Wikipedia talk:Countdown deletion/Should countdown deletion be independent or a filter for VfD?
Should countdown deletion be independent or a filter for VfD?
[edit]I think maybe countdown could just be a preliminary filter for VFD. Maurreen 06:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Countdown deletion as a filter for VfD seems unnecessary: people are already supposed to do something to make sure the article no longer qualifies for deletion when they see the VfD. In practice, they spend the time talking about the article rather than editing it. That said, CD would have a different "flavor" to it, so maybe people would be more motivated to do something. I can't see definite arguments for and against, but it's worth considering to remove the auto-delete feature and just hoist it to VfD after the time passes. After that, most articles will be clear-cut deletes or clear-cut keeps. JRM 08:31, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
- Ow, no, please, no filtering and hoisting! Don't use CD to throw any more instruction creep, process creep, and complication creep at VfD. The virtue of CD in my eyes is as a slick, low-labor alternative to VfD, for cases where the complexities of VfD just aren't needed. Using it as a filter would turn it into what RickK, below, calls "just another level of interference". Bishonen|Talk 08:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I no longer agree with my comment at all. VfD is overloaded both in burden and in meaning; we need clearer separation of concerns. No additional mechanism should defer to VfD at all. I can now see definite arguments against. JRM 18:07, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
- Ow, no, please, no filtering and hoisting! Don't use CD to throw any more instruction creep, process creep, and complication creep at VfD. The virtue of CD in my eyes is as a slick, low-labor alternative to VfD, for cases where the complexities of VfD just aren't needed. Using it as a filter would turn it into what RickK, below, calls "just another level of interference". Bishonen|Talk 08:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)