A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide rationales.
I suggest a two step process: 1) The first 24 or 48 hours people submit rationales for or against deletion. 2) After that people can vote on which of these they support. Similar to a finding of the facts.
This would make it easier to discount votes based on outdated or incorrect reasons. "Article is too short" (after it was expanded), or "unreferenced" (when acutally the link was temporarily down).
It would also make it easier to see at a glance whether it was deleted for being non-notable, for missing references or for being in a irredeemable state.
Mock Up Example:
===[[FakeBand]]=== ====DELETE==== * Band yields only 12 Google hits; all on geocities, lycos and myspace apart from official site which indicates they're not famous or having an effect on the music industry. - [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]]
* Band has no All Music Guide entry. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] * Band has no albums on Amazon. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]] * The listed albums are self-produced as admitted by creator. -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]]
====KEEP==== * Band DOES have 3 albums. They're listed on the official site. We just couldn't get them in the stores yet. (www.fakeband.com). -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] **Support -- [[User:ArticleCreator]]
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide rationales.
I suggest a two step process:
- The first 24 or 48 hours people submit rationales for or against deletion.
- After that people can vote on which of these they support.
Similar to a finding of the facts.
Sort of. But you don't need a reason to keep an article. We keep an article unless there is a consensus to delete it. Of course it would be silly not to submit rationales for keeping if one has to compete with rationales to delete, but really it's a bit like criminal law. If the prosecution fails to present a case, the defence can spend all day on Blackpool Beach with a bucket and spade and a knotted hanky on its head, and the defendant is still acquitted.
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide rationales.
One of the things that's often bothered me is people voting, not without reasons, but with illogical/irrelevant reasons and knowing that they're still being counted as a "delete" or "keep" vote (e.g. the notorious RFA vote which said, "I oppose because I don't like X who supported"). That one's more frustrating to me that anything else: the voter's immunity to reason. "My vote's just as good as yours and I refuse to change it, regardless to any decent information you may put forth."
Blackcap
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide rationales.
I suggest a two step process:
- The first 24 or 48 hours people submit rationales for or against
deletion. 2) After that people can vote on which of these they support. Similar to a finding of the facts.
This would make it easier to discount votes based on outdated or incorrect reasons. "Article is too short" (after it was expanded), or "unreferenced" (when acutally the link was temporarily down).
It would also make it easier to see at a glance whether it was deleted for being non-notable, for missing references or for being in a irredeemable state.
Mock Up Example:
===[[FakeBand]]=== ====DELETE====
- Band yields only 12 Google hits; all on geocities, lycos and myspace
apart from official site which indicates they're not famous or having an effect on the music industry. - [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]]
- Band has no All Music Guide entry. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]]
- Band has no albums on Amazon. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]]
- The listed albums are self-produced as admitted by creator. --
[[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]]
====KEEP====
- Band DOES have 3 albums. They're listed on the official site. We
just couldn't get them in the stores yet. (www.fakeband.com). -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] **Support -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Blackcap,
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide rationales.
One of the things that's often bothered me is people voting, not without reasons, but with illogical/irrelevant reasons and knowing that they're still being counted as a "delete" or "keep" vote (e.g. the notorious RFA vote which said, "I oppose because I don't like X who supported"). That one's more frustrating to me that anything else: the voter's immunity to reason. "My vote's just as good as yours and I refuse to change it, regardless to any decent information you may put forth."
Such votes should not be counted, and as far as I'm aware generally are not counted (if I'm wrong, you can expect to see my newly-adminified arse on Deletion Review rather a lot over the coming months). WP:NOT a democracy, AFD:NOT a vote.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Such votes should not be counted, and as far as I'm aware generally are not counted (if I'm wrong, you can expect to see my newly-adminified arse on Deletion Review rather a lot over the coming months). WP:NOT a democracy, AFD:NOT a vote.
Tony Sidaway got RFCed for not doing a strict numerical count. I said the RFC was completely fuckheaded (which it was), and then Ed deleted VFD. So there's some historical precedent for your view ;-)
- d.
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Such votes should not be counted, and as far as I'm aware generally are not counted (if I'm wrong, you can expect to see my newly-adminified arse on Deletion Review rather a lot over the coming months). WP:NOT a democracy, AFD:NOT a vote.
Tony Sidaway got RFCed for not doing a strict numerical count. I said the RFC was completely fuckheaded (which it was), and then Ed deleted VFD. So there's some historical precedent for your view ;-)
- d.
Doing things by the book means that conflict is controled. Stop doing things by the book and the conflict is widened and becomes less predictable.
-- geni
geni wrote:
Doing things by the book means that conflict is controled. Stop doing things by the book and the conflict is widened and becomes less predictable.
And overdoing it is fetishising process over product, which WP:AFD and WP:DRV in particular have a crippling case of. Rules may be good, but instruction creep is still bad.
- d.
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway got RFCed for not doing a strict numerical count. I said the RFC was completely fuckheaded (which it was), and then Ed deleted VFD. So there's some historical precedent for your view ;-)
The RFC *was* fuckheaded, but there might have been a point somewhere in the nonsense. That admins can execute as much discretionary power when it comes to what "consensus" means in an AFD is worrisome; it implies that the closing admin can alter the result of the vote substantially according to whatever arbitrary view he or she might have on deletion. Tony doesn't think this is a problem, because (I get the impression-- please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he's happy that he can close AFDs with an inflated standard for consensus, because he wants more articles to be kept.
Whatever you think about the question of whether more articles need to be kept, it would be prudent to consider whether we want admins to make this kind of decision at all, in either direction. It seems contrary to the idea of what consensus means; it means that the closing administrator is really the one with the power, and the idea that the "normals" in the discussion have power is just an illusion. Now, this is why I think the RFC was fuckheaded: the RFC was really about a systematic problem with AFD, not Tony Sidaway's behavior. Tony's closing habits are, if anything, a symptom of the problem inherent in AFD, because it makes this kind of dispute even possible.
Since what I'm providing here is yet another reason to think of AFD as borked and needing replacement, I don't expect much debate on these points. But I see a lot more discussion about how bad AFD is and a lot less discussion about what we should replace it with, and why whatever system we choose to replace it will be any better. Defense of AFD seems to be getting quieter and quieter but I still don't see us making much progress toward enacting some actual improvements.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
The RFC *was* fuckheaded, but there might have been a point somewhere in the nonsense. That admins can execute as much discretionary power when it comes to what "consensus" means in an AFD is worrisome; it implies that the closing admin can alter the result of the vote substantially according to whatever arbitrary view he or she might have on deletion. Tony doesn't think this is a problem, because (I get the impression-- please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he's happy that he can close AFDs with an inflated standard for consensus, because he wants more articles to be kept. Whatever you think about the question of whether more articles need to be kept,
No, this is a misrepresentation of what happened. He was RFCed for following the actual deletion policy.
- d.
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
No, this is a misrepresentation of what happened. He was RFCed for following the actual deletion policy.
Er, okay. So how about the rest of what I said? :-)
Ryan
On 12/12/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway got RFCed for not doing a strict numerical count. I said the RFC was completely fuckheaded (which it was), and then Ed deleted VFD. So there's some historical precedent for your view ;-)
The RFC *was* fuckheaded, but there might have been a point somewhere in the nonsense. That admins can execute as much discretionary power when it comes to what "consensus" means in an AFD is worrisome; it implies that the closing admin can alter the result of the vote substantially according to whatever arbitrary view he or she might have on deletion. Tony doesn't think this is a problem, because (I get the impression-- please correct me if I'm wrong here) that he's happy that he can close AFDs with an inflated standard for consensus, because he wants more articles to be kept.
This is a misrepresentation. My standard for consensus, at the time I was closing AfDs, was 70-80% depending on the strength of arguments. This is in line with standards used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and in no way can it be described as "inflated".
That some other editors use 2/3 as in any way representative of consensus, I find unfortunate, but I can live with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
This is a misrepresentation. My standard for consensus, at the time I
was closing AfDs, was 70-80% depending on the strength of arguments. This is in line with standards used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and in no way can it be described as "inflated".
That some other editors use 2/3 as in any way representative of consensus, I find unfortunate, but I can live with it.
It bothers me that you and David are ignoring my main point, so I'll try repeating it: I'm not using this email to make a judgment about what percentage you arbitrarily picked as a standard for what "consensus" means. The mere fact that administrators can decide for themselves is what bothers me, and if I am criticizing you, I am criticizing everyone (including myself, since I've closed a lot of AFDs). What troubles me is that the result of AFD votes -- the controversial ones that actually matter, anyway -- can be substantially influenced by the administrator who closes them.
Say some contentious issue comes up on an AFD, say a series of "roadcruft" nominations. Now, the votes will be very close, but say we have 64% of people voting to delete. Some administrators, without doing the math, would close this as a delete. You certainly wouldn't. What does that say about the discussion process? Doesn't that mean the opinion of the closing admin on deletion standards weighs in more than anyone elses? This is what I'm getting at-- I think your case isn't an example of an admin abusing his power, but it is an example of what can go wrong with AFD *as a system*, and it actually goes wrong every day without anyone noticing.
Ryan
On 12/13/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
The mere fact that administrators can decide for themselves is what bothers me
I think that's a very good thing. If we work by consensus, then the first thing we have to acknowledge is that there is no consensual definition of consensus, although there is general satisfaction that Wikipedia usually makes decisions that everybody can live with. The latter is termed "rough consensus" and, as an expression of the reasonableness and tolerance of Wikpiedians, is what keeps Wikipedia from breaking.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think that's a very good thing. If we work by consensus, then the first thing we have to acknowledge is that there is no consensual definition of consensus, although there is general satisfaction that Wikipedia usually makes decisions that everybody can live with. The latter is termed "rough consensus" and, as an expression of the reasonableness and tolerance of Wikpiedians, is what keeps Wikipedia from breaking.
I totally agree with you here. I'm glad you brought the discussion here because it's a great place to make my next point. It's also a great way to clarify why my criticism of your RFC is a criticism of AFD and not of you. My point here is that by letting people vote, AFD creates the atmosphere that people are discussing the issue to find out what the consensus is. I view that as a farce. In reality, people tally votes, and the closing admin determines what percentage will count as "consensus" today.
The fact that "there is no consensual definition of consensus" really means that people can't agree on what percentage of votes should count as consensus. But no percentage of votes could possibly count as a consensus. "80% of the votes = consensus" means "It's okay to roll over the opinions of 20% of the people if you have a big enough majority." That's not what consensus means. What happened in your RFC shows how people with differing arbitrary percentage standards of "consensus" can think they are "right" but have no rational basis for argument in support of their position. In my view, any numerical quantification of consensus is wrong, regardless of what number is picked. Consensus is a rational agreement among reasonable parties, and that means that people have reflected and discussed the issue and found a way to come to agreement. Because AFD creates this illusion of determining what consensus is, it perpetuates the myth that articles deleted by an AFD vote were deleted by a legitimate mandate of the community. In reality, it means anyone who can get enough votes can dictate policy to the minority without discussion, and without real consensus.
Now you might be wondering why I said I agree with you. What I agree about is that I think admins should be greatly influenced by the rest of the community on what articles should be deleted, but I think the final decision should ultimately be in their hands. This is mainly why I am so strenuously advocating pure wiki deletion, with admins reserving the power of page protection, as a substitute for AFD. Pure wiki deletion is transparent in that it puts the power in the hands of the administrators explicitly, rather than claiming power for "the people" while implicitly leaving the decision in the hands of the closing admin. When an article is deleted under PWD, we know who is responsible for it and we can question their reasoning in an amicable and direct way. It also forces real discussion of deletion, just like the concept of the Wiki forces discussion of content edits, because it's no longer possible to delete an article just by getting enough votes to break over the "consensus" threshold. Imagine if we had votes for content edits: That would mean that the opinions of 1/3 people on Wikipedia don't matter! A nightmare, to be sure, but it's one that we're living under with AFD as relates to deletion.
All of this isn't important, though. I happen to think that PWD is the best solution to the problem, but I would like to hear other ideas. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but it occurs to me that I haven't heard many other people advancing alternate solutions. What I want to do is try to move the discussion toward what we will replace AFD with, and why the replacement will be any improvement.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
It bothers me that you and David are ignoring my main point, so I'll try repeating it: I'm not using this email to make a judgment about what percentage you arbitrarily picked as a standard for what "consensus" means. The mere fact that administrators can decide for themselves is what bothers me, and if I am criticizing you, I am criticizing everyone (including myself, since I've closed a lot of AFDs). What troubles me is that the result of AFD votes -- the controversial ones that actually matter, anyway -- can be substantially influenced by the administrator who closes them.
Mmmm. Administrators are expected to be able to exercise the judgement that has presumably been a factor in their selection as an admin. Trust me when I say there's a lot of feedback (loud screeching noise) when someone thinks they're wrong ...
Say some contentious issue comes up on an AFD, say a series of "roadcruft" nominations. Now, the votes will be very close, but say we have 64% of people voting to delete. Some administrators, without doing the math, would close this as a delete. You certainly wouldn't. What does that say about the discussion process? Doesn't that mean the opinion of the closing admin on deletion standards weighs in more than anyone elses? This is what I'm getting at-- I think your case isn't an example of an admin abusing his power, but it is an example of what can go wrong with AFD *as a system*, and it actually goes wrong every day without anyone noticing.
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.
I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
- d.
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.
I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
- d.
Unbold the votes while you're at it. And remove any repetition, where multiple people say the exact same thing.
Anthony
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.
I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
- d.
Oh yeah, and be forewarned. I was once blocked for doing exactly that. In fact, I was only removing the tally boxes that were incorrect!
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one. I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
Oh yeah, and be forewarned. I was once blocked for doing exactly that. In fact, I was only removing the tally boxes that were incorrect!
You were being a dick in general around AFD, leading to you being banned from it, so I'm not surprised really.
- d.
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one. I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
Oh yeah, and be forewarned. I was once blocked for doing exactly that. In fact, I was only removing the tally boxes that were incorrect!
You were being a dick in general around AFD, leading to you being banned from it, so I'm not surprised really.
- d.
Congratulations on that rewrite of history. It's things like removing tally boxes from VFD that got me banned from the Wikipedia project space, not "being a dick in general". Learn the facts before you make accusations.
Anthony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.
I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
Have you been in AFD recently? It is a vote. It always has been. "Consensus" is determined, in EVERY afd, by counting the number of delete votes versus the number of keep votes. Period. I recognize that the policy says it's not a vote, but the policy might as well say the moon is made of cheese.
Ryan
G'day Ryan,
David Gerard wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.
I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
Have you been in AFD recently? It is a vote. It always has been. "Consensus" is determined, in EVERY afd, by counting the number of delete votes versus the number of keep votes. Period. I recognize that the policy says it's not a vote, but the policy might as well say the moon is made of cheese.
In EVERY AfD? I've closed a few dozen now, and I've only rarely had to resort to counting votes --- and when I have, it's almost always ended up "no consensus keep", unless the count produced an overwhelming result.
So y'can reconsider the absolutes. Of course, in *principle* you may be correct, I'm not sure yet. If so, well, I look forward to your comments on my RfC in approximately two weeks' time.
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ryan,
David Gerard wrote:
It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.
I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.
Have you been in AFD recently? It is a vote. It always has been. "Consensus" is determined, in EVERY afd, by counting the number of delete votes versus the number of keep votes. Period. I recognize that the policy says it's not a vote, but the policy might as well say the moon is made of cheese.
In EVERY AfD? I've closed a few dozen now, and I've only rarely had to resort to counting votes --- and when I have, it's almost always ended up "no consensus keep", unless the count produced an overwhelming result.
So y'can reconsider the absolutes. Of course, in *principle* you may be correct, I'm not sure yet. If so, well, I look forward to your comments on my RfC in approximately two weeks' time.
Cheers,
I've closed a lot more than a few dozen, and I've only resorted to counting votes once or twice. (This was after VfD was renamed AfD; somehow before that I think I counted votes a bit more often.) Usually once I notice I'm counting I start biting myself in the ass, though. I try to weigh the arguments instead of basing the decision purely on votecounting. Consensus is determined by both *limited* votecounting and weighing the value of the arguments put forth. (Let's face it, there has to be a bloody good case for someone to delete an article where there are 20 keep votes.)
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
From: Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com
But I see a lot more discussion about how bad AFD is and a lot less discussion about what we should replace it with, and why whatever system we choose to replace it will be any better. Defense of AFD seems to be getting quieter and quieter but I still don't see us making much progress toward enacting some actual improvements.
Defense of AfD is getting quieter for a number of reasons:
*defense of AfD, even if only to point out that it almost always makes reasonable decisions, and even when making unreasonable decisions, is no more error prone than any other human system, only seems to encourage further outbursts of dubious and unproven claims about its "brokenness", and, in some cases, near-hysterical rhetoric regarding it and those who defend it. *defense of AfD only serves to continue discussion on a topic which is fairly unimportant when measured against Wikipedia's real problems (e.g. failing dispute resolution mechanisms, assaults on Wikipedia [abetted by the media] by increasingly vocal and threatening individuals regarding content about them that they don't like). *defense of AfD, and the reaction to that, tends to make the atmosphere of this list far more "poisonous" than the "poisonous atmosphere" of AfD itself.
Jay.
This has turned into yet another debate over the brokenness of AFD, but I was actually interested in the original idea, and wonder if we could return the discussion to that...?
I think the idea is very good, as it forces people to think about why they are voting to delete/keep the article, and makes it clear what the issues are. However, I also think that Tony is right and the keepers don't need to come up with individual reasons to keep, they just have to vote not to delete. My one change would therefore be the addition of a "Do Not Support" vote, or whatever it would be called:
===[[FakeBand]]=== ====DELETE==== * Band yields only 12 Google hits; all on geocities, lycos and myspace apart from official site which indicates they're not famous or having an effect on the music industry. - [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Do Not Support: We're really famous by word of mouth -- [[User:Example5]] **Do Not Support -- [[User:Example6]]
* Band has no albums on Amazon. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Do Not Support: But we do have them in our local shops -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]]
* The listed albums are self-produced as admitted by creator. -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Do Not Support: So what? -- [[User:Example3]] **Do Not Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Do Not Support -- [[User:Example4]]
====KEEP==== * Band DOES have 3 albums. They're listed on the official site. We just couldn't get them in the stores yet. (www.fakeband.com). -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] **Support -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] ______________________________
... or something like that.
Sam -- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
On 12/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of the poisonous feelings on AFD seems to come from sheep voting and people voting without providing rationales. Perhaps we should improve the debate-percentage and require people to provide rationales.
I suggest a two step process:
- The first 24 or 48 hours people submit rationales for or against
deletion. 2) After that people can vote on which of these they support. Similar to a finding of the facts.
This would make it easier to discount votes based on outdated or incorrect reasons. "Article is too short" (after it was expanded), or "unreferenced" (when acutally the link was temporarily down).
It would also make it easier to see at a glance whether it was deleted for being non-notable, for missing references or for being in a irredeemable state.
Mock Up Example:
===[[FakeBand]]=== ====DELETE====
- Band yields only 12 Google hits; all on geocities, lycos and myspace
apart from official site which indicates they're not famous or having an effect on the music industry. - [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]]
- Band has no All Music Guide entry. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]]
- Band has no albums on Amazon. (WP:MUSIC) -- [[User:Example1]]
**Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example3]] **Support -- [[User:Example4]] **Support -- [[User:Example5]] **Support -- [[User:Example6]]
- The listed albums are self-produced as admitted by creator. --
[[User:Example2]] **Support -- [[User:Example1]] **Support -- [[User:Example2]]
====KEEP====
- Band DOES have 3 albums. They're listed on the official site. We
just couldn't get them in the stores yet. (www.fakeband.com). -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] **Support -- [[User:ArticleCreator]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l