Wikipedia talk:Deletion unlisting

Proposed process

Yes, we should all be more disciplined about nominating articles and voting on articles based on facts and the established criteria in the various deletion policy pages. This approach seems like overkill, though - a severe case of instruction creep. By the time we follow this process, the 5 days of VfD may well have run its course. This proposal also suffers from some of the weaknesses of the Managed Deletion proposal - limiting the decision to admins is only a marginal guarantee that the nominations will be more compliant with policy but will run significantly counter to the cultural values of our community. Maybe I've got my head in the sand, but the problem doesn't seem bad enough to justify this change. Rossami (talk) 02:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, there ought to be some ability to control spurious or repeated VfDs, and it needs to be fair. if the users/editors vote, then the only fair control I can think of is one along the lines "a VfD submission should show why its a valid request, and if it doesnt then it shouldnt have to be argued over". Some VfDs should have a way to be "speedy deleted" in some manner. FT2 02:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

My first objection to this proposal is it gives more work and power to administrators (sysops). I don't think that's helpful or necessary. The whole reason that VfD exists is to put the power to delete in the hands of the whole community. The reason that delisting is currently in the power of any user (including anons) and that the five day period is not required for their actions is that these are easily reverted, again by any user.

Essentially, this proposal takes us further from the spirit of a Wiki. It's not to be done lightly. Andrewa 00:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No more power for admins. They are as often as not the offenders! I think you just have to live with unpopular pages getting listed by people like Snowspinner (an admin, I believe). I think he deserves opprobrium for ignoring an overwhelming consensus and I would support any policy that limited or banned relisting pages that have already passed VfD.

Agree with most of this. But I don't see how you reconcile it to giving admins a special vote in the process. That's a complete coup d'etat on existing policy and strategy IMO (and may be just what is needed, but...). Andrewa 15:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't reconcile it that way. I'm totally opposed to this policy suggestion.Dr Zen 00:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at my proposed wording change on the deletion policy page though. I think quite simply allowing listings to be removed if no reason at all is given is at least a step forward. I'm not convinced that given that the policy already requires a reason we couldn't do that already, but making it explicit is a good thing, I think. Note that this would not encourage removing listings with inadequate reasons; it would simply cut the number of pages tagged but not listed, or listed without the courtesy of even a flimsy reason. Dr Zen 00:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I support your idea. I'm not convinced that making it explicit is a good thing. Wikis are controlled anarchy. Andrewa 15:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andrew, I think making it explicit is a good thing because there are plenty of people here who don't want this to work as a wiki.Dr Zen 00:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain this a little more. I guess it's implied that you think it's both desirable and possible for Wikipedia to become less wikilike. How? Andrewa 03:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good, but...

I like this proposal. The problem is deletion is a damn icky issue and will probably fail to gather consensus if voted on. Managed Deletion failed because everyone was moaning about how the top sekrit sysop cabal could delete articles freely. Now the same conspiracy theory is being spun at Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion. If this is put to a vote, it won't be long before the same happens. I mean, Preliminary Deletion doesn't even explicitly give admins special voting rights. If Managed Deletion was subject to this sort of thing, I don't think this won't be either. That said, I would still support this proposal, but we do need to bear in mind there's a growing number of people who think anything that gives more power to admins is automatically evil and try to find some cabalish reason for it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)