, too. They're below. Geogre 03:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. vfd deletes what should be kept (due to POV wars and recently policy wars), keeps what should be deleted sometimes (this is less of a problem, we have plenty of space), the backlog is rather large, many admins don't do deletions due to the amount of time it takes (Sure I have 10 minutes, anytime! But doing a single deletion sometimes takes longer than that with a slow server), so additionally, I don't think it's scaling. Kim Bruning 07:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) See also: previous discussion with geogre. And specifically see User:Geogre/Talk_archive_3#Deletion_at_all on scaling problems. (note that 1000 000 articles as stated there should be on all wikipedias, not on wikipedia en) Kim Bruning 11:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Overall, current deletion tools won't scale. Vfd results are way too fickle. Too much bias towards keep results. Written deletion policy hasn't evolved to match deletion practice. Too much junk that shouldn't need discussion ends up on Vfd. Niteowlneils 21:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. I am not a VfD'er myself — precisely because I think there is much room for improvement. Geogre's comments above and below (and his thoughts on deletion at his user page) strike me as very well thought-out and I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment of Wikipedia's new pages and the deletion process. — mark ✎ 11:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. I think it is not scaling and that some way must be found to handle the clear cases more efficiently so that the attention of voters can be given to discussion of the cases that are controversial. Concerning the controversial cases, it is timewasting and exasperating to discuss the same policy questions over and over, with the outcome depending each time on who happens to be around at the time. I second what Niteowlneils said a couple of comments above. --BM 13:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. In my opinion the process involves too much effort, is insufficiently granular, and is too variable in outcome. --Theo (Talk) 16:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Major changes to articles during a VfD period

• VfD has some problems, in that an article can be majorly improved during the period, and yet delete votes before that improvement still count against it. --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My thoughts on this are that if an article is significantly improved (not just tweaked) then a horizontal line can be put on the VfD to show the destinction. Also a note at the top of the page should say that it was majorly updated and when this happened. The same can also happen the other way, e.g. if facts are checked and turn out not to be true, a section is noted as a copyvio, etc. Possible ways of alerting users to this might be:
    • An NPOV-phrased note left on the talk page of a user who voted before a major change might be acceptable. However care would need to be taken to avoid (allegations of) ballet stuffing, vote swinging, etc (cf Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider).
    • Perhaps a page with a list of articles currently on VfD that have been significantly altered since the vote started. People would be encouraged to check this page and have it on their watchlist. It would be another thing to need to keep updated, and again it might be abused or seen as a Schoolwatch type page by some (see GRider's arbcom case, linked above).
    • Perhaps the note should be added to the talk page of the VfD discussion. I have the VfD pages on my watchlist so the talk pages would show up there as new. I don't know how common this is? Thryduulf 01:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf makes some good, but unneeded, suggestions. They aren't needed because what SPUI says is, quite simply, false. Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Discussion explains quite clearly that rewrites are taken into consideration when determining consensus, in order to stress the importance of giving a clear rationale for one's opinion. And comparing voting times against the edit history of rewritten articles is an established practice amongst administrators closing discussions. As for horizontal lines, Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Other shorthands even tells one what the existing practice is for noting rewrites and major alterations. Uncle G 06:22, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
    • I don't think you are talking about the real world here, those are just theoritical guidelines which are mostly ignored in pratice. In my experience, admins just count votes, ignoring rewrites unless there's a very clear pattern of "delete", "delete", "delete", "keep", "keep", "keep". Even then they would probably say "no consensus, 3 deletes, 3 keeps". Kappa 09:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No, those are descriptions of what happens in practice. I've seen a fair few closures closed as keep after a rewrite, discounting the deletion votes that were made before the rewrite. It's happened to a few of my rewrites, indeed. Administrators aren't stupid, and the claim that they just tally votes without reading is unfounded. Uncle G 10:41, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
        • Unfounded? Looks like I should collect more examples, but how about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Traditional diet (kept, "no consensus"), or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Types of animals (deleted). Kappa 11:36, 4 Apr 2005, or Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kaaos (deleted after new evidence of notability) (UTC) Kappa 11:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Traditional diet wasn't closed by an administrator, and I think it was among Deathphoenix' first closes; there's little practical difference between "no consensus" and "keep" anyway, and closers vary widely in what they label such outcomes. Kaaos seems like a reasonable VFU case. Types of animals is, I think, a case of an administrator ignoring the vfd result and doing the Right Thing anyway; it's important to note that despite the high turnout on the vfd and the 10D 8K count, no one disputed the delete on VFU. (I haven't looked into whether anyone contacted TBSDY directly about it, though.) —Korath (Talk) 12:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • In my experience, SPUI's allegation is false. The deciding admins do read the article and carefully consider the changes which have been made when evaluating the comments left by the voters. I have often seen admins document their decision to override the strict vote-count based on changes during the discussion period. That does not mean that the late arguments will always win the day, however. I've seen more than a few where the original author changed the article but completely failed to address the underlying problems that caused the article to be nominated and voted for deletion in the first place. Rossami (talk) 19:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I believe it reasonably common practice to, after improving an article, contact the 'delete' voters and see if they reconsider. Usually they do (which doesn't necessarily mean they change votes, but it helps). Radiant_* 15:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Deletionist Demurral

• The scope of VfD: The first problem I see is that VfD is now the presumptive course for all articles that do not meet the intentionally rigorous standards of speedy deletion. Therefore, VfD is asked to handle articles such as this: "Ashleee is so cool. Britney thinks shes her friend but shes not plus she has a cool boyfriend Jason. He wishes!" If I speedy delete that (and I would), I am technically violating the criteria. Technically, that should go to VfD. Similarly, "3DO is a computer company in England that makes graphic software" needs to go to VfD. I would speedy delete it as a substub that's also a commercial ad, and the deletion log has me from time to time saying, "A predicate nominative is a fact, not an article," but, technically, that should have gone to VfD. No single deliberative process can handle the kind of volume that VfD is supposed to cover. A while ago, I proposed an Early Deletion scheme. My idea was to broaden speedy delete while making it a matter of consensus and therefore to spare VfD some of its silly bulk. People thought I was trying for a Sysop power grab and missed the point entirely. Whatever the process, VfD is not possible for the speed with which we gain bad articles. Watch New Pages for any length of time at all, and you will see that Wikipedia gets far too many articles of questionable value for all of those questions to be settled by VfD. The only way to allow VfD to handle this volume is to change its rules, to make it a non-deliberative or non-consensual process, and that, I think, is not VfD. Geogre 03:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My next problem is with the mass produced vote and the unreasoned votes. The bulk of VfD is such that it becomes difficult to read and actually consider every article, and people who feel that they are helping the project by considering and voting upon every article will be at a loss to do anything else with their days or nights. What happens is that we get mass produced votes. We get these either by the infamous sock puppets or by call-ups of the like minded or by blanket "keep" votes (or "delete" votes, I guess, although I haven't seen that). Since VfD works by the very high standard of "consensus," it is an inherently conservative process. It is designed to keep by default, and an article needs to sin grievously to fail. The fact that most fail is just a sign that there is a ton of junk showing up. Geogre 03:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Finally, I agree with others who have noted that people vote on topics rather than articles. I understand that some folks are galled by the idea of any article on any school any where being deleted. (I don't really understand why, but I understand that they are.) They are therefore voting on the subject, not the article. There is no reason to keep "Lincoln School is an elementary school with 200 students." If one of those who votes Keep on the topic wishes there to be an article on this school, he or she should write the article, but I would not want to keep an article that said "Moby Dick was a book in the 1800s," even though I think an article on Moby Dick is necessary. I would vote delete and ask for it to be a requested article. One of my pieces of "advice to voters" on my user page is to always vote on the thing you're reading, not the thing you wish to read. A piss-poor article ought to go. If it has been improved while on VfD, then the improving hand should alert others to that fact or else wait for the bad article to fall off, write anew, and then put a note on the Talk page of the article explaining what had happened. Geogre 03:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, that wasn't finally. Finally finally, I think that we need to hash out some better examples of the criteria, and I think "notable" or "significant" ought to be part of the criteria, if only to silence the broken record of acrimony, "Notability isn't part of the explicit deletion guideline!!!!" (Sorry for the parody, but it's annoying.) I attempted to explain how I think of "notable" on my user page. Others have thought it helpful, but I'm not volunteering to be the voice of reason here. Anyhow, those are my comments. Geogre 03:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cut-and-paste, etc votes

• I am concerned that some people are voting on principles rather than on the individual articles, i.e. automatically voting to keep/delete all articles on a theme (e.g. schools, pokemon) regardless of the content of that particular article/subject. This has led (imho) to articles being kept that should have been deleted or merged, and probably also to the reverse. Other than requiring everyone to give an explicit reason based on the article for every vote they make I don't know. This would be an inconvenience, and also dificult on some articles - how many things can be written about a five-line article that gives very little information about an actor who once played a walk-on part in a minor soap opera? Thryduulf 01:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find voters often vote on the topic because nominators give the topic as the reason for deletion, so they don't really have a choice. Kappa 04:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not really an issue with "bad" keeps, because a poll isn't required to merge afterward if someone feels the article doesn't make sense standing on its own. "Bad" deletes can be more of a problem, in the case (not too common really) that good references may get lost. That's one of the reasons behind my occasional nags to just merge and not go to VfD; another is that a redirect can serve as a hint for the next person who thinks "hey, I should start a new article for this subtopic!" --iMb~Meow 05:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, remember that on VfD, we're really voting more on the topics than on the articles anyway, so a bad article on a good topic should be cleaned up rather than deleted, except in extreme circumstances. Thus, if someone thinks all schools or pokemon should be kept, they should vote that way, even if some of the articles are lame-o substubs. It's amazing what a little cleanup can do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do think Thryduulf is correct. While people may have their opinions on groups of articles (i.e. pokemon) and not have time to read every individual article - it becomes a problem when they jump to conclusions. For instance, people have been known to vote 'keep' on a star wars article, when they missed the point that it was actually fanfic. Radiant_* 15:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy redirect

How about a Speedy redirect option? There are many nominations of things which obviously should just be redirected, and often a consensus emerges quickly, and yet it continues to clutter up the VfD page. But the Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion forbids someone boldly doing it during the VfD process. (I originally headed this "Speedy merge" but merging is a dicier proposition.) People pretty often do it during VfD anyway, but maybe the guidelines should be reconsidered. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 30 was on old, now it is on current. Uh oh.

I think I may have screwd up, I saw the March 30 debates listed under "old", and closed some of the debates which had overwhelming keep votes. I see that March 30 has returned to the "current" list. What should I do now? Sjakkalle 09:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not worth worrying about, I don't think; none of the closed debates look like they were at all likely to change outcome, and most were open more than 120 hours anyway. (I moved March 30 from VFD/Old back to VFD because VFD Bot ran sixteen hours early today.) —Korath (Talk) 09:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

"However, as an another alternative ..."

The above is an absurd mistake, but there seems to be no way I can get to that chunk of text to correct it: I cannot find it when I edit the page.

Apart from the ungrammatical "an another", there is always only one alternative. A third course of action is exactly that: a third way, a third option, whatever. <KF> 13:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Go to Template:VfD header. You can fix it there. The header is transcluded into the actual project page. Rossami (talk) 16:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! <KF> 18:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

In my opinion we need to add an explicit requirement that one properly uses edit summaries when listing articles for deletion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion AND on those articles. Otherwise the creators and contributors of those articles are not actually given notice. Perhaps we could go so far as to require the contacting of the creator of an article when it is listed on VfD? Hyacinth 20:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would support that first requirement. I've made a point of politely messaging users when I notice they've added the VfD template without an edit summary (or worse, marked the edit as minor). I don't know that it's necessary to put notifying the article creator in the policy—if the creator was concerned about the fate of the article I would expect it to be on his watchlist. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)