Wikipedia:VfD renomination limits

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on what I noticed with the articles Gay Nigger Association of America, Maps of Korea and Comunleng, there has been discussion on how many times an article should be placed at WP:VFD, or the pace of the VFD. I wish to propose a simple policy: have a three one month policy on waiting for renomination, unless the content of the article has changed significantly or the vote was inconclusive (closed without consensus) or rigged.

Current guidance can be seen at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Double_jeopardy.3F. 'Voting' options are offered below. Note however, that as this a new proposal, and still under discussion, that this poll is informal in nature for the time being.

Support[edit]

  1. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ∞Who?¿? 05:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makes sense. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. There are other reasons why an article may be re-nominated before three months are up: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maps of Korea/Old and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maps of Korea for a case where it was reasonable to re-nominate an article less than 15 hours after the previous VfD was closed. --Carnildo 05:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is where the "unless the content of the article has changed significantly or the vote was inconclusive or rigged" clause comes in. If there is very good and very valid reasons to get rid of the article, then by all means, you can under this clause. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose. This is m:instruction creep. Articles are very rarely renominated for VFD, and if they are, it is usually in good faith. If an article is renominated too soon, people will simply vote "keep" because of the recent previous VFD. Also, sometimes VFD nominations are relisted because to allow them to get more attention (e.g. 2-3 votes and no consensus), and this proposal doesn't allow for that. Radiant_>|< 08:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. In light of m:instruction creep, I have to agree with Radiant. ∞Who?¿? 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely oppose, and express distaste at yet another unnecessary jump to a poll. Some sort of moratorium, perhaps, but 3 months? No way. -Splash 20:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion?[edit]

Before being put to any kind of vote, this proposal should be discussed first. m:don't vote on everything. Radiant_>|< 08:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Radiant is precisely correct. To go to a vote instantaneously, with language implying it will remain open until we get the answer 'right' is wrong. -Splash 20:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have WP:BOLDLY reworded the parts relating to voting. -Splash 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

What does "inconclusive" mean? Most controversial VfD's (those that are likely to get re-listed) result in keep by default, not in a 70-80 % keep vote. This term needs to be clarified. — David Remahl

  • Well, inconclusive is a word that came in my mind at the time. It should read "if the VFD vote was inconclusive, or closed without a consensus." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be stated through what means it will be determined as to 'unless the content of the article has changed significantly'. Will we have to have another section or something to deal with whether there has been significant change to the article or will the article go to VfD and deleted by an admin if the content hasn't changed? I like the proposal. DarthVader 13:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will, I just need to see if people like this idea. Some say it is instruction keep, I am just trying to solve a problem. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing problems is always good, so please don't take my disagreement with this proposal as personal. However, before attempting to solve a problem, please check if there actually is a problem. How often does it occur that an article is relisted on VFD? How often is it relisted for a third time? What is the average timespan between relistings? Please read some VFD archives for evidence to back up your claim that there is a problem. Radiant_>|< 18:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Scroll to the top and you see three articles linked. We all know about the GNAA, and the above two have recently been on VFD. People were complaining about the Comelang article being put up on VFD a month after it was "kept," and the Map of Korea article is an example on why articles could be VFD'ed after they were kept (with good reasoning). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I got that part. But as far as I can tell, that makes three articles in the past month (maybe longer than that, and given the circumstances we shouldn't really count GNAA for the rule). Consider that we get over a hundred nominations daily, then it follows that less than one in a thousand VFD nominations is in fact a renomination. Radiant_>|< 19:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well in fact, I just realised that if an article had been listed on VfD less than 3 months ago, if this is pointed out then the admin could immediately remove the VfD listing. DarthVader 23:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My most serious objection to this is the length of the moratorium. Three months is a long wikitime. I might be persuadeable to something like 1 month, but no longer. The deletion processes work in minutes (speedy/VfD noms) and days (VfD/VfU), so weeks seems like a more appropriate order for things. Also, a mere 3 articles in, approximately, 600,000 isn't really a problem. With 100 articles a day in VfD as Radiant! says, we barely notice them. Given that we only work on "rough consensus" with some votes routinely discounted in VfD there's no useful way to quantify this policy. Whilst I like WP:FAITH it is not beyond imagining that a sneaky admin could close a VfD as no consensus (when really there was a rough consensus to keep), just so that they can bring it back to VfD again soon. In fact, and John Does can close a VfD as a keep, even though the rules advise to do so only in near unanimous keep-cases. My more minor objection is to the process of leaping to an evil poll with zero discussion. The language also implies that this runs and runs until you get consensus on the proposal. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and rephrase it. -Splash 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that is perfectly fine: if you think the wording is bad, by all means change it. Also, if you wish for the time frame to be a month, that is fine with me too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a few objections due to Instruction Creep. I believe it isn't. An admin can remove a VfD listing if someone points out that the last one was less than 3 months ago. This is not much work for an admin. DarthVader 23:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By instruction creep, I don't mean that the policy would create more work for admins. Rather, it would create more procedures that should be complied with, and that would rarely apply to anything, and that would give people more chance to argue on the policy or principle, rather than on the article content. Plus, any strict line is gamable. Radiant_>|< 07:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am trying to make sure people will be happy with this idea. I shortend the time from 3 months to 1, and either myself or others need to come up with "what consitutues a major change." The Map of Korea VFD is a perfect example of a "major change." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no minimum. Instead there should be a note in the deletion policy that says

Before suggesting a page for deletion, please check whether it has been nominated before. If it has, please only renominate the article if a new debate would cover new ground (e.g. the article has substantially changed or new information about the topic has come to light). Do not re-nominate an article simply because the vote didn't go your way last time.

I'd be amazed if the policy doesn't already say something a lot like this. It is, after all, common sense. Pcb21| Pete 11:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to set that up, then thats cool with me. I know some want a one month limit for renomination, which is a good time to figure out what needs to be fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VfD_renomination_limits&oldid=1080113025"