243:
I agree with Tony's opinion. I don't see how a limit of one speedy redirect solves the problem. Only a consensus would keep every speedy redirect from returning to VfD. And speedy deletion would only result in another immediate discussion on VfU possibly resulting in it being moved again to VfD. -
218:
I like the principle, but I think it could lead to content warring over whether to accept the preemptive redirect or let the VfD continue. I'd really like to see such a decision made by consensus, otherwise people who think
Knowledge would be improved by deleting the article would feel that this was
277:
Anyone who wants to use this to thwart the growth of an article on VfD can now wait until the VfD is over and then redirect. If the keep voters have stopped watching, he will succeed. I think this is much the same ploy, to be dealt with the same way; it merely encourages a visible consensus to take
219:
just a way of thwarting this aim. There would be the suspicion that once the VfD was closed the article could be reverted--that is, the pre-emptive revert may be seen as a tactic to avoid deletion. If we did something like this it would have to satisfy us all that such abuses would be unlikely. --
265:
It could also be gamed to force deletion, or used to thwart thsoe who want to keep and expand the articel, it seems to me. See my comments on the talk page for more. I think that in general closing VfDs without a consensus, perhaps even egaisnt an incipient consensus, is probably a bad idea. Why
281:
I was writing when reverting such a redir was to be grounds for speedy deletion. without that, this proposal is little more than permission to do redirs during a VfD (which I have seen doen anyway, under current policy), and doesn't seem to do much harm (nor all that much good).
310:. For those articles that should have been redirected, this saves five or fewer) days. For those articles that should be deleted, this makes it harder to see why the article should be deleted. Small gain, substantial loss.
323:
If a page should clearly be replaced by a redirect, and redirecting it should only take one user, why list it on AfD? Why not just be bold and do it? The previous text is still there in the history.
193:
The change to CSD has been deleted by present consensus, but I would be tempted to consider straight unilateral reversion of a speedy redirect to a text with no notable content to be vandalism.
297:
I thought
Safeguard 2 would be the most popular; the deletionists would insist on it. I will wait a little before declaring consensus, but I'm perfectly happy to take it out.
106:
The intention is that this policy be used chiefly on articles with negligible content; partly so the article doesn't sit on VfD waiting around for deletion or redirection.
138:
If the editor who wrote the non-notable article is really determined, he can take out the redirect, and replace it with the same non-notable content.
38:
Any editor may close a VfD discussion by replacing the deprecated article by a redirect to a named article. There are three steps to this proceedure:
162:
No article which is VfD'd, speedy redirected, rewritten, and returns to VfD, may be speedy redirected again. (within some time limit)
72:
The editor may choose to add content to ], so the redirection is more intelligible. This is a normal edit, done at his discretion.
75:
The present policy, that any editor may close a consensus to keep, will remain in effect. If both apply, the VfD should be closed:
167:
A and B dislike an article. A lists it on VfD; B speedy redirects it. What is C, who liked it as it was, supposed to do?
27:
318:
301:
288:
272:
260:
236:
227:
212:
201:
I would be content to see this approved without the safeguards; but better to disucss them now than after abuse.
17:
96:
46:
123:
208:; or even by making clear that it does not prohibit conversion to redirects. The rest is just recordkeeping.
150:
the redirect is replaced by content substantially identical to what was there before the redirect, it may be
307:
223:
311:
315:
286:
270:
250:
220:
232:
I've added
Safeguard 3, which may alleviate both of these: One speedy redirect per article.
298:
233:
209:
204:
Much of the good of this proposal would be accomplished by simply removing "merge" from
129:
Any article on which VfD has a considerable minority opinion giving reasons that it is
283:
267:
170:
151:
159:
Speedy redirection can be used as a merry-go-round to delay deletion indefinitely:
255:
245:
205:
179:
If your good article has been VfD'd and speedy redirected, you have three options:
100:
126:. I doubt anyone would speedy redirect that piece of vandalism, but just in case
324:
114:
Like anything this can be abused. The following abuses and fixes occur to me.
314:
21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Got logged off again -- that was my comment.
30:. This is not a solution for VfD's problems, but it will lessen the load:
189:
show a consensus on the talk page of the redirect to keep the article.
56:
edit of the article to the its vfd page. Suggested form for this is:
306:
If an article is deserving of deletion, it should be deleted,
122:
be redirected. I do not mean vanity pages, but things like
87:should be resolved like any other editing dispute.
186:take out the redirect and add to the article.
8:
142:If an article has been speedily redirected,
266:won't this proposal lead to such outcomes?
173:is authorized to review speedy redirects.
79:. Once closed, the difference between
99:, and removing the word "merge" from
42:Replacing the article by #REDIRECT ].
7:
26:This is a proposed rule to added to
24:
133:should not be speedy redirected.
49:to the new redirect's talk page.
327:14:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
1:
28:Knowledge:Votes for Deletion
319:21:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
302:20:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
289:20:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
273:20:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
261:20:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
237:19:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
228:19:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
213:19:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
342:
131:unsuitable for redirection
110:Abuses and suggested rules
97:Template:speedy redirected
47:Template:speedy redirected
124:Dumbledore kills Hermione
95:This will require making
18:Knowledge:Deletion reform
146:had no notable content,
308:text, talk and history
183:go to VfU and explain.
66:to ]. Previous text:
52:Adding a link to the
278:out the redirect.
225:
64:Speedy redirected
333:
258:
253:
248:
224:
152:speedily deleted
85:keep as redirect
34:Speedy redirects
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
332:
331:
330:
299:Septentrionalis
256:
251:
246:
234:Septentrionalis
210:Septentrionalis
199:
112:
93:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
339:
337:
329:
328:
321:
304:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
263:
241:
240:
239:
198:
195:
191:
190:
187:
184:
177:
176:
175:
174:
165:
164:
163:
157:
156:
155:
136:
135:
134:
118:Some articles
111:
108:
92:
89:
70:
69:
68:
67:
58:
57:
50:
43:
35:
32:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
338:
326:
322:
320:
317:
316:Robert A West
313:
312:208.20.251.27
309:
305:
303:
300:
296:
290:
287:
285:
280:
279:
276:
275:
274:
271:
269:
264:
262:
259:
254:
249:
242:
238:
235:
231:
230:
229:
226:
222:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
207:
202:
196:
194:
188:
185:
182:
181:
180:
172:
169:
168:
166:
161:
160:
158:
154:
153:
149:
145:
140:
139:
137:
132:
128:
127:
125:
121:
117:
116:
115:
109:
107:
104:
102:
98:
90:
88:
86:
82:
78:
73:
65:
62:
61:
60:
59:
55:
51:
48:
44:
41:
40:
39:
33:
31:
29:
19:
221:Tony Sidaway
206:Template:vfd
203:
200:
192:
178:
147:
143:
141:
130:
119:
113:
105:
101:Template:vfd
94:
84:
80:
76:
74:
71:
63:
53:
37:
25:
120:should not
81:keep as is
197:Comments
54:previous
45:Adding
325:RSpeer
171:WP:VfU
91:Notes
16:<
83:and
77:keep
284:DES
268:DES
257:urε
247:Tεx
148:and
144:and
103:.
252:τ
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.