On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:11:57 -0700 (PDT), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
How did something which was only first created on August 26 suddenly become policy without a vote or an open discussion?
And if you think that inclusionists haven't been arguing to get rid of VfD, then you obviously haven't been reading all of the posts.
RickK
Chris Wood standsongrace@hotmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the things which CAN be quickly deleted are very limited.
Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a troll named [[El Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not allowed to be speedy deleted, because obviously false information is not an acceptable condition (by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go through the cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously false information was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten rid of all of this user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several different entries on VfD for them.
If there were no VfD, what would be the inclusionists' acceptable process
for getting rid of this false information?
I don't think any "inclusionists" have argued to get rid of VfD. We're just saying it isn't working like it was originally designed to. I don't have an alternative process, just a recommendation that people actually follow policy on which articles should be listed on VfD - this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have not argued for immediate cessation of VfD. Rather I have agreed that it would be nice to carefully and sensibly look at the alternatives. At the least, this could cut down on VfD nominations.
Perhaps speedy-delete *could* be used more for vanity pages etc. But perhaps add an appeals process for when it happens before the party involved has a chance to defend themselves.
Perhaps merge-and-delete should NEVER reach VfD and rather just be done (the content is not deleted, so it's not so contentious). But a successful attribution procedure is needed to make this easier (the history of the deleted page somehow preserved/added into the main one). Maybe the history of the deleted page could be put in a sub-page of the main page, with a link to that in the tagline of the edit placing merged content?
Anyways, once again to emphasise:
*I favour debate - not immediate cessation of VfD*
Zoney