Requests for Comment/Creating Requests for Deletion, Restoration, and Renaming

{{ClosedRfC|No consensus to make a formal policy on this subject. However, as a bureaucrat I do strongly suggest having discussions on talk pages for controversial cases especially, and only moving with outright deletions in particular when it is non-controversial to do so. --Raidarr (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC) | I propose that we create Requests for Deletion, Requests for Restoration, and Requests for Renames. That way, it will be easier to gather consensus on whether or not pages should be deleted or restored. They would work the same way as Requests for Comment, but would be for deletions, restorations, and renames. Any uncontroversial deletions, restorations, or renames would not need a request. There will also be templates notifying users of a deletion or rename request on the page. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per proposer. Also, this also allows more time for editors to improve the article. For example, if something is requested to be deleted due to it being not crappy/awsome/whatever enough or being too opinion based, maybe someone could improve it after seeing it is being requested for deletion and saving it for deletion. And of course discussion and community consensus. But for stuff that does not need discussion for deletion such as vandalism/junk pages, test pages, etc., a speedy deletion process can be used. A protocol like this is also pretty commonly used on many other wikis (including Wikipedia), I'm surprised Qualitipedia wikis don't use this. --Atomicstar (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * True. And everyone is like "OMG THIS IS COPYING WIKIPEDIA" and it is not copying Wikipedia. The idea of consensus spans back to Ancient Greece. This is inspired by Wikipedia's processes, not a direct imitation of them. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TBH, "copying Wikipedia" isn't really a valid argument. You could arguably say the admins are copying Reddit by tending to speedy delete stuff. If this RFC isn't successful, we should at least do a notice for deletion system where a time frame of like 7 days is given if someone wants to improve the article before deleting. --Atomicstar (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironically, "speedy delete' is actually a copy of a Wikipedian convention. But if it's a copy or not is totally irrelevant as long as there is credit properly given. The actual argument is what it brings to QP, or if it is necessary for QP process. For this idea I believe in an in between. --Raidarr (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really sure what Qualitipedia called it. I just called it speedy delete because that's what Wikimedia, WikiHow, Uncyclopedia, etc. usually call it. I agree with the point Raidarr made; in my opinion, we just shouldn't immediately delete pages. --Atomicstar (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  You could always PM or set up a board with an admin for such things Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  01:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  That's unnecessary. We're not trying to copy English Wikipedia with those. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on that? Trying not to copy Wikipedia isn't really a negative. --Atomicstar (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  We are fine for the moment, I think is kinda useless. King Dice (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't really see why we need to do requests for comments about deletion and restoration and do requests to rename pages when we could just use talk pages of users to ask these kinds of questions. I slightly doubt it's needed. Mr. Jay 641  (📄) 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think proposer's point was that we shouldn't immediately delete pages, but give notice and at least some time to discuss. But honestly, we really don't need to discuss renaming as we should be following proper naming conventions (if it is incorrect, just go ahead and rename it) unless it could be controversial. --Atomicstar (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was thinking if renames are controversial, such as for whether or not Season 11 of The Simpsons should be on Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki or Best Shows & Episodes Wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  No, thanks. On the one hand, it is a dose of freshness, on the other hand, it is a miserable attempt to imitate Wikipedia, like Qualitipedia does in some aspects (which is not always a bad thing). —A llistayrian  (💬) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  We can just ask an admin to do these things, therefore making such a thing pointless. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There needs to be consensus though. We can't be having admins just doing everything. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Just use the RFCs. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be easier and more efficient to have separate requests rather than just using RFCs for every request. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Abstain
}}
 * 1)  This should not be necessary as a separate process. Rather it should take place on the local talk page where people can find it rather easily anyways if they're engaged in the possibly controversial move. Only abstaining because this can be reasonably made standard procedure in the simpler method I suggest, so the principle has the right idea, just the additional location is not needed. --