Forum:Deletion policy

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've been on about this before, but here it is in a forum. I believe the old unwritten rule for article deletion, that three unopposed sysops can delete an article, is no longer workable. There are too many sysops. I think that there needs to be a set of rules about deletion - that the community is made aware of deletion debates, that more than three sysops are needed to delete, and that some decision is made on how many "keep" votes can save an article, and that some minimum time should exist between proposal and deletion. What say you? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a change. Somewhere else I said there should be at least a wait of at least X days before a deletion can occur, but the question of Nay votes is one that should be answered too. Something like a majority of at least three votes, plus at least 2/3 of votes being Yay? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say at least 3 days for a proper dispute. There should be a threshold (maybe 7-8 votes difference between Yea and Nay) after which something can be deleted immediately, and other general exceptions. Blue (is useful) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright if 7 people nay, it goes, or after 3 days. Works for me. ТyTalk. 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Seven votes?! That's ridiculous. If we couldn't get rid of crap like this until seven people had swung by to comment, we'd never get anything shifted. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, everyone yelled at me for 3.ТyTalk. 20:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Six to eight votes would be required for immediate deletion, otherwise the three-day minimum would apply. I think that's what he was trying to say. Blue (pester) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I can work with that. ТyTalk. 20:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Are we going to do this there or here? I'd prefer there so that it's recorded in CS, but I don't really care as long as (1) we cover all the points (2) we do it in one place and (3) we bring it to a conclusion which is posted at CS. But please let's do it on one place.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I linked here at that essay talk page but you went to the CS page for some reason. Whatevs. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we just do this without becoming bogged-down? ТyTalk. 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose tying it down to fixed numbers and timescales. It would make the whole thing far too rigid. A two-line brainfart doesn't deserve the same level of consideration that a 20kb article of two years standing would. A common sense approach is a much better option. If anything is ever deleted too rapidly, there's nothing to stop the discussion continuing or the article being resurrected. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, everyone will feel differently, and then the yelling starts. ТyTalk. 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Weasel, but I like the revamped CS. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
(EC)That's why the language would read "in most cases" or "usually." We don't usually do absolutes.
And the problem that tends to be ignored when the "common sense" or "don't be a dick" policies are proposed is that disputes always happen when people have very different ideas of what that common sense means. You have to make an objective, arbitrary guideline, or these types of disputes will just keep happening. Blue (is useful) 20:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. ТyTalk. 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the Community Standards? They're not clear-cut objective rules, because the community doesn't work like that. There's no objective definition of what is "snarky point of view" or what constitutes a "personal attack". They're all judgement calls, & most of the CS is actually based on loose notions of "common sense" & "don't be a dick". Yes, there will be disagreements, as there always are, but I think we'll get much more frustration & obstruction with "three people agreed so we delete it" or "we can't delete it till seven people say so" situations than if we just talk it out on a case-by-case basis. It should be about what justifications are made for deletion & whether they are accepted rather than how many people comment. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the community standards, and I understand what you are saying, and I do not believe the rules should be absolute. I would just like some more concrete of a guidline.ТyTalk. 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
But why on this issue specifically? You'll notice there are very few specific numbers or timescales mentioned in the CS at all. No particular threshold for sysop eligibility, no specific number of opinions required for moving a page or merging articles, no set timescale or threshold for voting in bureaucrats. Why should page deletion be different? What about deleting only a section of a page? The only area of CS where we cite specific numbers or timescales as a guideline is blocking, where there is an obvious impact on users' ability to participate in the site. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
FFS, Weaseloid, of course they're not clear-cut, and neither are the standards we're proposing! The attitude among many RWians that causes an allergic reaction to any discussion about rules is counterproductive. Blue (pester) 20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No kidding. ТyTalk. 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no allergic reaction. I haven't opposed any discussion about rules. You might almost say I am participating in one. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Centralized deletions page[edit]

Regardless of whether we continue handling deletions on a case-by-case basis, establish rigid guidelines, or some mixture of the two, we ought to handle all proposed deletions on one page (similar to what Uncyclopedia does).

Like it or not, our articles, categories, templates, and sundry other pages, belong to the community as a whole. For our deletion system to be just, it needs a clearinghouse.

What pages are currently up for deletion? How long ago was deletion proposed? How many votes are for deleting a given page? Against? Who's commented on the deletion without necessarily voting? Are a large number of pages up on the chopping block? If so, what kind of pages? Is someone abusing the system to safeguard a favorite page, or doom a disfavored one? Has the matter been settled, or did someone just prematurely delete the page?

Currently, the only way to know all of these things is to watch RecentChanges like a hawk and visit every page's talk page separately. This does a great disservice to the community, because it limits discussions to whoever happens to be watching RecentChanges in a given moment and whoever's watchlisted the page in question. If we want more people to become involved in the community, shouldn't we take steps to encourage participation in its every aspect, rather than limiting parts of it to those parties whom are already interested? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what else gets decided, this I think is an absolute must. Good call RA Stabby. P-Foster (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Definitely. Blue (is useful) 21:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we make it look fancy? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Well, we could encourage people to use this and its talk page. Wouldn't be too hard to pretty 'em up. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Boooriiing. Blue (pester) 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We don't brook no back-sass from primary colors 'round these parts. You'll take your category page and you'll like it. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing about this is that WP, UP, etc. have a policy of discussing deletion nominations on a central AFD location whereas we've always just used the talkpage of each specific article which is up for deletion. If we set up an AFD page too, the risk is that we'll end up with the same deletion cases being discussed in two locations at the same time. It would only work out if we could get all deletion discussions in the AFD & not on the article talk pages, & if the community supports this. Personally I still think using the talkpages is more suited to RW, which obviously has a rather different structure & dynamic to those other sites, although I'm not really opposed to trialling an AFD page if there's support for it. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The onus would be on the community to transfer any deletion discussions/nominations to the central page. Not too hard to get used to after a while. P-Foster (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If articles are not allowed to be deleted except after posting to said centralized depository it would be adapted to quickly. Though we should setup up some "speedy delete" criteria as well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, attack page, spam? ТyTalk. 23:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah -- if there's something that you absolutely think needs to be deleted ASAP, like those pictures of Neveruse and the puppy, nuke it, and then put up a notice on the central page so people can make sure everything is pro-forma. P-Foster (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What about proposals to restore a deleted page? Would those have to be made in the same place, or on the article's talkpage? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Since those proposals are exceedingly rare, they could still go on the talk page of the original article. Blue (pester) 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why not. ТyTalk. 02:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's actually pretty common for something to be deleted then restored, & likely to come up more often once the discussion about deletion is taking place somewhere else, as users watching a page may not realise it's up for deletion until after it's gone. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The page would make it easier to keep track of articles for deletion, not more difficult. Blue (pester) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Only if we assume that everybody is equally interested in all deletion discussions & therefore going to want to keep a close eye on AFD all the time. If people are most interested in the articles they've been involved in editing (i.e. the ones in their watchlist) & not constantly checking AFD, they might well miss that one of their watched articles is up for deletion. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
People use watchlists? ТyTalk. 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's what that star at the top of the page is for, & the link that says "My watchlist". ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We should resurrect this page. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but with Blue's fancy template. ТyTalk. 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
ooh, is there a fancy template? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Blue/AFD ТyTalk. 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's going to use fancy templates, why not just transclude talk page discussions in them rather than having all the discussions on the AFD page? Deletion discussions can then stay on article talk pages as per the current system but also be viewed in a central location. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it might make the transclusions overlarge if the article already has a big talk page. Blue (is useful) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
If there's other stuff already on the talk page it can be <noincluded> out so it doesn't appear on the AFD. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A week[edit]

Let the process, whatever it is, at least run a week, to allow those who only check in once a week to complain. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's right, but what about busy people who check in once a month? JimJast (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say that anything over a week would be overkill. If anybody comes here less than weekly they are not a particularly active "member".--BobSpring is sprung! 11:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a very active member. In my pants. P-Foster (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You still only get one vote.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sole authority for deleting articles[edit]

I'm rather new here but I have an impression that Ancient Rome organization (democratic dictatorship, DD) instead of mobocracy would be a better organisation here. It might evolve an organisation that the guy/gal having most time to take care of RW also with greatest IQ could evolve as the sole authority for deleting articles. S/he could be periodically voted into power (like e.g. every year). Because RW requires a lot of work to even fulfill the first point of its mission. JimJast (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
My first cadidate would be Bob. JimJast (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob would do a wonderful job no doubt, but this would be totally against the spirit and character of the site. Often the process is just as important as the outcome. --DamoHi 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Trent is too busy finishing his PhD to bother with deleting articles. Too bad, since he fits your criteria perfectly. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If he is too busy now he may be elected later when Bob resignes for some reason. As for Damo's objections, in my opinion, here the result is the most important. JimJast (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This site has always been at pains to ensure that no-one's opinion is worth more than someone elses (at least in principle if not always in practice). I really see no reason to change this because of a few disagreements about which pages to delete or not. Is the system so broken that we need to throw it out in favour of a dubious idea that has basically been a failure every time it has been tried (democratic dictatorship)? --DamoHi 09:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Damo, when I have more time I'll write you a message to convince you that it is not that bad as you think. E.g. nobody gets killed as it was in other dictatorships. Now I have to go to school, so be patient. JimJast (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to reading that essay. DamoHi 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I should like to thank the multitudes who placed their faith in me but, as others have pointed out, it rather goes against the spirit of the place, and that means that I object to the idea on principle. I also object on practical grounds - on the basis that anybody who was given the task of becoming the sole arbitrator of these things would rapidly become very unpopular. It would also take a lot of time.
So I honestly thank you for suggesting me but I think the position would be inappropriate, unpopular and a time-waster. Having said that, I do think our decision making processes could be improved - but I don't think this is the solution.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
@JJ. The moment this place stops being a mobocracy I, and my socks, are out of here. It's rough and ready and often ends up in various degrees of HCM but it's been working for years and if it ain't broke.... Jack Hughes (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think he wants Bob to be overlord because he thinks it will save his essays from deletion. ТyTalk. 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It almost certainly would. But, as I said, it's not a game I want to play.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that it would but I woudn't want it to be published anyway. If it wasn't funny enough for P-Foster it has to be definitelly rewritten. I don't want to bore peple to sleep but convince them that it is better to know why things fall than not. Convince especially the science teachers since then astrophysicists are going to know it too (learning it already at school). JimJast (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy, are you showing an interest in this because of your commitment to this project or because your free hosting web service might be in jeopardy? P-Foster (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

what free hosting web service might be in jeopardy? In my school? Why would it be? Nobody there careas where else I write and what. I must have misunderstood something so please be more specific. JimJast (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody here cares about what you write either. I mean, it strikes me as odd that the only thing that you use RW for is to host your essays, argue for your essays, and to discuss community standards as they effect your ability to put your essays up here. What else do you see RW as, except as a free-to-you service with which to host/publicize your stuff? Why not contribute your immense knowledge to things we do here outside of promoting your own stuff, instead of treating the community as something that exists to further your own agenda for a change? P-Foster (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't do all those things that you are writing about. As far as I remember the expression you are "fightinga a straw man". What I'm trying to do here, to what you so much object, is to explain gravitation to you and your friends, for pure love of truth (!). You see, the point is that Einstein was the last person who worked on gravitation scientifically. After his death it got under control of 3 good Catholics who tried to convert it into "Confirmation of God Almighty Creator of All This Stuff We Live In" (hopefully I didn't offend any Christian by use of lower case letter where I shouldn't). One of those guys (John Archibald Wheeler - the main perpetrator) died already but other two still live and actively suport their creation titled "Gravitation", a 5 pound book, a.k.a. "Bible" among members of this profession, propagating creation of the universe against better judgement of any physicist, who knows that this "Bible" among other fantasies propagates creation of energy from nothing (apparently via divine intervention). The profession has nothing to do with science, though RW, against logic, considers it science (without quots) and this is about why I use RW. I'd rather see it as "rational" which doesn't agree with supporting creationism. The main problem though is that you guys don't know enough science to be able to discuss the merits of the problem and when I wrote an essay "for poets and science teachers" to give you certain idea in what you got involved you deleted my essey without reading it. That's about the short description of the whole story. If you want something funny imagine all those creationists whom you delivered enterttainment with your lack of common sense not to mention even the support for Lord Almighty. And Kansas "scientists" maintain that oppsition to Big Bang in science (e.g. of Carl Sagan) is an Atheist plot. Now they may see that Atheists support the Big Bang, against safely dead Einstein, and Jimmy his only protector against human stupidity that Einstein evaluated as "the only surely infinite thing in the universe". JimJast (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(Crossed out arguments that are not germane (relevant) to the discussion at hand. Please keep on topic in future. DamoHi 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Let's take a look-see

*JimJast */* Total: 405 *Talk 22 5.43% *User 17 4.2% *User talk 84 20.74% *Project 1 0.25% *Thread 5 1.23% *Essay 179 44.2% *Essay talk 81 20% *Debate 9 2.22% *Forum 7 1.73%

ТyTalk. 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ty, if you've got issues with somebody's editing pattern, take it up on their user talk page. This is supposed to be a policy discussion, so please keep it out of flame war/wikistalking territory. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
While Ty may have been a bit blunt, he's right to point this out, as is P. Foster. It isn't irrelevant to point out that this user has no interest in contributing to mainspace, but just to essay space. I think there is no merit to the idea of voting for people to decide on deletions. It wouldn't work. If those people weren't active one week, people would start acting unilaterally, there'd be arguments, it'd exclude people, and would not help. DalekEXTERMINATE 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, for me, it's not about Mainspace. Dude could only find CP WIGOs or only contribute to talk pages, and I would have zero problem with it. It's "contributing" in a way that ignores the fact that there's a community here that bugs the hell out of me. P-Foster (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Centralised Noticeboard[edit]

Thank you all for waiting a week to get further opinions, as I have been away in London. A few months ago, I suggested something which didn't get much attention, but I think it's time to reconsider it. At the time, I accepted Human and other's ideas that deletion + other discussions should still happen on individual page's talk pages, for various reasons. But the bulk of the suggestion remains:

- While we do need a proper deletion policy, and some other policies, I think we should have a centralised noticeboard, probably at RationalWiki:Noticeboard. Whenever somebody suggests deleting a page, merging two pages or upgrading or downgrading a page in the Article Rating System, or whenever there is an issue raised in the Chicken Coop, or a policy or matter is being discussed in the forums, then the appropriate talk page/chicken coop/forum page should be linked from the centralised noticeboard. Beginning a deletion or article rating process without placing it on the noticeboard would invalidiate it and there'd be a one week waiting period for making decisions. This would mean that any single user who checks the noticeboard at least one a week would be able to register an opinion on all site issues. It would mean that you wouldn't have to trawl the forums, categories, chicken coop, etc, occasionally missing things, and it would never be a case of missing an issue because you're away for a few days. As the site grows, as there are more users, then I sincerely think we need this centralisation. HOWEVER, unlike how I previously proposed, the actual discussions should happen on articles' talk pages. This will mean that all criticism of the article, and ideas on how to approve the article, would be happily stored away for future use.

- While I accept this isn't a deletion policy, I think it will be a useful way of implementing such a policy. I think that the deletion policy needs serious thought and suggestions to be worked out properly, and will work on my own proposals tonight. I think the idea, above, of selecting people (or a person) who makes the decisions on deletions is a very, very bad policy. It excludes people, it will disillusion people, it's against the spirit of RW, and hell... Wikipedia manages to do it with millions of users! DalekEXTERMINATE 19:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am tentatively on board with this idea. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Blue has been cooking up something to that effect. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Since you mentioned Wikipedia I wanted to notice that WP deals each time with a single case so those millions are irrelevanr. Farthermore WP is at disadvantage in realation with RW since majority decide over there and so WP represents opinion of majority of society (they are Chrisitans in the US) while in RW we may have rational point of view, impossible in WP. This is our adventage, with which we may beat WP.
E.g. right now physics of gravitation provides a rare opportunity to get ahead of WP since they can't publish, due to their NPOV, truth on gravitation, which is Einsteinian, since Einstein didn't publish it anyplace, just discovered it and left unattended. It is only implied by his theory of gravitation. I'm writing now a PhD about it and it will be probably rejected which I don't care since I checked that Einstein's physics is perfect (no errors, minor mistakes about "cosmological constant", every thing agrees with observations: no "dark energy", no miracle of "creation of energy from nothing"). So after my PhD is printed and possibly gets rejected as contradicting contemporary (non Einsteinian) "theories" about gravitation, the opponents of the big bang start digging in it and the truth has to come out to the surface. Which WP can't publish because it would be a first publication and they can't publish original research. This way we get them, because we can publish original research. JimJast (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Jim, I'm only gonna say this once. What you are doing is called trolling. It should have long ago been evident that no one gives a flying fuck about your pseudo-scientific theory here, and every time you bring it up, people are more concerned with what to do about you then what it actually says, because YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PEER-REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED. The fact that you keep bringing it up on pages totally irrelevant to its content means you're a troll, and an attention whore. STOP IT. ThunderkatzHo! 21:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif P-Foster (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed oh so much! NDSP 22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
jimjast, wtf are you talking about?--Brxbrx (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
JJ is just jerking himself off on your wiki with no point as to where he does it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This debate is pointless[edit]

As I said in the SB when this first came up, the current system is fine. It works. The only reason there's an uproar is because of some dick deleting something after 5 minutes. If one person keeps crashing a car you don't ban cars or legislate it so that only professional racing drivers can drive cars on the road, you yank the licence of the fucking moron that keeps crashing. Yank the deletion privileges of whichever moron deleted something after waiting a grand total of five minutes and let's move on.

The last thing we want is an incomprehensible bureaucracy, especially if everything not done in a uniform manner. The Chicken Coop, Crat Promotions and now this are all different systems. A user should not need a degree in RW Drama and a comprehensive knowledge of every troll incident in order to participate in the project. Either set up a uniform system for pages like this so new users only have to learn one system and can then be confident on all such community pages, or forget this useless storm in a teacup and pull the moron's rights who started all this. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 04:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If one person crashes a car... and then another person and another and another, all in the same situation, it's generally a good idea to fix whatever the heck is causing so many car crashes. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Finally some rational thinking in this wiki. But shouldn't it be a rational wiki with rational thinking by everybody, not just the grownups (and what is this mumbling about gravitation being science, not just a vehicle for making money by idiots?) JimJast (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Please keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand. DamoHi 09:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
@Actual topic: Whatever the solution, it's not exactly hard to tell someone "we delete stuff by going to (whatever page) and doing (whatever chore)."
@Jim: Nobody is going to read your paper. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 08:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
@Stabby: The only instance I know of this being a problem is the aforementioned idiot who deleted something after waiting five minutes for community consensus. I only know of this one instance that has stirred up the mob. I've always known everyone else to be grown-ups about it.
@Kupo: I think having a system at all is dumb because I don't see any widespread abuse of the way we're doing it now. However, I completely disagree with having a specific deletion system as it gives newbies more pointless crap to learn in order to participate, if we do go for a deletions page then let's do a complete overhaul of all community pages and make them uniform so that newbies don't have to learn X many different systems, they can just be told "When we want consensus we do Y, we ask for consensus for A, B and C and you go to the appropriate consensus page to begin or participate in the process." -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 09:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Very much agree with Lily. It's also a bad move to make an arbitrary distinction between page deletion process & other areas of page maintenance, like page-merges, mission discussions, article POV, deleting page sections, etc. all of which involve a discussion process. Often a discussion will start in one of these areas & end in deletion, or vice-versa. I see no problems with the current systems. When something is occasionally deleted too hastily, it's an easy task to bring it back once we've found out that that's what the community wants. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't recall seeing any problem with the way we discuss deletions...but I'm content with whatever format is chosen, particularly if it's not mandatory, e.g. a better AfD page. (It'd help to clarify what we do with terrible essays, but that's sort of another topic now.) ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm completely relaxed about what policy we have - but I do think we should have a policy. To say what we have works is not really correct - because everybody has a slightly different opinion of what it is. Nevertheless, if somebody can unambiguously state in a few words what our current polity is I will happily vote for it. At the moment the only formal instruction I am aware of is here which doesn't' really cover enough options - or at least nor enough for some users.
The advantage of having clear rules can be found on here. A troll tries to dump some racism on us but it's clearly not allowed. Wiggle room is minimal and HCM is avoided. Consequently we need clear standards and clear deletion criteria. That will remove a lot of debate.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)