[WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken

Mon Sep 6 01:46:49 UTC 2004

> Let's step back and take a look:
>
> Looking over the VfD discussions, I have noticed that in the vast
> majority of cases the consensus is very clear one way or the other.
> Few listings cause anywhere near a 50/50 split.  In the cases where
> the consensus is to delete, that means the listing was justified --
> the content did not belong in the Wikipedia.  Good call, let's get
> rid of it and move on.  In the cases where the consensus is to keep,
> that means that someone was mistaken in their individual assessment
> of the article, but the community recognized the value of it.

No, consensus to delete does not mean the listing was justified. The parent
post of this thread pointed out how VfD is undermining Wikipedia policy.

> Those "deletionists" some people like to talk about are the same
> people overwhelmingly voting to keep valid articles.  They aren't
> deletionists; they are investigators.  They check to see whether
> a listed article belongs in the Wikipedia according to <whisper>
> standards </whisper>.  Most articles that are listed on VfD do end
> up getting deleted, and for good reason -- they didn't belong. The
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it does have <whisper> standards
> </whisper>.  It disturbs me that I feel I have to whisper the
> word "standards" as if it were a dirty word. Those "deletionists"
> are merely people willing to take their time to see if an article
> meets minimum standards for inclusion in the Wikipedia.  The
> reason you see so many votes to delete is that, for the most part,
> people do a very good job in bringing only invalid articles to VfD
> (i.e. the system works).
>
> What types of articles get deleted on VfD?  Vanity pages,
> advertisements, original research, source material, medical advice,
> memorials to deceased friends, stories that received a small article
> on page 16 of their local newspaper years ago, political rants, game
> guides, neologisms, hoaxes, etc.  Anything that doesn't belong in an
> encyclopedia.  Standards.  It's all about standards.  This isn't about
> evil deletionists wanting to methodically delete every article until
> there is nothing left.  It is about "is this a valid article or not?"
>
> Some would argue "It doesn't hurt to leave non-encyclopedic junk
> because no-one will look for it / wikipedia isn't paper / anyone
> should be allowed to write anything they want."  Forget standards,
> let it devolve into a free-for-all so we can be proud of...  what?

Same here. Just because an article is not up to standard does not mean it
should be deleted, rather, it should be improved. Just because an article is
not important to 99% of people, should we ignore the 1% who are interested?
Wikipedia is supposed to be *more* than a traditional encyclopedia, and is
open to obscure articles. Many people on VfD don't seem to realise this, and
don't seem to have read the relevant policies.

What are these "standards" you mention? They aren't Wikipedia policy.

Have a look at Wikipedia:Importance.

> The examples I gave above are only some of the types of articles that
> do not qualify for Speedy Deletion but obviously do not belong in an
> encyclopedia.  So we can either let admins delete on-sight anything
> that doesn't belong (we don't need to go there) or else have a very
> limited list of things that can be deleted on-sight and list other
> questionables on a page to get community input.  Hmm...  that second
> option sounds a lot like what we have now.
>
> The system works.  It isn't broken.  It could use some tweaking,
> sure.  I'm open to constructive ideas to improve the system, as is
> being discussed in another thread.  To call VfD "broken," to say that
> it isn't needed, to declare that all content is valid, to compare a
> review process to a slum --  Well, I'll just bite my tongue.

Of course some content is invalid. Just not so much as is being deleted
daily at VfD. Especially when you consider current guidelines.

Some form of VfD is needed, but it is broken. 25 listings per day? What's
more important, deleting articles that many people think are unimportant
(ignoring the (obviously existing) people who think it is important), or
improving the quality of articles?