Jump to content

Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karl Dickman (talk | contribs) at 02:01, 14 December 2004 (→Yes, but only if the first question passes: Delete vote, due to insufficient edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Voting opens at 00:01 9 December UTC and closes at 11:59 23 December UTC. The vote is currently open.

I raise concerns that this vote may be ill-timed; see discussion page. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 19:22, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

This page is for conducting a second round of voting on the proposal Preliminary Deletion. The first round was held at Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote but was inconclusive.

Rationale

  • Several changes to the proposal have been made in an attempt answer the worries of those who originally objected.
  • To get a clear mandate, restrictions and specific criteria have been put in place to ensure smooth voting and to determine the correct course of action after voting.

Differences between then and now

This is the difference between the proposal as it was when voting closed and as of this moment. Here is a summary of these changes:

  • The provisions for preventing abuse of the process gained a very large following, and as such, have been severely reduced in size and merged with the original proposal;
  • The criteria have also been reduced in size, but not in meaning;
  • A 9-point Q&A section answering common concerns has been added.

Determining the course of action post-voting

For both questions, the option that will be considered to have "won" is that which garners 70% or more of the total vote for its question.

Voting restrictions

Important: Only users who have made their first edit more than two weeks before 9 December UTC and have made more than 250 edits are allowed to vote.

You should not make comments with your vote; use the talk page instead.

Question 1

Should Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion become official Wikipedia policy?

If no option manages to grab more than 70% of the vote, the votes for choices two until four shall be added to the tally for the first choice.

Yes

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 03:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. —No-One Jones 04:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. gadfium (talk) 04:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 06:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  5. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 06:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC): Yes. Many cases do not need the full VfD treatment, but speedy is and should remain used for objectively rejectable material.
  6. Rje 06:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. I voted for it last time, I'm voting for it again. [[User:Lubaf|
    Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French]] 08:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 16:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Jayjg 17:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. MPerel 00:19, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Cool Hand Luke 07:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Iain 13:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Cimon (there definetly are arguments pro and con, but my vote is only pro)
    Vote made by anon IP 213.243.182.236. Please log in in order to vote.[[User:Lubaf|
    Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French]] 13:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. R. fiend 23:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC). Do this AND expand speedy deletion.
  14. Lst27 (talk) 21:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. Slowking Man 00:16, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
  16. TwoOneTwo 11:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Drstuey 11:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. I'll support this any way you can pass it. Andre (talk) 01:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only permit keep votes

(see #Alternative)

  1. RadicalSubversiv E 07:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but add an incentive to rewrite articles

(see #Incentive_for_improvement)

  1. -- Scott 04:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Aerion 23:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ben Brockert 23:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Geni 00:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\talk]] 00:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) For example, the final Dominique article was totally different from the original, so it should not have been burdened with that version's Delete votes.
    JerDW We need to give the article a chance to be fixed before deleting it, just like we put drug abusers through rehab before sending them to prison
    Sorry, you do not have more than 250 edits, so you can't vote. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only permit keep votes and add an incentive to rewrite articles

(see #Alternative and #Incentive_for_improvement)

  1. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) although i think it's kind of soon to be doing this again...

Yes, if we add an incentive to rewrite articles, but don't count this as a yes vote otherwise

  1. anthony 警告 04:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Der Eberswalder 14:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No

Unsorted votes

  1. No. Better define speedy deletion criteria, and institute a simple tag-n-bag procedure for CSDs, so that one person marks the page for deletion, and someone else needs to concurs and perform the deletion (exception is vandalism). -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  2. No. A little complicated. And I think there should be a third option. That is, not just "delete" and "VFD", but also "keep". Maurreen 05:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. No, this vote is too soon after the previous one for my liking. Please give it a rest for three months before trying again. Shane King 16:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  4. No. Regulation creep means creepy regulations. Eclecticology 20:11, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  5. Reluctant no. The fundamental problem is that VFD and CSD need to be reworked. --MarkSweep 22:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. No; oppose. - RedWordSmith 22:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Thanks, but no thanks. Mark Richards 22:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. No. RoseParks 03:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  9. I don't believe decision by majority is a good way to control the quality of wikipedia. An opinion by a person very knowledgable in the topic should count more than mere laymen. -- Taku 04:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  10. No. And no each time it's reintroduced. Dr Zen 05:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. No. If this option were available it would rapidly become the preferred option - fstr - no matter the caveats and qualifiers. - Amgine 06:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. No. See talk. JRM 15:51, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

No. Maintain the status quo.

  1. No, too much deletion happens already. Enforce current deletion criteria. The Recycling Troll 19:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Make deletion more difficult.

  1. No, I oppose anything that makes deletion easier. Intrigue 22:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. No. Why don't the deletionists try to improve the site, instead of trolling to delete things? Lirath Q. Pynnor
No. This is all just a big troll by deletionists. Trollminator 18:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have less than 250 edits, and are not qualified to vote. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 02:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

No. Expand speedy deletion criteria instead.

  1. No. Expand speedy deletion instead. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I prefer expanding Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion instead. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. No, we don't need more complications, expand CSD instead. - SimonP 18:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  4. No. Expand CSD. Vacuum
  5. Tuf-Kat 17:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gamaliel 07:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question 2

Should a two-week trial of the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion be held before a permanent implementation?

Yes

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 03:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- Scott 04:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —No-One Jones 04:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. gadfium (talk) 04:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 16:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. MarkSweep 22:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ben Brockert 23:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  8. MPerel 00:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 17:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only if the first question passes

  1. The Recycling Troll 19:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Aerion 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Dr Zen 05:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Cool Hand Luke 07:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trollminator 19:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Having less than 150 edits, you are not allowed to vote in this election. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 02:01, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

No

  1. I prefer expanding Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion instead. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. No. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  3. A trial period is a halfway measure. It could confuse things. If we're going to do this, we should just do it. Maurreen 06:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 06:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC): No, we should start doing it as soon as possible.
  5. Same reasons as Maurreen. Rje 06:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. No for the same reason as I said no to question 1: this vote has come up again too soon for my liking. Shane King 16:05, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  7. No, - SimonP 18:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  8. No. Eclecticology 20:11, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  9. No, I don't want it at all. Intrigue 22:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. No. Mark Richards 22:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. No. RoseParks 03:19, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  12. No. - Amgine 06:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. No. If the Q1 vote is yes it should be implemented. What are we going to do with a trial? - vote if it succeeded or failed then vote again on implementation?; vote on trial xriteria? etc, etc. No thanks! TwoOneTwo 11:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. No. Implement it without a trial. - Drstuey 12:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question 2 is a Dumb Question

  1. We should never consider any policy to be permanent. All policies should be revokable at any time, and users should be able to vote for or against them at any time. We should consider every moment of every day to be a "trial period". Lirath Q. Pynnor
  2. Der Eberswalder 14:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion/Vote2&oldid=8411509"