User talk:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion

Untitled

I fully support this. Giggy (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks sensible (although in its current form it wouldn't have prevented Frog Legs Rag from getting speedied). Durova^Charge! 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also think this is a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great

It would allow attack articles to stand for 30 minutes. And Grawp vandalism. And it would shift power away from users and towards admins. And it would still have deleted Durova's breaching experiment. <sarcasm>Yep, you've ticked all the boxes with this one.</sarcasm> ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it? In 30 minutes the article would have been in the highly improved version and would no longer been anywhere like that at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd very specifically limit it to cases where a little bit of legwork (like establishing notability) would result in the article being kept. Anything grawp touches would obviously be G3 Vandalism or G6 Housekeeping, and Attack Pages would be G10s - that would not, and should not, change. This proposal would be for a very specific set of articles. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Even on those, when I do new pages patrolling, I often delete on sight (in obvious cases) or after a minimal check. With this proposal, a second person would be necessary (or I would have to return after thirty minutes), so this would waste more time from editors. I don't believe the benefit (saving the occasional article) outweighs the disadvantages (slowing things down, adding an extra layer). And what when people remove the speedy tag without actually doing anything on the article? The thirty minutes start all over again? I fear that this proposal would make it much easier for trolls to waste more of our time... Fram (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't support this one. It gives people the chance to remove the tags from the article about their nn garage band. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, so? So it doesn't take much effort to once a day go through your contrib list and note which stuff you tagged as speedy that is still around. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua, add to that the fact that they can currently, just as easily, remove said deletion tags. Giggy (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to remove speedy deletion tags from an article that has been deleted; and I would posit that anything that adds an extra step - like going through all your contribs once a day and deleting the missed entries - ensures that it will not be done. This proposal is a request for WP:SHRUBBERY and would result in a significantly worse encyclopedia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But people remove speedy tags all the time before something is deleted. This problem won't be any different. And I strongly disagree with the claim that this would result in a "significantly worse encyclopedia". If we have a few non-notable articles around a bit longer it won't kill us. The problematic ones that need to be immediately eliminated won't be affected by this. Moreover, this will result in less damage to articles which deserve to stay and less biting to new users. The pay-off of having more productive users seems to pretty clearly outweigh the slight extra length of time that some non-notable material will be around. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)