Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk

Google

Two Google hits? My almost-unique name (there is one other person sharing it) gets 1950 google hits and there's no way I'd be worthy material for an article. dramatic 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't actually write these, they were suggested by various users at WP:CSD. I agree that 2 hits is too low a threshold, but I don't know how else I would phrase it. Ideas? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with these changes. When I originally advanced Proposition III at CSD I set the bar at "virtually no Google hits." I think there are advantages to a vaguer statement, "virtually no hits" is a different raw number for a 19th century African politician than for a blogger. - SimonP 01:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've changed it. However, I was thinking — would "very few" hits be more appropriate? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Tying any of our policies to the whims of an external commercial company should not be done. Remove the mention google altogether I say. Shane King 04:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - I have to agree, number of google hits is more akin to a popularity contest than any gauge of notability or encyclopedia-worthiness. For example: slightly obscure people from the 17th century, e.g. Richard Hoare, tend to have very few google hits, whereas Star Wars minutae can have literally hundreds of thousands. Google is not always a useful barometer. Rje 02:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think notability of any given topic should be decided collectively, not individually. Maurreen 05:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: "also, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors." -> "also, where the article makes no claim of notability, and no references to the person can be found in a reasonable search of resources available (excluding Wikimedia's websites or mirrors)." Christopher^ 05:48, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

What exactly is a "reasonable search"? Aren't these the criteria for speedy deletion?

I think that the policy used to guide the decision as to the appropriateness of an encyclopedia article should make no references to any organisations - not Google, not Wikimedia. Brianjd

The fact that an article makes no claim of notability is irrelevant. Whether the person is notable or not is relevant. However, I think that notability is a rather controversial thing - is it really appropriate for a criteria for speedy deletion to involve it?

Lack of notability is never a valid reason to delete an article. What this proposes is the speedy deletion of Vanity pages. - SimonP 17:00, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm amazed by 1950 hits for your name. There are only 65 Google hits for mine, and most of those aren't for me but some else with the same name. Like all websearches, Google is biased towards people who create websites, blogs etc. And it's not so useful for judging the notability of anything else. For example, I only discovered Wikipedia because it was just about the only website with a good list of mythical kings of pre-Roman Britain... and how many Google hits do they get!?! P Ingerson 11:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good article potential

I would support I, II and IV if there was a clause like "and the article is not likely to ever become an encyclopedic article" or words to that effect. One of the thing that makes wikis work so well is that you can only add a little at a time. Take a subject where wikipedia should have a good article, and where it would be possible to write a decent-sized article eventually. Maybe all I know about the three-toed sloth is that it's a sloth with three toes. Maybe all I know about Mithras is that there's this one website that talks about him. Maybe adding this info is such a small step on the path to making a decent article that it's barely worth my time to do it. I still don't see why we should delete this positive (though marginal) step in the right direction.

However, if it's a subject that has no realistic hope of ever becoming a good encyclopedia article, then it should be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that an article consisting entirely of content like "A three-toed sloth is a sloth with three toes" is practically as bad as no article at all. Ten minutes of research would yield enough facts on most subjects to make a decent article, although perhaps not a spectacular one. Joyous 03:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, an article that is absolutely no use to a reader is worse than no article at all. It should also be noted that Prop I and Prop II articles are today routinely speedy deleted, and adopting these propositions would merely be updating the rules to match reality. - SimonP 17:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, we disagree. If you don't think that clause should go in, then that's fine, but I'll vote against them.

Here's my reasoning: Let's say all Arthur knows about subject X is that there's a good website on the topic. He's lazy, and doesn't want to add more than that. So he makes the article, and it's just a link, and it's about as good as useless. Betty sees the article, and can add a basic dicdef, but doesn't want to add anything else. Chris adds a template, Debbie adds a see-also link, Ernie add a category, and Francis adds info which is obvious from the title. At this point, the article is a reasonable stub. Greg sees it, and realizes there should be more info in the article, and he fleshes it out to a good article. But Greg never would have started the article on his own.

I don't think this is far-fetched. I find articles all the time marked for deletion that I expand on enough so that they are obviously not deletion candidates. Others see them in Recent Changes, and add their own two cents. That's how the wiki works.

Certainly I would agree that Arthur's work alone is just about pointless, and I would encourage him to add more. Betty, Chris, Debbie, Ernie, and Francis also are contributing so little, that it might not be worth their time to start an article with only that info. But do you believe it's actually worth someone else's time to delete that info, when there's a good chance it will end up in a good article? Even if Greg had made the article from scratch, he would have had to re-create all of Arthur's and Betty's (etc.) work. Why not accept the contributions these people made, no matter how minor? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:24, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Let us take the example of an article I just created: Judaism in Canada. It meets no current deletion criteria, but has no real content and is of no use to readers. It took me about thirty seconds to create it. The question is whether annoying readers by presenting them with this article that is of no use to them is worth saving a future editor the hassle of redoing the minimal work I have already done. I personally believe that the encyclopedia should always serve readers first and editors second, and that deleting useless articles is thus necessary. - SimonP 23:13, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

We're never going to be complete -- encyclopedias are always a work-in-progress. Remember too that readers and editors are, hopefully, largely the same people. It's not hard for me to dig up some info on Judaism in Canada and add it to an existing article, and the existance of the article in some sense is encouraging to me to fill it in. I'm not quite as likely to think of random, encyclopedic topics like that as I am able to fill them in. That's why I judge articles for deletion primarily on whether the topic is good. Sadly, people often write articles on the worst topics, and I'm keen to kill those. I figure eventually we'll fill in the stubs on good topics, there's no hurry. --Improv 17:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not accept the contributions these people made, no matter how minor?

I cite Wikipedia:Your first article. It states: "...please don't create... A single sentence or only a website link." Also, "...be careful about... Extremely short articles that are just definitions." I also cite Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "What Wikipedia articles are not... Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please do not create an entry merely to define a term." "...Mere collections of external links." BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are good reasons not to create articles like that. But in my opinion, they aren't good reasons to delete those pages, once created. Which should we spend our time doing: deleting these sub-sub-stubs, or improving them? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:53, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

IMO? Deleting them. That way the article will be a red link somewhere, and someone knowledgeable might notice there's no article and create a decent one. For instance, we have a Wikipedia:Requested articles, a place listing uncreated articles... but we don't have a Wikipedia:Articles with very little content, or something of the like. Additionally, if a reader were to click Special:Randompage and get a page with only a template or a see also section or a external links section, it makes us look less credible as an encyclopaedia. Coz such articles aren't USEFUL. Sometimes an article with practically no content is worse than no article at all. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why create extra load on the server and waste the time of people reading recent changes and/or monitoring Category:Candidates for speedy deletion when we can improve these articles? Brianjd

Simply because improving something like that takes maybe 10 minutes to become a reasonable stub - deleting takes ten seconds. And in the 10 minutes that administrator will not perform the RC patrol, and more garbage comes in. Of course, if I notice something such bad which I care about I do the fixing, but normally starting from scratch is better. Sometimes it seems users throw in substubs to make someone else work on a topic they want to learn about, like a requested article. andy 14:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"but we don't have a Wikipedia:Articles with very little content, or something of the like. " We actually do have stubs, substubs, very short articles, etc :) --Sketchee 02:21, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Addendum

I think the biggest concern that everyone has about expanding the speedy deletion requirements is that good content will be deleted and no one will notice in time to restore it. It has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles that any logged in user should be able to view deleted content, this idea was rejected last month.

I do, however, think adding a limited form of this idea would make expanding speedy deletion far more palatable to users who are concerned with the idea. Giving any logged in user access to deleted pages for a seven day period after deletion would make the material that no more accessible, as under the current system the content sits on Copyright problems or VfD for that time, or longer. This would also increase the pool or users who can check up on admins and ensure that articles that were deleted in accordance with procedure.

I thus propose an addendum to the vote:

If two or more new categories for speedy deletion are adopted in this poll then the software will be changed so that all logged in users will be able to view deleted pages for a period of seven days after deletion. After seven days has elapsed the material will only be visible to admins.

This addendum would automatically be seen as approved if any two of the proposed criteria are adopted. This provison will help maintain the same level of accountability that now exists despite far more material being speedy deleted. - SimonP 19:34, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

While I respect the idea, I don't like it. Not here. The vote is going to be complex enough, with five subsections. I really don't want to add this on. I think it'll just make a mess out of everything. I'd really prefer that were done seperately, at a more appropriate location. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a good idea, though making it a consequence of some function of the acceptance of a set of other proposals is just plain evil. I fully agree that whether that 7-day deletion viewing gets accepted or not would influence how a lot of people vote, I suggest we either add it as a separate proposition and allow people conditional votes based on whether that proposition passes (complex), or that we vote on the 7-day deletion viewing proposal before voting on these proposals. --fvw *† 22:21, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

I concur with the proposed addendum -- our acceptance of the proposal is based on acquiring this, and it is related, so it's not a bad idea to have it be part of this proposal. --Improv 22:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this addendum were added would it convince you to vote in support of more of the proposals? If the addendum fails to allay the concerns of those, such as yourself, who are understandably wary then I don't see it being worth complicating the present poll. - SimonP 23:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- It would have a chance of swaying me. More I cannot guarantee --Improv 02:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The ability to view deleted articles for 7 days would change my vote from no to yes for all but proposal 3, where it would change my vote from no to no vote. anthony 警告 21:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would maybe support adding this if it were made a seperate proposal, not contingent on the success of the other proposals. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And everybody who thinks about this, please read Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles if you have not already done so. This idea is very controversial, it got a clean 30-30 split in the last vote. The main problem is that this allows copyvios to remain visible, and that's just not acceptable for many. When you've got people like Angela and Anthere opposing this, you know there are some serious issues at stake, regardless of what you think about it. If you really think we cannot allow these proposals without first increasing accountability, then make that a separate issue and get back to this later. Don't do it the other way around. JRM 20:16, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

JRM, how hard, in your opinion, would it be for us to have a special deletion for copyvios that's separate, so that articles deleted for that reason won't be visible for 7 days, but articles deleted for other reasons remain there? I know it's an additional complication, but I think it's a price worth paying for this functionality. --Improv 02:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're asking the wrong person, really—I'm not a developer, so I can't judge how hard it would be. :-) Speaking as I do from my comfy chair, however, and assuming you actually meant "have everything visible for 7 days except copyvios" (your wording was a bit unclear), it's something that would get my vote. Unfortunately, looking at the page (hey, people are still voting! I thought it closed!) I see that a lot of people are not just concerned about copyvios (which this would solve) but also that "deleted" should be "deleted" (I don't get why this is supposed to be a rational objection rather than an article of faith, but maybe that's just me). You need to sort out what's really motivating people here, besides keeping copyvios, linkspam, and providing free hosting for vanity articles/hoaxes (all of which admit simple technical solutions).
However, this should all really be taken to Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles. It's a separate issue. If Blankfaze cares, it might be worth considering postponing the CSD vote until an amended and rebooted VdA vote is sorted out, because a lot of people will be more positive about these proposals if it gets implemented. I don't know. I do know that I will (would) vote on the proposals here independent of whether people get to view deleted articles or not, because I basically trust our admins. Maybe that's just crazy, I don't know. :-) JRM 03:48, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Quarantine

Some time ago at several policy pages I proposed to introduce the notion of quarantined pages. I am a bit surprised at lack of interest. Here it goes again, with some changes.

This idea comes from my understanding that the urge for speedy deletion comes from the desire to keep garbage away from wikipedia.
At the same time, the primary opposition is that the notion of "garbage" is well-defined only in extreme cases. Other cases must have a fair share of benefit of doubt, if only because of limited experience of any of us. Even "no google hits" criterion is not always valid, e.g., for notable persons from non-notable countries that are still far behind on the road to computerization.

Possible solution: AFAIK, wikipedia has a means to exclude certain pages from search engines. These are the thingies which make nonsense propagate, not the silly articles themselves.

Hence the suggestion: The articles that may be reasonably classified as garbage must be moved into a non-searchable space, so that people may see them and deliberate whether they are garbage or not, without rush, say, for 2 weeks. All keep/delete discussion is to be at their talk page. Once a reasonable number of non-anons vote to keep, it is moved into a regular VfD. etc....

Mikkalai 03:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once a reasonable number of non-anons vote to keep, it is moved into a regular VfD. Sounds unnecessarily complicated to me. I don't see how this would reduce the need for VfD which is the thrust of this proposal. I think it would be a great aid for VfD as it is now, though. Johnleemk | Talk 03:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't insist, just an idea to discuss. Mikkalai 03:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kind of quarantine or "editing limbo" for articles that come from anons could be appropriate. Of course, it would not solve the problem of the most persistent trolls and POV-pushers who would just create new accounts. However, that is probably a separate issue (like "speedily deleting user accounts" or "probationary editing rights"). - Skysmith 11:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposals II, III

It seems to me that proposals I, IV and V will probably pass fairly easily. I think that these are rarely challenged now. However, II and III are extremely contentious. They are far too "interpretable". Take "X Smith was an opera singer". It can be argued that anyone looking up "X Smith" knows they are an opera singer, so this is obvious. However, it can also be argued that this is just a stub. I don't think I'm alone in not feeling we should give a licence for the deletion of stubs. I personally believe a stub encourages expansion, while a redlink can be a bit daunting. Proposal III is out of the question. There will be endless fighting over it. It would allow deletionist admins to delete articles that they think are "notable" by claiming they are "extremely blatant vanity". There are already articles listed on VfD that are listed as "vanity", when in fact they were articles in good faith and were kept as such. I do not think either that any proposal for expanding CSD should a/ mention Google or b/ mention notability. Just my 2c and worth what you paid for it. Dr Zen 06:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Prop II, it applies to only articles with no information not explicit in the title. The tile "X Smith" does not tell me they are an opera singer, so this article cannot be deleted under this rule. What this tells me is that the wording of this proposal needs to be changed. Any suggestions? - SimonP 06:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I will certainly be voting for Prop II. Recently I have deleted a lot of articles whose contents consists solely of the title of the article. I'm told they are created by some kind of vandal bot, and that certainly needs to be stopped. Deb 18:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should have a speedy rule for blatant vanity articles, but it needs to be more specific and objective than Prop II. First, the band vanities. It's not hard for an unknown group to record and sell an album these days, so that point is not useful. Also, the rule for wikipedia is that someone has to be notable, not famous. How about band articles that

do not name an album by the group, or
say that interest in the band is limited to some local area

the rest would have to go to vfd. Gazpacho 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think notability should be limited to locale. Otherwise, we would be basically saying we don't want bands that are local to say Detroit. It wouldn't be a far stretch to say that a band popular in Peru isn't notable. So what level would make the threshold between notable and not notable under the limited local area suggestion? International acclaim? Winning an American award like a Grammy? Many of the opera singers I've made articles on were local to Chicago opera houses, others were local to Broadway and others were local to Italy. Interest in these many of these types of performers would similarly be limited to local areas. --Sketchee 02:37, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Personal vanity articles: I think this should be limited to

self-admitted vanity
stubs about a person that give no indication of notability, or only speculative or nonsensical claims of notability

I'm totally against having "blatant" as part of a speedy rule. I once saw an article nominated as a vanity when the article said the subject was dead. It's just not workable. Gazpacho 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are we achieving here?

Now I think about it, most of these are already speedy delete candidates. Going through one at a time:

Proposal I: Already seems to fall under criteria 4 "Very short articles with little or no context" and often also criteria 3 (vandalism) "Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion".
Proposal II: Already seems to fall under criteria 4 "Very short articles with little or no context".
Proposal III: Not already a candidate, but seems unlikely to gain consensus (in my opinion).
Proposal IV: Already seems to fall under criteria 4 "Very short articles with little or no context" (at least, most of the time).
Proposal V: Putting copyrighted work on wikipedia is a form of vandalism, see criteria 3.

So what do we have left? A slight expansion through proposal IV, and a big expansion through proposal III that doesn't seem very likely to pass in its current form. Shane King 07:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

It's helpful to clarify some of the cases, Shane, don't you think? I agree that I is already covered. IV is an expansion because it would allow deletion of longer dicdefs. I don't agree with your view of V because a person just might not be clear on the copyright policy and do it accidentally. II would allow the deletion of "Red Rum was a racehorse" as it stands, which would be no good. III surely won't pass. However, you get Blankfaze's point. As Simon pointed out, none of the articles it's aimed at are at all controversial. We'd all delete Shumaker, I think. Something that allowed CVs to be speedied might be useful. Perhaps Blankfaze would consider withdrawing I and V and suggesting them on the CSD talk page as simple additions to clarify the text? Dr Zen 08:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this really clarifying though, or just adding more instruction creep that actually complicates things? I'm starting to wonder, that's why I posted.

As far as the copyrighted works issue goes, I give people enough credit to know they're not allowed to just copy stuff from websites. Especially since the edit page says "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!". How else should we interpret someone who flagrantly violates that instruction other than that they're acting in bad faith and hence vandalising the site?

As for II, I don't believe it says that we can delete "Red Rum was a racehorse" if it's at Red Rum (the racehorse bit isn't explicit in the title). If it's at Red Rum (racehorse) it can be deleted, and I think that's fair enough. For it to be disambiguated like that, there must exist a Red Rum page that's a disambig page, and hence already tells us Red Rum is a racehorse. We lose no information by deleting such pages.

Anyway, I'm just grumpy that everything seems to be about voting. Policy pages are editable by everyone for a reason I'd think. Perhaps policy should be ammended by being bold and making the change, and only resorting to a vote if the change is contested on the policy talk page and a consensus can't be reached on how to resolve the conflict? It seems at the moment we reflexively go to a vote as a first, rather than last, resort. Shane King 16:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think Blankfaze opened the vote because the proposed changes were and then contested on the policy page. Then they got very little discussion on the talk page.

Your point about instruction creep is a good one. Unfortunately, I do not agree with your analysis above that proposals I and II already qualify under case 4 though many admins do agree with you. I have come to the conclusion that case 4 is being stretched way beyond its original intent. Speedy deletes should always be completely obvious and non-controversial. They should not be dependent on how you or I interpret case 4 differently. Judgement calls belong on the full VfD page. An unambiguous clarification of the cases will allow us to focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of arguing over the interpretation of case 4. That's my hope, anyway. Rossami (talk) 17:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As to proposal V remember that we have a certain definition of vandalism laid out at Wikipedia:Vandalism and to include copyvios would require expanding that page, which is no easier than adding a new speedy delete criteria. - SimonP 17:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

One thing worth noting, from a skeptic on the proposal, is that if you fail to get a clear mandate confirming current process, it might be construed as causing you to lose the ability to execute what currently might be vaguely current policy. Be careful what you ask for. I suspect that, to draw an analogy, if the U.S. constitution needed unanimous revalidation every four years, it would've expired sometime between its formation and now. --Improv 18:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to all this:

First of all, I can understand Shane's apprehension to voting. However, there was a not-so-small edit war at WP:CSD not so long ago over changes that someone added. I'm afraid being bold simply won't work here.

Secondly, I really don't think that any of the proposals are reasonably covered by existing WP:CSD rules. See Rossami's comment. And even if they are, it's debatable. Why not clear things up? I don't see this as instruction creep. I see this as making things less complicated. "An unambiguous clarification of the cases." BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Improv makes a good point though. Deb 18:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dangerous ground

I believe that in expanding CSD that we should be very cautious. WP is to some extent developed under the notion of consensual direction rather than cabalistic or elitist direction.

Speedy is a method of deletion where there is no room for discussion. Consensus cannot occur if there is no room given to assess the consensus i.e. to discuss it. Speedy subverts the consensual imperative in the interests of efficiency.

I argue that there are two types of "obvious deletion" -- objectively obvious deletability, and subjectively obvious deletion.

Objectively obvious deletion candidates are cases where the invalidity of the article is without any doubt. Fundamentally, any such definition should be conceivably automatable by a computer program. Random junk characters, previously VfD'd topic strings and article content, empty articles, banned user submissions, foreign language articles, etc.
Subjectively obvious deletion candidates are cases where an article or topic flies directly in the face of Wikipedia policy. Content policy of this sort is (should be) clear to most humans, but is not clear to a computer program, as it involves integral knowledge of the English language and of human thought. But as a result of all human policies, there are or can be exceptions, considerations, reasons for pause, etc. In order to be determined, they need to be assessed via human understanding.

CSD is not a suitable Wikian solution to subjectively obvious deletion, because it by definition excludes the forum of human understanding from the process. We should then take care to ensure that CSD only applies to objectively obvious deletion candidates, and that subjectively obvious ones continue to be dealt with by some assessment of consensus.

Regards, [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the current CSD criteria. There is a great deal of subjectivity in terms like patent nonsense, vandalism, and "very short articles with little or no context." - SimonP 18:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think that much of the current CSD criteria as written is often misunderstood in a broader sense than intended. I know I did at first. While in general use the term "patent nonsense" may be subjective, the term is explained at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense in a fairly narrow sense and with many exclusions.

I agree that vandalism has the potential to be subjective. I'm not sure I agree that it should be a CSD case, unless it falls under the other categories such as patent nonsense.

As for "very short articles with little or no content", note that the line item for it on WP:CSD also includes a caveat to err on the side of redirection rather than deletion.

Even abuse cases should be dealt with in a consensual manner. Some might decide that my creation of first grade through tenth grade stubs after the failed VfD for fifth grade ended, was abuse, but its actual intent was comprehensiveness. Speedy shouldn't be used for this, either.

Perhaps you're right, using the entirety of current CSD criteria to defend my argument about the appropriate Wikian place for the concept is flawed. For the most part, though, the overall spirit of CSD cases is to expedite the removal of articles whose invalidity is obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt -- regrettably a concept that most legal systems have had ample opportunity to prove is a difficult one for humans to fully appreciate.

Ultimately, CSD is summary judgement, and therefore it shouldn't apply to cases where room for objection exists.

- [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 20:34, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Your concerns are appreciated, but please keep in mind that unlike, say capital punishment, deletion in wikipedia is not totally destructive and irreversible. First, there is an option to appeal and undelete. Second, if the topic is really important, someone sooner or later will recreate it. In the broader view of the totall summa of knowledge I don't see much difference between deletion and merciless editing of some articles, when 100% of content of the original article is eventually replaced. Mikkalai 05:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, there is an option to appeal and undelete. Yes, but this option requires a majority in favor of undeletion. anthony 警告 21:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just greatly lower the standards for undeletion of articles which are speedily deleted. Then admins can be as subjective as they want, but if someone objects, we can reverse their action. anthony 警告 21:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any admin can, and should, immediately undelete a page that was deleted out of process. Perhaps we should have a separate page listing candidates for speedy undeletion, so that these cases can quickly be brought to attention and perhaps moved to VfD. - SimonP 21:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The current policy is that an article must be "obviously deleted 'out of process'" to be a candidate for speedy undeletion. That's a bit too high of a standard, in my opinion, as it implies that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the admin making the deletion decision. I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who want the page kept. After all, admins aren't supposed to have any authority. anthony 警告 02:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Proposal

If it doesn’t get a single ‘keep’ vote from any editor having more then 100 Edits (excluding the original author) with in a day or two. Or alternatively we can chose the thresh hold of 4 ‘delete’ vote from ‘non-sock puppets’, without a single ‘not delete’ vote excluding original author. If within 5 days (may be more time) any ‘non-sock puppet’ asks for undelete. It should be voted for deletion by normal method.

Zain 14:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You probably want Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. This is speedy deletion we're talking about. There's no voting on that (hence the "speedy"). Unless you're talking about votes for undeletion—in which case, use Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion. In any case, I don't understand what this new proposal has to do with the current ones. JRM 19:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

I definitely think we need a procedure for expedited deletion of articles that is faster than the full VFD process, but slower than speedy deletion, but that isn't what we're discussing here. --Carnildo 22:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes and pranks

Obvious hoaxes and pranks listed on Category:Articles which may be hoaxes at least for 3 days without any improvement or dispute.

It would only codify existing practice of speedy deleting hoaxes as a vandalism. (Propable reasoning - adding pranks to wikipedia is inherently bad faith behaviour.) --Wikimol 20:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that adding hoaxes and pranks to wikipedia is inherently bad and I do consider it a form of vandalism. Unfortunately, I do not believe we should try to turn them into speedy deletes. As individuals, we have a very poor track record of identifying the "obvious hoaxes and pranks". Many are truly hoaxes but a significant minority of these articles have turned out to be true (though obscure) topics. As a group, on the other hand, we are very successful at sorting them out. The VfD notice at the top of the article's page is an inherent disclaimer that no reader should trust the content during the discussion period - at least not without reading the VfD discussion thread. Five days on VfD is not too high a price to pay for the very good articles that have been saved but which would have been deleted without review if hoaxes were speedy candidates. Rossami (talk) 06:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is 70% consensus?

I wish we could talk out our policies instead of insisting that the majority should get its way. Still, it would hardly be Wikipedia if we actually did try to get things done by consensus!Dr Zen 02:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is when the people who think there isn't consensus aren't numerous, loud, or persistent enough to shout down those who think there is consensus. :-) Seriously, the truth is that waiting for decisions to be near-unanimous can take forever. Poland used to be governed by consensus among the nobles, and it's one of the reasons they were conquered so often; they couldn't get anything done most of the time.

In answer to your actual question, I'd say that 70% is consensus for some purposes but not others. For something like speedy deletion candidates, I'd say it's too low, because speedy deletions are supposed to be uncontroversial. You don't want an article speedy-deleted when 30% of Wikipedians think it shouldn't have been. Isomorphic 08:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection of the proposal page

Protection is completely unacceptable. The original author (User:Blankfaze) and another admin (User:Neutrality) have reverted and protected it to prevent addition of a new proposal which both of them personally disagree with. According to Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts." Assuming the mantle of "author" or "owner" of this proposal is a direct slap in the face to the wiki process. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

You're talking to the hand with those guys. If they were interested in the "wiki process", we wouldn't be having a vote. On a protected proposal at that! So much for you can edit any page!Dr Zen 07:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, the proposal was protected (I assume) because voting starts in less than 72 hours and it will only make things messier if the content of the proposal is flopping around right before the vote. Secondly, my opinion as to your proposal's merit has nothing to do with anything. I've only stated that I don't believe it belongs here. No one "owns" this proposal. No one owns any page on Wikipedia. I didn't make the decision to protect; you'll have to take that up with Neutrality. I do, however, see his reasoning, and I don't think it's "unacceptable" in the least. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there is question about the format of the vote, the start should be postponed. There is no provision in the protection policy for protecting a vote page for any amount of time leading up to the start. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

The obligation is to find consensus before adding a proposal. - SimonP 16:15, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, which I did by adding a discussion about it to this talk page above #Tag and bag proposal about two weeks ago. Noone objected at all, and even the "author" of the original proposal said "I don't like the idea, but that's just me. I can't stop you from taking a vote on it". I made the effort, and now a few days before the vote's scheduled start, I added it. Now is not the time to moan, unless we postpone the start date of the vote. -- Netoholic @ 16:29, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Why would we demand consensus before the vote? Isn't that defeating the purpose? ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 13:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even a quick read of this page would show something at least as important as the holy grail of consensus... goodwill. Clearly (Blankfaze) and many others on this page have only the intent of improving internal process. Protection of the final wording of a proposal is as old as Robert's Rules of Order and I'd warrant that even in our enlightened age we can use a few established principles to guide us. --Bookandcoffee 18:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I don't believe Robert's Rules of Order was a wiki.Dr Zen 23:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include this proposal (although, at first glance, I shall probably vote against it myself). I certainly see no good reason to edit war over it - why not just include it and let the votes decide? -- sannse (talk) 20:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With seven sub-proposals, this vote is already more complicated than I wanted it to be. Netoholic's cause is a complicated one in its own right and would be better suited for discussion and voting on a separate page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that another proposal added will make a lot of difference, and this addition may be a part of peoples decision on the current suggestions. If someone has concerns about increasing the criteria, this suggestion may change their mind. The two seem too closely linked to me to make this a new page. More importantly in my eyes - this is an unnecessary dispute - surely there is some way to come to an agreement here -- sannse (talk) 00:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. We don't need a separate Wikipedia:Proposal to expand Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD, do we? The page belongs to Wikipedia now, not to Blankfaze. If you object to the proposal, simply do not vote on it. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 13:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Individual talk pages?

Would it be useful to set up individual talk pages for each proposal, to make discussion simpler when the vote begins? It would be similar to the recent arbitration vote's pages. As it is now, people are going to start a new thread each time they have a comment, rather than reviewing this entire page. --Ben Brockert < 04:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Done --—Ben Brockert (42) 01:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the comments couldn't be moved easily because they address more than one proposal. If you authored one such comment, your assistance in cutting it and pasting it into the appropriate page in chronological order would be most appreciated. --—Ben Brockert (42) 01:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

General comment

Most of this is a codification of existing administrative judgement, however it will be good to have these existing "as law", so to speak, though these measures will not really impact much on the Monster That Is VFD... Dysprosia 06:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a bigger issue at hand

While the goal of adding what is a CSD is admirable, I find that the bigger issue at hand is the one of Votes for Deletion. A proposal regarding VfD was struck down recently, b ut that doesn't change the fact that it is a monster that is ineffective due to its massive size. While no one can agree on HOW to solve it, the fact that there is a problem there is almost universally accepted; this will slightly remedy the problem, but I still feel that this only adds as law a few interpretations that have already become standard practice anyway. I think that the attention of the 'pedia at large needs to be focused more on VfD than on CSD. Just my 2 cents, though. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 07:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I surrender

Despite the fact that this proposal has turned into a circus and a free-for-all, with the unilateral additions of ridiculous, poison-pill amendments, I'm not going to fight the addition of anything anymore. I don't have the time. I wanted this vote to remain simple and on-topic. I was not able to do that. Whatever happens, happens. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the vote should have been protected (however effective against admins that would be) and made stable once the vote was announced and upcoming. --BesigedB ^(talk) 21:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that this project wasn't very well publicised until the vote was announced. I've been a strong supporter of expanding speedy, and I didn't hear about this proposal until yesterday. --—Ben Brockert (42) 21:50, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Think of it this way, Blankfaze: the newest additions are the least thought-through and the least discussed beforehand. That makes them the least likely to pass. And once they have failed once, they will be difficult to bring up again. Prematurely putting them to vote may kill them more permanently than your attempt to exclude them from the vote. --—Ben Brockert (42) 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I wasn't really trying to exclude them based on their content. I just wanted to keep the vote simple, and now it seems like a big, complicated mess. But we'll see what happens. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many-in-one proposals

I think this multi-pronged proposal structure should just be abolished. Outlawed. Hooted out of town. This is like passing amendments, with everyone tacking on rider bills when they feel like it, even at the last minute when there's scant room for discussion. Even Blankfaze's original, which seemed innocent enough, might have been too bold. Let's not pretend these proposals are completely independent — especially proposal IX. Vote on one thing. That everyone can edit a proposal is dubious enough as it is (what are we voting for, then? To get community consensus on a proposal that was edited to consensus by the community? Huh?), let's not make it even more confused by throwing together everything that's fit to print.

One proposal. One thing to vote on. Even if it's a lot of small things. If you want, put all the small things together and have the thing pass as a whole or not at all — your choice. But no subproposals. Not policy, just advice. It's too late for this proposal, but let's not do it again. JRM 22:41, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

"Reject" is rejected.

There's no need to add 50% more options to the voting. Having two no votes and one yes vote is a bad idea and will only result in debates on how to interpret the ensuing vote. --—Ben Brockert (42) 00:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Having a vote in the first place was a bad idea. Allowing even qualified majorities to set policy means that policy is never consensual. This means that those that oppose changes to the policy, if it's opposed, are not heard and still oppose it. Dr Zen 01:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a new proposal on whether proposals supported by the majority should become official policy. :-) I see your point, though. Getting it done by consensus is always better than getting it done by majority. Then again, you should just vote "no" on everything if that's a concern — and I have a feeling quite some people will do just that, especially since we're talking speedy deletion. JRM 01:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I agree with that since I think we should be creating policies that we can all live with by discussing what should be included in the first place. In that case, would it be better to vote on smaller pieces of policy than larger ones all at once such as this proposal? --Sketchee 02:25, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was a little more subtle than "two no votes and one yes vote" — it was, rather, one positive, one neutral, and one negative vote. Since it was clear that both the positive and negative votes required a majority, there was really no ambiguity. A 30% minority of disagree votes would have blocked both agree and reject and led to no action being taken. But I'm comfortable with proposal IX as it now stands.

I admit I hadn't quite noticed at first that the agree vote required a 70% majority; if I had, I'd have made that proposal mirror the main vote properly. JRM, thanks for catching that.

By the way, why does this proposal ask for a 70% majority rather than a simple two-thirds majority? It can be quickly determined whether a vote has the two-thirds majority; one need only check whether one side has twice as many votes as the others combined. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Disagree" is hardly neutral. As you point out, a third choice would easily poison the vote, and it will be impossible for any of the option to truly pass or fail. On 2/3rds, the objective is to have "consensus", and the consensus on Wikipedia is that "consensus" is roughly equal to 70 or 80 percent. --—Ben Brockert (42) 04:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was neutral in that it was essentially a vote to keep the status quo. I doubt the third option would have affected the vote; it was just a subset of disagree anyway. It isn't "poisoning" to split the neutral position. If the positive side was going to receive a majority, it would still get the majority (see Independence of irrelevant alternatives). It has always been the case that the vote was biased in favor of the status quo: that side does not need a majority, but it can overrule the majority with only 30% of the vote.

...We don't even have a policy on Wikipedia:Consensus. How ironic.

If it really is consensus you're after, you should probably read consensus decision making. What we have here falls far short of a consensual process; there's considerable reluctance to even consider new proposals. Can't we admit that Wikipedia hardly ever actively tries to develop consensus? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am taking the consensus is that consensus is roughly equal to 70 or 80 percent home and framing it. Only on Wikipedia, a place where consensus supposedly rules, could someone say that and mean it! Thanks for the link, Eequor. Should be required reading for everyone here. Dr Zen 11:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There may have been a small amount of jest in my statement. I sometimes forget that Wikipedia has no sense of humor. :) --—Ben Brockert (42) 20:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Accordingly U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as "80%, mean plus one sigma, Two-Thirds, 50% plus one" levels of agreement. Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article." So say the people in the Wikipedia article. Dr Zen 11:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there is actually one place where Wikipedia works toward a real consensus! I'd forgotten.... It's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, of course. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The articles Eequor mentioned are really good stuff, especially if you think you know what "consensus" means. Now combine this with the nature of WP:CSD, and consider again whether a majority vote is the way to go here. Damn. I'm going to have to abstain from all votes; I need to mull this over first. JRM 14:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

^_^ ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postponement

I've postponed the vote four days so we can resolve the differences between proposal III and proposal XI. Offering two choices may lead to neither proposal receiving enough votes to pass — and if both of them pass anyway, we would be in the awkward position of having to incorporate elements from both into CSD. Better to work toward a satisfactory version of proposal III now, rather than instate a version nobody officially voted on. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted this. This vote has been scheduled for weeks and should not be postponed over an amendment that was added mere hours before the vote was set to begin. If there is a problem with the amendment, it should be removed. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hm, Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal III (Vanity articles) shows that Wikimol proposed this on December 20. Never mind. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bringing it up on a talk page is one thing. Ideally he should have added it to the official proposal days or weeks ago. With less than an hour left, there's no time to discuss any issues with it. However, the entire vote should not be held up because of Wikimol's procrastination. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask what the general rush is? If there are any questions as to the format of the vote, there is no harm in a postponement. That is a far better option than getting it off on the wrong foot. -- Netoholic @ 23:31, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

No rush, it's just that this vote has been discussed and mulled over for almost a month. It's unfair to derail it thanks to a very last-minute addition. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postponement won't "de-rail" anything. It is fair to all to delay all of the open questions as to the format. Let's combine the measures which deal with similar items and stabalize the format. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

~~I tend to agree with Blankfaze. Wikimol had most of two weeks to change proposal III to sen liking; se didn't have to wait until hours before the vote.~~ ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other concerns about ther format of this vote (and even the need for it at all) have been raised. By not postponing, everyone of us is saying, in effect, that we believe there is a reasonable chance of each proposal passing (regardless of our individual views). If that is not how we all feel, then why put them to a vote? Why not work on them until there is consensus at least with that thought? -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

First - I'm very sorry for adding it to "official vote page" so late. I've been offline for a week. Proposals are conceptualy different, I dont see how they could be "merged". --Wikimol 23:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. Why do you feel they are conceptually different? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prop III relies on the competence of admins, IMO too mush for CsD. Prop XI relies on the community, and the work of admin could almost be automated. (Of course the admins judgement remains as a last check).

Other motivation for adding it was my guess Prop III won't pass. --Wikimol 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nnn. Neutrality reinserted XI. I don't see how we can reasonably vote on both proposals. Who feels XI should be considered? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I see that Eequor has listed this proposal on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes - I would just like to make it clear for users coming here from there that there is no disagreement. There is only Eequor, who has numerous times attempted to unilaterally postpone this vote. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense; see above. Netoholic also objects to the vote. I see that my inclination to agree with you was in error. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

blankfaze.. .will you please stop with the snide attitude? -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Snide attitude? I'm only stating the case. Either way, all anyone has to do is look at WHO is opposing the start of the vote. That tells a lot. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Listing of possible sock puppet voters

According to Wikipedia:Sock puppet, it is typical to not count votes for accounts with less than 100 votes, or a questionable contribution listing. Please list here any accounts which may fight these guidelines. This will be easier than marking them under each voting sub-section.

User:Max rspct (contribs, talk) - slightly over 100 edits, but about 40 are to his own user page, and he's got less than 20 article edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
- User:Max rspct is relatively new to wikipedia and low edit numbers should be understandable. who are you suggesting User:Max rspct is a sock puppet of? Xtra 01:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just so nobody takes this the wrong way

I'm going to vote "disagree" on all proposals, because I don't think the proposal process is proper to begin with. I think we should go for proper consensus, and not a majority vote, especially since we're talking about something individuals must act on. Looking at the CSD talk page, I see no real attempt at working towards consensus, just the usual "here's why you're wrong" back-and-forth arguing. That's a good start, but hardly the prelude to a full-blown vote. The current page has quite a few proposals that didn't seem to get any consensus on the talk page — what's a vote supposed to establish? If it's merely a handy way of getting lots of people to state what they think, it's going overboard by immediately stamping the things the majority likes as policy.

We need more discussion. A vote will get more eyeballs, but a vote, and especially a majority vote, is not discussion. Unless someone tells me we have officially abandoned consensus as a realistic way of getting to policy, I can't in good faith agree with this. I have thought about abstaining, but decided against it; as that sends no signal at all. I must stress that my "disagree" votes are not meant to express spite or dissatisfaction with any individual proposer, and I'm not even trying to express opinions on how the CSD policy should look — just that I don't think it's good to change it in this manner. I have no doubt that these proposals will see enough voters to ensure my votes won't "sabotage" the process. JRM 01:03, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)