Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 7

Archive of "discussion of the "seven day rule""

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

needs to be refactored into a list of opinions and pros and cons of each option

from old, undated, deletion policy talk (copyvios)

How long should we wait after someone has noticed a copyright violation before deleting it? -phma

I say a week so long as the content is replaced by our copyright violation boilerplate. --mav

Jan 4 discussion

Copyright infringement [should be] split from VfD -- because we give these longer grace than nonsense entries, and VfD is getting too long to handle. -- Tarquin 14:06 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I also think the "Votes on Deletion" page could stay one page (i.e. no split up) if we change the rules to move deleted articles to a separate page immediately. The only reason we don't do this is that we don't want people to be "confused", but if we put a clear explanation on top -- "if you are missing an article from this list, see .." -- this should not be necessary. --Eloquence 21:19 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

IMO VfD is too long to work with. It also runs at two speeds -- copyright violations are given a weeks' grace or more; but nonsense articles get deleted sooner. -- Tarquin 17:53 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

18 May discussion (Cunctator vs Zoe)

There are too many requirements which, if allowed to continue, will, for all practical purposes, make it impossible to get a page deleted.

Nothing can be deleted for at least a week after being put on Votes for deletion. This is too long a time. What are we to do about nuisance articles being created by banned users who come into the Wikipedia to cause trouble, or those like Michael who keeps coming in and creating articles even though they know that they've been banned? Do we just let those articles sit around forever? There are users such as MyRedDice who will vote to keep any and all entries from banned users because he doesn't believe in banning anybody for anything. -- Zoe

A week is not a long time. There's no restriction on editing articles immediately. If banned users create useful articles (not saying that that's what happening) then there's no need to delete the articles. --The Cunctator

To put the above in context, articles created and edited solely by banned users are now on the list of "candidates for speedy deletion" on deletion policy. However, Zoe's comment was part of a wider point about how difficult it is to delete a page on Wikipedia, so I presume that she would generally support reduced lag times, which is why I copied this here. Similarly, the Cunctator's comment that a week is not a long time could probably be read as a general comment.

See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Skipping_the_Votes_for_deletion_page for the original discussion, in full context. Martin 11:58, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

25 May discussion

discussion hacked from context - also discussed was splitting off /copyvio, as an alternative.

This page grows too large too fast. I propose that we reduce the waiting period from 7 to 5 days. If there are no objections, I will change the text accordingly. --Eloquence 07:05 25 May 2003 (UTC)

We currently have a rather long list due to the discussion about Internet Humour. I think length will go down as soon as that issue is settled out. -- JeLuF 08:52 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I think 7 days is too long, so I'm fine with this change in the short term. But it's only a 30% saving, and you can't remove entries with active debate (which often seem to be the reason for going over the limit). -- Tim Starling 14:50 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Keep it at 7 days, i say. the problem lies in the page-size, not in the process. So don't change the process to address the page-size issue. Kingturtle 16:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)

keep it at 7 days Ant

30 June discussion (copyvios)

How long do we wait before del copyvio? They all are so obvious, and they're added mostly by experimental Anon newbies. --Menchi 16:16 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I personally have deleted them on contact. They are a violation of our rules, and there really can't be any arguing regarding deletion, so there is technically no reason to post them here and wait a week. MB 16:58 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes there is: on a couple of occasions I've known things which appeared to be copyright infringements actually be posted here by their original authors, and they've been fine for us to keep. It doesn't happen very often, admittedly, but it does happen. I doubt we have anything to lose by waiting a week before deletion. --Camembert

And on several occasions I have added public domain material that had also been copied to a third party's Web site, and then accused of violating that third party's (non-existent) copyright on the material. Just because material can be found elsewhere on the Web does not automagically mean it is protected by copyright. The Copyright Cops need to perform due diligence before making accusations and summarily executing articles. --the Epopt 18:01 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is not out of the question that a lawsuit would be brought against wikipedia for a user uploading a copyrighted file. A week may make a difference. In compairison, Napster was shut down for the illegal activity of it's users. The copyrighted images I have deleted were uploaded by User:Arpingstone to prove a point, who said "my pics are copyright so in a few days I will have to have them deleted". See Talk:Finch for more information. MB 19:57 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That possibility has been discussed at length and generally believed to not be anything we need worry about. If Jimbo were notified of a violation and acted immediately (within a few hours) he and his project would be held harmless under the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. We are not obliged to proactively seek out violations -- only to not commit them. --the Epopt 20:09 30 Jun 2003 (UTC) (edited)

I am glad to hear that there is such a special case in the DMCA. Thanks. MB 21:02 30 Jun 2003 (UTC) (edited)

Another reason for not being too hasty is that gives interested readers a chance to replace the article with non-violating work... immediate deletions would require the article to be started again from scratch which is less likely to happen. Pete 20:22 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Experimental anon newbies" sometimes turn out to be highly qualified authors submitting their own work which they have already submitted elsewhere. I've personally confirmed two cases of this by emailling the author. -- Tim Starling 01:05 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding my deletion of the images on Talk:Finch. I realize now that I should have posted them on Votes for deletion first, even though they would have obviously been deleted anyhow. I was being a bit paranoid. I will list ANYTHING here in the future. MB 21:23 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

15 July discussion

this stuff was part of the discussion on splitting with headers - remember that? ruthlessly hacked out of context

"five days I think is better" - FearÉIREANN

I still think that 7 days is too long, though, especially if we provide a notification on the page. --Eloquence 02:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The seven day rule doesn't mean - it will stay there for a minimum of seven days, it means it will sit there for exactly seven days and no-more and then be removed, either deleted, kept or moved to another page if the debate is still going on. FearÉIREANN 01:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So you're saying that even resolved entries must stay listed for 7 days? That's very different to what happens now, and I think it would make the page quite a bit longer. The page would be cluttered up with entries where the consensus is clear. I think a better solution is that a warning should be posted at the end of the discussion saying "this entry will be removed if there is no more discussion within 24 hours". Write it in bold so it looks official. That way entries which were easily dealt with by a redirect or rewrite, can be quickly removed. -- Tim Starling 01:29 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I still think that 7 days is too long, though, especially if we provide a notification on the page. --Eloquence 02:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think the structuring you describe would be quite appropriate. I would still oppose an immutable 7 day (or even 5 day) period, though. -- Tim Starling 02:26 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As for the 7-day rule, I am strongly in favour of keeping it, because not everyone comes here every day, and even if they do, there is so much going on here that it might be a few days before they even notice what is happening. We should give everyone enough time to add their comments. The idea of removing things if there is no discussion for just 24 hours is absurd. On the other hand, there should be exceptions to the 7-day rule: pretty much the same ones that we use already. If a page is deleted or redirected or sorted out so that the original proposer withdraws their deletion request, then I think an entry can be removed from the page straight away. -- Oliver P. 11:15 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I meant 24 hours after a significant discussion has taken place, and most importantly, a consensus seems to have been reached. I'm not saying that a 24-hour lull in discussion constitutes grounds for removal, just that as a courtesy to those interested, pages which have been rewritten or redirected should be left for a short time before the entry is removed. -- Tim Starling 14:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Okay, I'm sorry for accusing you of saying something "absurd". That was very rude of me. I see your point, and agree with you. -- Oliver P. 14:35 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I do think 7 days is too long. FearÉIREANN 23:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) (as part of a wider point)

I think 7 days is right. Crucially, it means that folks who only come in once a week, eg at the weekend, don't find their article has been deleted while they've been away. We've got to consider low frequency users as well as Wikiholics. Martin

18 July discussion (copyvios)

I don't understand why the copyright infrigment are kept for more than a couple of days. If there is a cp pb, unless there is a doubt for the cp and need to wait for an author answer, why not just delete the page on spot ? Why not setting a different page for the cp issues ? Anthère

Because (a) we're not legally obliged to remove them immediately, and (b) apparently obvious cases of copyright infringment sometimes turn out to be genuine contributions. For example, not so long ago we had a movie review which was also in IMDB, and it turned out to be submitted to both places by the original author. Erythrophobia is an interesting case in point, as is Albert Camus/the Absurd. We're not very diligent in asking authors for permission: in the two latter cases, I emailled the author after the entry had been on VFD for a few days. -- Tim Starling 01:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

true. You are right. Not a good idea then Anthère

This is a good point and I am in full agreement. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) (unclear - this may have been about deletion categories)

19 Aug discussion (fast track)

Editorial note: someone added a "fast track" header to VfD and 2-3 pages were added there.

I unilaterally removed the fast track section, which was unilaterally added. Of the two possible copyvios proposed for fast-tracking so far, neither is a definate copyvio, and neither will cause any harm in remaining a week before being deleted. This kind of misunderstanding is precisely why we have a policy on not deleting alleged copyvios until a week has passed. The idea of a seperate page for possible copyvios is probably a better approach - I've seen it proposed a fair few times, and no objections, but nobody's implemented it yet.

On a related note, I think we need to amend deletion policy to include on the list of exceptions: 1) deleting redirects to make way for moves, 2) temporarilly deleting pages to merge page history. I don't think this is at all controversial, but I've been wrong about these things before. Martin 18:11, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reducing VfD lag time

I really don't see a point in listing items for 7 days. Let's go by Eloquence's proposal to drop it to 4 or 5 days (if a consensus is reached). --Jiang 23:36, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Express preferences here:

Reduce to 4 days (7)

Vancouverguy
Cyan
Menchi
Jiang
Tannin
Angela
RickK
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 00:24, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Reduce to 5 days (9)

Keep at 7 days (4)

mav
BL
Dante Alighieri 17:01, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Lirath Q. Pynnor
SGBailey 08:51, 2003 Oct 21 (UTC) but split into a page per day.

Expand to 8 days (3)

this is a silly vote

Martin

Don't care / this is silly (who decided on that as a category?)

mav
Taku

Comments on this vote

Some people only edit Wikipedia on certain days of the week; listing items for a week allows them to participate in discussion. --mav 00:12, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Have faith in the process -- you don't need to participate in every discussion. The important point is that a large enough number of Wikipedians can participate, not that specific Wikipedians can.—Eloquence 00:48, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, you know. I have refactored it into Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time - a page of pros and cons of each option so that folks can review it. I hope this will avoid the need to re-hash the same old arguments. Martin 12:18, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, the point of voting is to reach a decision when people are familiar with the arguments and have formed an informed opinion.—Eloquence

My concern is whether all the folks who have voted have reviewed those past arguments. Seperately, we now have another "vote" set up and started without discussion of what the options should be, what the deadline is, etc. Does this also apply to copyvios, or are they being considered seperately? Are we shortening lag time only for items where consensus is reached, as Jiang hinted, or for all items? How do I vote if I favour different "lag times" for different types of article, or for different circumstances? Martin 10:57, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is this a vote as in the logo contest or as is standard on wp, a consensus-thingy? I have no problem with less "insurance time" on vfd as long as something else is added to replace it. Like, only delete if at least X other contributors also agrees, or that all the authors to the page must be contacted when it is put on vfd. BL 15:01, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I think there should be more differentiation. A page that has got a few 'agree, delete' comments and no others can unproblematically go after 3 or 4 days. If a page is just put on and nothing further happens, the full 7 days seem right. And of course is there is any kind of discussion, one should at least wait until the discussion has died down. Andre Engels 07:48, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

VfD is back at 92kb again. Is 75% in favour enough to change this? At least temporarily until another solution arises. I propose that this is implemented immediately and trialled for one week, only on the main VfD page (ignoring copyvios and foreign for now), and moving those still actively under discussion that are more than 5 days old. Angela 23:37, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Instead, just remove those articles along with their debates from VfD where it seems to be unlikely to reach a consensus or where a decision has already been taken. BL 00:05, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed a lot of stuff and got it down from 92 to 69 which is more managable. Now I just wait for everyone to start shouting at me for deleting their favourite best-ever article that no-way should ever have been deleted, especially not a day early. I blame you BL. :)

Angela 02:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Three cheers for unilateral problem solving! You have my support. -- Cyan 03:06, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There's two separate issues here:

1) How long should the waiting period be in which arguments are made in favour of a page voted for deletion?

2) How many deletion discussions can be sustained simultaneously on one Wikipedia page?

It would be a shame to allow the answer to (2), (constrained as it is by essentially arbitrary details of technology, choice of implementation, and UI design) to affect the answer to (1) if there's any way to avoid that.

For example, could VfD be made more manageable (and not much less usable) by aggressively moving any involved discussions to the relevant talk page and leaving some standard boilerplate link? Onebyone 08:52, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is already done for long discussions, but I don't think it's a good idea in most cases to do this. It makes it less manageable, and the decisions drag on for longer than a week. Angela 09:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As time goes by and Wikipedia attracts new users the number of days required for the required number of users to make an accuate poll of the all users will decrease in time. : ChrisG 14:08, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

True, but see fair process, specifically the principle of engagement, which applies here. If I come to Wikipedia once a week, I will become frustrated if a decision to delete my page, which involves me was taken without my input. as a result, I may well not respect the process. Martin 22:58, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

48 hour exceptions

I've now read more of the discussion/edit war from last time, and I take your point. I agree that discussions be moved after 5 days. I additionally propose that pages be deleted after 48 hours if nobody has opposed deletion or if everyone who has opposed it has stated that they've changed their minds. Also that articles be removed from VfD after 48 hours if nobody (other than the original poster) has supported deletion, or if everyone in favour of ditching the article has recommended things like "rewrite", "stubbify" or "redirect". In that case it moves to a one-liner on Pages needing attention. For the sake of accountability sysops probably shouldn't use any of these 48 hour rules on pages they nominated themselves, or across public holidays. -- Onebyone 14:47, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I expect there would be objectons to 48 hours but I shall wait and see. I strongly oppose the "removed from VfD after 48 hours if nobody has supported deletion" - often articles which are so obviously deletable attract no comments. This doesn't mean no-one supports it. It probably indicates an implied consensus that the article should be deleted. Angela 19:50, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

how about articles which have more than 2 votes of support and no votes to delete? That seems more the norm. +sj + 14:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind. Please note everything I've said above is very out of date. VfD was a different place last October, with articles often left a whole 5 days with no-one voting at all. This doesn't happen anymore, so a 48 hour rule may be more appropriate now than it was back then. Angela . 17:23, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

On the "48 hour nobody-pro" rule, I realise it's a bit controversial. I checked the current page when I wrote the above, and what you describe applies to about 4 or 5 things on it, plus a block of 3 that could be interpreted as not having been commented on. So what my policy would cost is that someone who is aware of it would have to make a single short comment on each of 4 or 5 ( call it 10 if you like) such instances a week. Not a problem, it just requires that if there isn't already a comment on an article and you agree with the request, you have to comment instead of just leaving it. Onebyone 14:36, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It may be time for a 48 hour exception rule, particularly in cases that have attracted an overwhelming response to Keep. It seems that some may be using VFD to call attention to problems in the article, rather than from a valid reason for deletion (like that's anything new). In extreme cases like VFD:MCOIATIPC, removal from VFD should be an option. -Stevertigo

Agreed. Something like this:

After 48 hours: If there are at least 8 votes to Delete, none to Keep, and common sense dictates (to the deleting user) that the article was not created with goodwill (and therefore waiting a week for the article creator to notice the VfD tag and comment is an unnecessary politeness), it can be deleted. After 48 hours: If there are at least 4 votes to Keep, and none to Delete, save perhaps a minimal comment by the user who listed it on VfD, the listing and VfD notice may be removed.

+sj + 14:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lag time is meaningless

Lag time concept is meaningless. You had better define a minimum participation for each Vfd poll, in order for the poll to be a legitimate. Imagine two Vfd polls:

The first poll remained active for 5 days and received just one vote for deletion.

The second poll also remained active for the same time, but received 195 votes for deletion.

For God's sake, are those two polls identical? So it is not the lag time that matters, but the statistic values (numbers of votes/time) and (minimum final participation percentage) that turns a Vfd poll legitimate.

So please remove the lag time directive from the Vfd policy, and introduce the (participation percentage/time period) and the (minimum final participation percentage) directives..

This comment was added by anonymous user:62.38.170.165 whose edit pattern is very similar to user:iasson. Rossami (talk) 00:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daniel L. Lurker

Why does it stay so long... 24.54.208.177 03:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)