Requests for Comment/Creating requests for deletion and restoration

I requested this before, though it did not pass, so I am proposing this to change my wording. Much like with my blocking policy proposal, I plan to make a proposal regarding discussions for deletion and restoration. I am proposing a separate page for deletion and restoration requests so that such requests can be archived for proof of their existence. Here is what I propose:

Deletion and Restoration requests will work similarly to Requests for Comment. A user will propose that a page be deleted or restored if it fits the wiki. Users will vote on whether or not to keep or delete the page. The process will be mostly the same as Requests for Comment. If a page has been nominated for deletion, a notice will be put on the page that specifically states that it has been nominated for a deletion discussion and not for a quick deletion, which will be what the regular template is used for. An admin cannot delete or restore a page until there is a discussion and consensus has been gathered to delete the page. In addition, a page should preferably not be nominated for deletion if the page is just poorly written or biased, since simple editing can fix that. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PAGES THAT ARE CLEARLY SPAM, VANDALISM, OR NONSENSE. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nom. I've seen some admins do it, like that, but it should become standard procedure. As for pages that are poorly written, moving to the creator's sandbox should be standard procedure rather than jumping to deleting it. However, I think admins should be able to restore pages without consensus. I remember the previous RFC regarding this topic, with most of the points against being that it is imitating Wikipedia, my counterclaim to that would be "so what?", as Wikipedia is not the first to introduce the concept of consensus. ᗩTOᗰIᑕᔕTᗩᖇ 💬 ⌨ 00:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm leaning this towards oppose for one reason: I don't think we should try and copy Wikipedia's style there. These are just my thoughts on the matter. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) *For the umpteenth time, just because we are adding this does not mean we are copying Wikipedia. Consensus and discussion were not invented by Wikipedia. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) ** Did you not read the entire comment that I have made? I have made no such implications about consensus and discussions being invented by Wikipedia. That would be incredibly stupid to even indicate such a thing. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Could you explain why this is a bad thing though? ᗩTOᗰIᑕᔕT</b>ᗩᖇ</b> 💬 ⌨ 17:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) My stance on this is the same as before, this is kind of pointless since all you had to do before was to message an admin on their talk page about it and discuss, and it usually doesn't take to long. This seems like an overly long way around that and is simply impractical when there is a much easier way to do it. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer  02:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) *But the community should be able to decide whether or not a page should be deleted or restored, especially if said page is controversial.
 * 7) **Talk pages still allow for community input, so that statement is kinda invalid. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer 20:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) ***The problem with talk pages, however, is that deletion and restoration requests cannot be archived if they are done on a talk page because when a page gets deleted, the talk page gets deleted too, and they can simply not take place on the talk page of an already deleted page. They need to have a specific page and need to be archived after discussion is finished as proof of their existence. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) ****Talk pages aren't deleted when the main page is, they usually have to be deleted separately, so this statement is also invalid. And either way I see no real point in archiving them unless it's a real controversial page, it seems like a bit of a waste of space if it's a simple discussion of undeleting a page. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer 20:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) *****It's much easier to have a separate discussion though, much like what is done with RfCs. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) ****** You're beginning to repeat yourself again. It's easier to just have a quick discussion with an admin or two rather than making an entire separate page devoted to restoring one singe thing. It's redundant. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer 21:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) *******NO IT IS NOT!!! ADMINS SHOULDN'T HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING!!! I AM REPEATING MYSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!!! Sorry for yelling, but this is getting frustrating! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) ******** I am listening, and all I hear is you whining about something that isn't going to pass anyway. Respect the criticisms I'm giving to your request and deal with it. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) We have a simpler and usually faster way to do it, so I don't think is necessary the change. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#be04ad,purple,#2E2E2E); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">  The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A) 02:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) I don't see a reason for this "Delete/Restore request" to exist, given how each of the wikis constantly rise their quality standards & the most active admins like Allistayrian are always on the hunt for deletion-worthy pages, either because of their quality or personal bias not taken into account by the writer. Besides, the current   template is an efficient enough method to remedy these cases, even if it doesn't seek a consensus. Zangler (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) *These requests should achieve consensus. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren’t we already doing something that’s pretty much the same? I know we use talk pages for discussions about deleting/restoring a disputed page. I think sticking to talk pages is the better idea since this feels like an unnecessary extra step for requesting a page deletion, and I also can’t imagine this new type of page getting used enough to justify its addition. —Blazikeye535 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) *It is simply more practical to have a separate page for deletion and restoration discussions, so that they can be archived separately from the page itself as proof of their existence. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I don't really care about how the deletion process goes so long as a page is deleted for a damn good reason (vandalism, spam, bias, etc.). <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch  (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) *Bias is not a "good reason" to delete a page since that can simply be made non-biased via editing. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that a page that is biased in concept should be deleted. Just think back to when FreezingTNT forced his opinion on The Lion King DTV films on the movie wikis. Those AMW pages caused a lot of uproar over how biased they were. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Abstaining from the vote for neutrality as well as limited interest in exploring a full-on procedure at this time. Particularly using the full RfC process for this is a bit much, though I believe a discussion before any significant page is deleted should be mandatory, and not by messaging any particular admin - by discussing it on the talk of the page itself. Already it is best practice to move a page that is incomplete or insufficient to the original/primary author's sandbox, rather than simply wiping out what work did go into it. It should also be best practice to avoid outright deleting a more established page without a significantly good reason; when it is not simple such as spam, vandalism and so forth, the reasons leading to deletion should be clear. All in all I am not opposed to tightening practices, but the approach is not well integrated and ideally we should make the most of the tools we have and should already be using, then look into adding new systems on top when they are necessary. --Raidarr (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) *I 100% agree ᗩT</b>Oᗰ</b>Iᑕ</b>ᔕT</b>ᗩᖇ</b> 💬 ⌨ 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Even if this isn't needed, I think that opposing it is far too harsh. It would be more professional to do this and the opposes here are questionable at best, to say the least they should all be weak opposes rather than opposes, strong opposes and even strongest opposes. Not exactly needed? Perhaps. Entirely unnecessary? Not necessarily. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)