m →A corollary for handling a possible caveat: 'manier'>'more' |
voting over; this page now in use so I can rewrite the policy appropriately |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{inuse}} |
|||
<big>Voting |
<big>Voting closed at 00:00 UTC November <s>5</s> 12 2004. Voting was extended by a week due to several factors; see [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote#Polling extension?]] Voting is closed; votes may be viewed at [[/Vote]].</big> |
||
:''Based on [[Wikipedia:Managed Deletion]] and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031410.html this mailing list post].'' |
:''Based on [[Wikipedia:Managed Deletion]] and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-October/031410.html this mailing list post].'' |
Revision as of 13:53, 12 November 2004
Voting closed at 00:00 UTC November 5 12 2004. Voting was extended by a week due to several factors; see Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote#Polling extension? Voting is closed; votes may be viewed at /Vote.
- Based on Wikipedia:Managed Deletion and this mailing list post.
Introduction
The purpose of this page is to propose a third category of deletion candidates, beyond the speedy delete and yet not to the level of votes for deletion. These will be Preliminary Deletions, to be organised on a page tentatively titled Wikipedia:Purgatory (thanks to Jens Ropers [1]).
The Case for Change
A number of alarming new developments have emphasized a need for a change in speedy delete and VfD categories.
A) Cause: "You mean this isn't a speedy delete?"
- Inevitably, VfD gets hit with articles that are obvious deletes. They rack up ten to fifteen "delete" votes with no "keep" votes but that of the author, and someone will say, "This is really a speedy delete candidate." In some cases, that person is correct. In most cases, that person is not correct because the article is an obvious delete but not a speedy delete.
B) Cause: VfD is too long
- Every few days, someone on the Village Pump will argue that VfD is too long. VfD reaches over 40kb routinely, even when there is not a contentious debate on it. Indeed, it is so long that some people do not list articles there, and many more do not go to vote there. This proposal will not reduce the lengthy debates. Nor will this proposal eliminate the vital deliberative nature of VfD, but it is designed to cut down on the clutter and make it a truly deliberative page.
C) Cause: VfD is overwhelmed
- On September 23, 2004, there were thirty-one new nominations to VfD for the single day. Of these thirty-one, almost all were proper deletion candidates and received nearly unanimous "delete" or "redirect" votes. The nominators to VfD were acting appropriately, and yet it was extremely difficult for voters to consider all of the candidates. The sheer volume of nominations can make it virtually impossible to reason together and consider articles carefully, case by case, which is what VfD is for.
4) Cause: Inappropriate Speedy Deletion tags
- Things languish on Candidates for Speedy Deletion because administrators look at the articles and see that the tagged item is undesirable, but, simply put, not fitting the narrow definitions of a speedy delete.
Proposal
Proposed: That there be a new category of deletion entitled Preliminary Deletion. Articles listed on the Purgatory page will remain there for 72 hours.
Procedure:
- Article is nominated for Preliminary Deletion by adding a preliminary deletion template (template to be developed) to the top of the article's page and by recording the nomination on the preliminary deletion candidate page (page to be developed). Or in other words, it's just like VfD, except on a different page. Anyone may make this nomination.
- Voting will go on following the procedures of VFD.
- If an article receives even one "keep" vote, it will be referred to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion where deliberation will proceed under current regulations. If it receives fewer than three "delete" votes, it will also be referred to VFD.
- When moved to VFD, the article in question will be listed under the section for the date when it was moved to VFD, not when it was first listed on Purgatory, and should be appropriately be marked as having arrived from Purgatory. However, instead of being removed after the customary five days on VFD, the article should be removed after two days.
- Should the article obtain an unanimous agreement for deletion, the article will be deleted, and the discussion archived as per standard VFD policy.
- There may be some question as to how to count the votes; see corollary below.
- An article which survives Preliminary Deletion shall never be relisted here. It may still be relisted on VFD, if the rules of VFD allow that.
If you didn't bother reading all that, what it means is that this will be just like VFD, except the discussion is over after three days, and the moment a single article gets even one keep vote, it goes to VFD.
Alternative
Jens Ropers has suggested that instead of VFD-style voting, the only permissible vote be keep; if nobody votes to keep, the article is deleted, thus not necessitating delete votes. A possible caveat would be not being able to judge how many people actually support deletion, a foundation of current deletion policy.
A corollary for handling a possible caveat
As many have rightfully pointed out, inclusionists or the author of the relevant article could vote "keep" carelessly, thus invalidating the process. Therefore, it is proposed that the following additional procedures be observed:
- All articles be kept on the Purgatory page for at least 12 hours after receiving a "keep" vote (so people can continue voting — see below).
- That those voting "keep" must provide a reason why.
- That each article must receive at least two "keep" votes before going to VFD.
- If 90% or more votes are for delete, then the article will not be listed on VFD until the percentage of delete votes drop below 90%.
- That original authors of the article(s) concerned (but not those who have made edits only after the listing) may not vote, but may comment providing reason(s) to keep.
- It will be highly recommended that those voting "delete" provide reason(s) based on policy such as What Wikipedia is not, and that those voting "keep" respond to those reasons based on policy.
- If an article receives more keep votes than delete votes, then it is not automatically listed on VFD (though it still may be listed there at the discretion of any editor).
Criteria
Preliminary deletion will be appropriate for any article which fits the following:
- Clear advertising with no amelioration or mitigation.
- Obvious vanity articles and homages to private enthusiasms (girlfriend tributes, local band puffery, insignificant businesses).
- Clear and unambiguous political speech where POV is intrinsic and where the speech is intended to serve in ongoing advocacy and there is no mitigation. An example of this would be "list of John Kerry flip-flops", which lasted seven days on VfD.
- Jokes that are clearly such and where no valid content could be put in instead.
- Propagation of hoaxes where the article's existence is solely to increase the currency of a hoax.
- Substubs articles that
- contribute so little information that anyone performing the search already must know as much about the topic as the article gives,
- present less than minimal information about a topic so obscure as to not attract a knowledgeable editor for months or years,
- are not likely to be helped as a result of Wikipedia:Cleanup.
Preliminary deletion is explicitly not for any pages in the user namespace (userpages, talkpages, or user subpages).
Voting
Voting will close at 00:00 UTC November 5 2004.
(if necessary, it will be extended, depending on discussion with other users)
The first question posed is: "Should Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion become official Wikipedia policy?"
Please vote at Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote
The possible choices will be:
- Yes
- Yes, but only permit keep votes (see #Alternative)
- Yes, but add precautions to prevent exploitation of the process (see #A corollary for handling a possible caveat)
- Yes, but only permit keep votes (see #Alternative) and add precautions to prevent exploitation of the process (see #A corollary for handling a possible caveat)
- No
If consensus is not reached, votes for choices 2 until 4 will be added to the total for the first choice.
The second question to be posed will be: "Should a month-long trial of the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion be held before a permanent implementation?"
Note: The trial's implementation will be based on the outcome of the first question; if pure "yes" or "no" wins a consensus, then the implementation will default to the pure policy without the alternatives; otherwise, the implementation will be based on the choice which wins consensus. Should a trial be held, a second poll will be held at the end of the trial run to judge whether the implementation shall be permanent.
The possible choices will be:
- Yes, a trial would convince me of this policy's workability
- No, it works fine/No, it's so useless, a trial wouldn't prove anything else