User:C. A. Russell/Proposal for reforming the RFD process

I've seen a rash of bad RFDs lately. As a contributor who is only alerted to RFDs by direct notification rather than regularly watching the list of redirects that are up for discussion, this is saying something. The problem is multifold.

• XXXX
• YYYY

A checklist for proposed deletions

The existence of subst-able templates makes initiating an RFD deceptively easy. (This goes for all RFDs, whether they involve proposals for deletion or not.) For the community to actually undertake the RFD process, on the other hand, no matter the outcome, is costly.

The general idea is to seek other informal means of inquiry before initiating the comparatively heavyweight formal RFD process. If a concern can be trivially resolved (e.g. a point of confusion) e.g. by obtaining clarification ahead of time it is better to do so rather than

In cases involving proposals for deletion in particular, and in order to mitigate unnecessary strain on limited resources of contributors, please consider the following checklist before undertaking RFD

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider the strain on contributor resources that initiating such a process will entail in the event that the proposal should fail? (Please answer yes or no.)

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort check usage of the term(s) in a search engine such as Google? (Please answer yes or no.)

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect and leaving a notice on the article talk page, make a reasonable effort to look for the term(s) or a discussion of the redirect on that talk page? And if so, did you attempt to participate in that discussion? (Please answer yes or no.)

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort to check Special:Log for this redirect and include that in your consideration to proceed and/or include those findings and your rationale in the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable (but not necessarily exhaustive) effort to check if the term(s) might have once appeared in the article? (Please answer yes or no.) XXX this should include at a minimum checking the state of the article at the time that the redirect was created.

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider some other time- and effort-saving alternative, such as asking someone informally about its existence (e.g. the person who created the redirect or some other interested or knowledgeable party)? (Please answer yes or no.)

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, verify that you are able to clearly articulate, if not to others then at least to yourself, the benefit of deleting it? (Please answer yes or no.)

• Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider whether you would be able and/or willing to be responsive and participate in the discussion for the proposal in the event of an issue with the proposal, such as something that is unclear in the stated reasons or in the event of questions by others in response to the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)