Forum:Can I be able to clean up articles that have no use anymore!
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
There have been some articles that have survived VFD or QVFD that need to be submitted in another important voting page for deletion. For instance, I accidentally just resubmitted Cupar until I later realized it was already voted in a previous archived nomination. Can we make a re-vote for deletion page or something for non-admin users to request deletions that have already been in QVFD and VFD, since it is recommended not to resubmit it? Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 17:52, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I thought previously VFD pages can be re-submitted. If the can't then they should be able to be. This new page is useless as another page will have to be created for pages that fail deletion and need to be re-deleted on that page. More effort for admins and ridiculous amount of VFD pages will only be caused by this but I am all for re-nominating articles for VFD instead. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:44, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Against. We are all here to clean the place up, in different ways. I had doubts as to whether one "can be able to clean up articles" if he does not write "May I clean up articles," and use a question mark, but it seems you mean can you be able to destroy articles. QVFD and VFD are not interchangeable and have quite different constituencies; you can never QVFD an article that has survived VFD. However, the rule (Have you read them?) is that a failed VFD nomination can be renominated after a month has passed. ScottPat is correct that renominating a page that has recently survived would both be supremely annoying and not the best use of your time. Can you be able to have a special Licence To Kill articles? No; and that is not a question for vote. 19:13 18-Aug-13
- Comment. This forum shows that Newman is trying very hard to fight with bad articles which is certainly very good. But, as Spike suggested, please, take a look at the deletion policies, which will show you what you can do with bad articles, and so this fight will become a way easier and the need to create a new deletion page will eventually disappear. Maybe not, but only future will tell. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:39, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes I did read the Deletion Policy, but I was very confused with the line on the VFD rules that said "If an article survives VFD, do not resubmit it for at least 1 month or you will be blocked". It was confusing on the VFD rules, but I think it's right that it means you can never QVFD an article that survived VFD. Thanks! Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 22:20, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
- QVFD is very different from VFD. If an article is new or a one-liner, it's for QVFD. An article that has survived VFD can't be added on VFD for at least a month. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are few and far between.
- The better idea is rather than deleting an article is to try and rewrite an article if it's survived VFD, if you feel it's still below par. The reality is that there are no articles that are “of no use anymore”. All articles that have been written can theoretically have a place. If an article is below standard (ie., fails to meet HTBFANJS standards) then that article is fertile ground for rewrite or deletion. Just because an article is older does not make it an article that we should delete. Unless it was written by C2H6O, of course - we can delete that garbage. Pup • Talkies • 11:50 18 Aug 2013
- Against. What Spike said. Also, you can renominate an entry that survived VFD after a month. In the meantime, why not try rewriting the article? You can start a new article on any subject in your userspace, and if it is good enough, it might even replace a bad article in the mainspace. -- 01:22, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Against. As per my respective admin colleagues. There will always be a 'junk quota' here, it is impossible to go through 30,000 articles and bring them up all to standard. Certainly articles about what we could consider important subjects (country profiles, biographies etc) can be improved and should at least be brought up to 'placeholder' status until someone can spend time to re-write them properly. Examples of that are currently Lindsay Lohan and Jonathan Ross. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:27, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- As per SPIKE. -- 18:30, August 28, 2013 (UTC)