An example of a vanity page which is routinely deleted by unanimous vote on VFD: "John C. Shaw is a freshman in high school in Portland, Oregon. He is a fan of Indie music, and films. Near the end of eighth grade, he had pneumonia, so was taken to the hospital, where they found he also had scoliosis. He wears a brace, and will wear it for another two years. He takes it off at concerts so that he can mosh easily."
I understand why we can't generally speedy non-trivial content, but it's very inefficient to go through VFD for material that is just going to be unanimously deleted.
Can't we nominate some consistent wikipedia inclusionist to allow to delete, say, any article less than a month old or with less than two edits, they they believe would be a unanimous delete vote on VFD? Articles that they don't choose to delete would continue go through the normal VFD process. If they delete something they shouldn't it can be VFUD or speedy UD by another admin.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Can't we nominate some consistent wikipedia inclusionist to allow to delete, say, any article less than a month old or with less than two edits, they they believe would be a unanimous delete vote on VFD? Articles that they don't choose to delete would continue go through the normal VFD process. If they delete something they shouldn't it can be VFUD or speedy UD by another admin.
To balance the inclusionist with the "license to speedy-delete", we would need a corresponding deletionist with the "license to speedy-undelete". ;-)
On 5/30/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
To balance the inclusionist with the "license to speedy-delete", we would need a corresponding deletionist with the "license to speedy-undelete". ;-)
:)
Well we've got that. I'd say going hand in hand with a policy allowing more liberal speedy-delete, we would allow very liberal speedy-undelete in those cases... The idea is to avoid VFD for something that would be unanimous or near-unanimous, and anything that an admin would bother to undelete would count as not unanimous. :)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The idea is to avoid VFD for something that would be unanimous or near-unanimous, and anything that an admin would bother to undelete would count as not unanimous. :)
Unfortunately, by their very definition, "inclusionist jerks" and "deletionist jerks" don't tend to have a very clear mind about what other people -- especially those on the opposite side of the spectrum -- will think (or vote), and are therefore likely to go "ah well, this is gonna be unanimous anyway" more often than it actually would.