WikiCU talk:Deletion policy

From WikiCU
(Redirected from Talk:Deletions)
Jump to: navigation, search

Can we come up with a rule on when it's okay to take action on an article that's been nominated for deletion/move? I propose action can be taken 7 days after the nomination if a majority of the voters on the talk page agree. Nonsensical 18:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Good idea. Here are the things we need to resolve...  − Reaganaut  19:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Time limit

  • 7 days As per Nonsensical's proposal.  − Reaganaut  19:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Voting procedure

  • 75% of reputable users (admins and users who have made at least a few contributions) must vote to delete, otherwise we keep the article. Why? Because I think that at this stage, I'd prefer to see growth than perfection. The 75% figure is inspired by the EU's qualified majority voting, but I'd also be open to 66% in line with the US Constitution.  − Reaganaut  19:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
  • After 7 days, any admin (except the one, if any, who proposed the deletion) can use the above criteria and decide whether to keep article or delete it.
  • If keep, that means remove the deletion tag, rename the deletion discussion saying it is "archived", and noting the result of the deletion discussion.
  • If delete, well, that's obvious.
 − Reaganaut  19:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
  • So delete the article and the talk page? Nonsensical 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, I think if 75% agree it should be deleted, there's no need to keep the talk page.  − Reaganaut  19:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
  • 75% of active users? Let's be honest, our users aren't that active, no article is every going to get deleted, especially since there are like 15 sysops. I say at least 75% of voters after 7 days.
  • No, just 75% of the reputable users that vote. So if 5 users vote, but one has never made a contribution before, then out of the 4 users, 3 have to vote to delete if the article is to be deleted.  − Reaganaut  00:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Appeals

  • We can write an appeals policy as soon as there's a need.  − Reaganaut  19:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)