→People watching this process: me, looks like |
LIVE! |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{shortcut|[[WP:PROD]]}} |
|||
Please [[Wikipedia:Edit this proposal|edit this proposal]]. |
|||
⚫ | The [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]] process has been subject to much controversy over the past months, and the issue has been debated to death several times, including once being entirely deleted by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], with widely varying solutions and ideas. The main problems with AFD include |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | It is difficult to change a process while it's running. Thus, this is a proposal for a simple alternative to AFD. Since 80% of all AFD nominations are not controversial and end up as obvious "keeps" or obvious "deletes", there's really no need to go into lengthy debates on them. Hence, this new system is to '''delete any articles nominated here, unless a single person objects''' within five days. It is really very simple and rules-light, please read the specifics below. |
||
⚫ | Because this process will not delete any articles that anyone considers worthwhile, the proposal is that '''this process goes ''live for a test run'' in one week''' (Feb 4th) - unless there are significant objections in the meantime, and assuming that several people promise (below) to watch the process as it goes. This should take much of the workload off of AFD. We can then take our time to decide if we want to keep using AFD for the few debates that are actually controversial, or if we want another process. |
||
⚫ | |||
=Live= |
|||
This process has gone live! That basically means we're testing it, and it may require tweaking in the near future. Please discuss on the talk page. If you want to help... |
|||
*If you find unworthy of articles, you can tag them with {{tl|prod}} |
|||
*If you want to improve a ''prod''ded article, please do so (as the template says) |
|||
*Please don't remove "prod" tags because you think other people might disagree with them. Feel free to remove them if ''you'' disagree with them, though. |
|||
*Put controversial issues on [[WP:AFD]], put simple issues on PROD. |
|||
==How to propose deletion of an article== |
==How to propose deletion of an article== |
||
Line 55: | Line 49: | ||
=Deletion log= |
=Deletion log= |
||
[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion HERE] |
[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion HERE] |
||
=Reason for this process= |
|||
⚫ | The [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]] process has been subject to much controversy over the past months, and the issue has been debated to death several times, including once being entirely deleted by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], with widely varying solutions and ideas. The main problems with AFD include |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | It is difficult to change a process while it's running. Thus, this is a proposal for a simple alternative to AFD. Since 80% of all AFD nominations are not controversial and end up as obvious "keeps" or obvious "deletes", there's really no need to go into lengthy debates on them. Hence, this new system is to '''delete any articles nominated here, unless a single person objects''' within five days. It is really very simple and rules-light, please read the specifics below. |
||
⚫ | Because this process will not delete any articles that anyone considers worthwhile, the proposal is that '''this process goes ''live for a test run'' in one week''' (Feb 4th) - unless there are significant objections in the meantime, and assuming that several people promise (below) to watch the process as it goes. This should take much of the workload off of AFD. We can then take our time to decide if we want to keep using AFD for the few debates that are actually controversial, or if we want another process. |
||
⚫ | |||
=People watching this process= |
=People watching this process= |
Revision as of 10:59, 4 February 2006
Live
This process has gone live! That basically means we're testing it, and it may require tweaking in the near future. Please discuss on the talk page. If you want to help...
- If you find unworthy of articles, you can tag them with {{prod}}
- If you want to improve a prodded article, please do so (as the template says)
- Please don't remove "prod" tags because you think other people might disagree with them. Feel free to remove them if you disagree with them, though.
- Put controversial issues on WP:AFD, put simple issues on PROD.
How to propose deletion of an article
- Edit the article and add the Template:Prod at the top, providing your reasoning. For instance,
- {{prod|has no sources, likely a hoax}}
- Please note the proposed deletion, and preferably the reasoning, in your edit summary.
- A log of all articles proposed for deletion is automatically generated, and can be found HERE.
- Additionally, all articles proposed for deletion automatically show up in Category:Proposed deletion.
How to prevent an article from being deleted
- Edit the article to remove the Template:Prod. Please note this in your edit summary.
- (optional) While you're editing the article anyway, please consider improving the article to address the concerns raised earlier. For instance, in the above example, add a source if you know one.
- (optional) Alternatively, if you think it will help, you are encouraged to rename or merge the article, proofread it, or add editorial templates such as {{cleanup}} or {{npov}}.
What the template looks like
- The template also puts all tagged articles in Category:Proposed deletion.
What this process is NOT for
- This process is not for contested deletion, and edit warring is bad form. If someone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted.
- Pages not in the main article namespace (e.g. templates, categories, user pages, Wikipedia: namespace pages, etc) should use the processes already available for that.
- It has been noted that a single user can simply "veto" all proposed deletions without giving a reason or improving anything. Of course, that would be disruption to make a point. If this proves to be a problem, we will likely create some rule to prevent it.
Relation to other processes
- A page flagged for both Proposed Deletion and WP:AFD should be dealt with in the latter process.
- If a page is a copyright violation or obvious candidate for speedy deletion, it may be deleted for that reason regardless of {{prod}} tags.
- In other cases, if an article is put on Proposed Deletion and is also flagged for some other process, editors should use their discretion and common sense to work it out. For instance, if a page is proposed for deletion and on requested moves, an editor could move the page and decide that it should not be deleted, or not move the page because the editor thinks deletion would be appropriate.
Closing guideline for administrators
- Any article proposed for deletion unopposed for at least five days may be deleted without further argument.
- Before deleting the article, the admin should check if the Template:Prod is still there; if not, don't delete it.
- Also, if the template is present, the admin should check the page history to verify it wasn't removed and put back.
- Admins are never obligated to delete anything. If the closing admin disagrees with an article's deletion, the admin should simply remove the template, and optionally improve the article.
- To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the very person that placed the Template:Prod on it.
- Since this process is about uncontested deletions, any page deleted here can be undeleted without further argument. As above, the admin who undeletes it is encouraged to improve, source or copyedit the article, or flag it with editorial templates.
Deletion log
Reason for this process
The Articles for deletion process has been subject to much controversy over the past months, and the issue has been debated to death several times, including once being entirely deleted by Ed Poor, with widely varying solutions and ideas. The main problems with AFD include
- Excessive bureaucracy, with many repetitive debates about similar cases.
- A focus on negativity rather than improvement of articles.
- Complaints from people that the articles about them (or written by them) are treated badly.
It is difficult to change a process while it's running. Thus, this is a proposal for a simple alternative to AFD. Since 80% of all AFD nominations are not controversial and end up as obvious "keeps" or obvious "deletes", there's really no need to go into lengthy debates on them. Hence, this new system is to delete any articles nominated here, unless a single person objects within five days. It is really very simple and rules-light, please read the specifics below.
Because this process will not delete any articles that anyone considers worthwhile, the proposal is that this process goes live for a test run in one week (Feb 4th) - unless there are significant objections in the meantime, and assuming that several people promise (below) to watch the process as it goes. This should take much of the workload off of AFD. We can then take our time to decide if we want to keep using AFD for the few debates that are actually controversial, or if we want another process.
Radiant_>|< 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
People watching this process
The following people will be watching the daily logs to find articles to improve, and to make sure no worthwhile content is deleted. You don't have to register here to do anything, this is just to reassure the 'pedia that deletion is under scrutiny.
- DES (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Radiant_>|< 17:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Tom Harrison Talk 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Interiot 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Doc ask? 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rx StrangeLove 02:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- SCZenz 07:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sean Black|Talk 08:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- -- JJay 14:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Haukur 19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I will try to help with this... ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sam Vimes 08:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Deco 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Babajobu 09:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- WikiFanatic 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- On and off. —Cryptic (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)