Wikipedia:Managed Deletion

Introduction

The purpose of this page is to discuss and propose a new method of handling objectionable content on Wikipedia. It seeks to propose a third category of deletion candidates, beyond the speedy delete and yet not to the level of votes for deletion.

The Case for Change

A number of alarming new developments have emphasized a need for a change in speedy delete and VfD categories.

i) Cause: Propagation to mirrors

Political speech that is clearly outside of the bounds of an encyclopedia that is designed strictly to be used for active campaigning has begun to appear more and more frequently on Wikipedia. Similarly, political speech intended to establish legitimacy for a political cause (such as a monarchal claim) has appeared. In both of these cases, the VfD process has been engaged. During the VfD debate period (five days by statute and usually seven to fifteen days before actual deletion), these articles will have virtually unanimous "delete" votes and yet will remain on Wikipedia. During that time, some Wikipedia mirror sites may gather up the information. Thus, it is possible for warriors to put material on Wikipedia knowing that it will be deleted and yet hope for its being picked up by a mirror site. If any mirrors mirror each other, Wikipedia has been used in a subversive manner.

ii) Cause: Outside web use

The John Kerry edit wars showed us all something. That people wished to go to war over whether or not Kerry's wound was "minor" or not is unsurprising in a US election year. However, partisans of the Bush side provided a link to the biased and POV edit in one of their online campaign resources. They were able to say, essentially, "Encyclopedias confirm that Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart." In such a case as that, there is nothing the following proposal can offer; however, if biased, criminal, extremely dubious, or advertising speech were created in a new article, the VfD process would allow it to be linked and used by the outside web world.

iii) 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.

iv) 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.

v) Cause: Inappropriate CSD 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 Managed Deletion. Articles listed on the Managed Deletion page will under no circumstances remain listed for more than 72 hours. Under no circumstances will the listing be removed in less than 48 hours.

Procedure:

1. Article is nominated for Managed Deletion by adding template to be developed to the top of the article's page and by recording the nomination on page to be developed. Anyone may make this nomination.
2. The article will be considered by administrators (see Caveat 1, below).

   The administrators will be (see Talk page for discussion about selecting the three admins).

3. The three administrators will record their support or opposition to the nomination on the ?? page. Administrators may vote in only one of three ways: "Keep," "Delete," or "VfD."
4. Upon achieving a unanimous three "delete" vote, an article will be deleted by the third consenting administrator after putting a summary note or template tag on the article's page. No action will be taken on any article in less than 48 hours.
5. Failure to achieve unanimity: If an article receives even one "keep" vote or one "VfD" vote, it will be referred to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion where deliberation will proceed under current regulations. Similarly, if a page fails to get three delete votes within 72 hours (i.e. fails to gather three voters), the candidate will be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to be considered by appropriate methods there.
6. Majority "Keep": If an article receives 2 or 3 "keep" votes, the page will be sent to Wikipedia:Clean up automatically, with a note on its talk page to nominate the page for VfD if clean up fails its duty in a reasonable amount of time.
7. Recreation of Managed Deleted Content: If an article is recreated, it may not be subject to Managed Delete a second time. It must then be either kept or sent to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. — Might it be a speedy deletion candidate if it has previously been deleted by the Managed Deletion process? — Timwi 15:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) — Yes, I think any deleted article that has been recreated in a duplicate or similar form to the original is a speedy. Johnleemk | Talk 05:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Criteria

Managed delete will be appropriate for any page which fit the following:

1. Clear advertising with no amelioration or mitigation.
2. Clear and unambiguous political speech where POV is inherent to the very topic and there is no mitigation.
3. Jokes that are clearly such and where no valid content could be put in instead.
4. Propagation of hoaxes where the article's existence is solely to increase the currency of a hoax.
5. Substubs articles which contribute so little information that they are as good as a gap, articles where anyone performing the search already must know as much about the topic as the article gives, articles presenting less than minimal information about a topic so obscure as to not attract a knowledgeable editor for months and/or where Wikipedia:Clean up is not likely to help matters.

Caveats

Caveat 1: Limiting voting to administrators is less democratic and less in the spirit of Wikipedia than anyone would like. However, Wikipedia:Managed Deletion is not intended to be deliberative as much as juried. Therefore, it is not a place for authors to argue, or for anyone to argue. This category is an expansion of the duties of Candidates for Speedy Deletion. Like it, anyone may nominate, but, like it, the decision to execute the deletion will be administrative.

Caveat 2: Deliberative vs. juried: The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate unilateral deletions by administrators, to ensure that deletions take place with consensus. VfD is and remains afterward the deliberative deletion process, and that is why the default of any lack of consensus is to go to that page. However, managed deletes are juried, in that they require three consenting administrators.

Caveat 3: Timeframes: No listing may be removed in less than 48 hours. If a deleted article has an objector, that objector may undelete the article and refer it to VfD, with a note left on the listing indicating that such action has been taken.

Discussion

Please note that this page is in its most preliminary phase. It is neither open for voting nor for rending to tiny pieces. If you agree with the general Case presented above and believe that fine tuning is needed, or that this is the wrong approach altogether, please let me know on the talk page. I am interested in feedback from all quarters, but I hope that we can all keep our eyes on the objective: making Wikipedia's lamentable need for deletion more efficient and fair.

Tentative Timeframe and Voting Considerations

This page will remain tentative and a draft for at least seven days. During that time, it will be amended in accord with the constructive suggestions made on its talk page. After that, it will be opened for full comment by being mentioned on Wikipedia:Village Pump. That discussion will be no less than seven days. After that, voting will take place. The vote will be open for four days.

Quorum: This proposal will be considered to have failed with fewer than twenty pro votes, regardless of the proportion of pro to con votes.

Page written by Geogre 17:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)