User:Purplebackpack89/Dec23

Rethinking CFI after the vote

There seems to be a majority of participants that want criteria other than CFI to be considered in RfD debates. Some think more criteria should be added to CFI. I think CFI can never have enough criteria to satisfy everybody, and am left with the following two questions:

1. Why is attestation lumped into the same thing as the rest of CFI? The two are completely different.
   • One concerns sourcing, one doesn't
   • One sends you to RfV and the other to RfD
   • One is controversial, the other one everybody generally agrees with
2. Why is the rest of CFI a policy, and not a guideline?
   • Other projects don't have CFI as a policy
   • CFI doesn't cover all the reasons people want to keep articles (and it never will)
   • Many people disagree with all or part of CFI; policies need to have strong support

Because of this, I'm beginning to think that attestation should be spun off from CFI, and the rest of CFI be demoted from policy to guideline. Some of you have asked "what's the difference between a policy and a guideline?" A policy is overarching, supported by a wide supermajority of participants, and should be followed all or almost all the time. A guideline can be ignored if there's a consensus to, need not cover everything, and can be enacted with less of a supermajority. I will probably eventually put this to a vote. Purplebackpack89 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)