[WikiEN-l] Deletion of articles, archival, etc.

[Andrew Gray]

2008/9/6  <WJhonson at aol.com>:
> I doubt that deleted stuff is libelous.
> Libelous material is oversighted, not AfD'd which is what the mentioned  site
> is archiving.

Oh, goodness, no.

Oversighted material is quite bad; not all quite bad material is
oversighted. A fair proportion of CSD is gutter abuse of the "might be
libellous if it wasn't so stupid" form (kids explaining how their
favourite teacher has a great liking for his pet dog, etc) and no-one
bothers oversighting that; just delete and it's gone.

AFDs, likewise; if there's sensitive personal information, that might
get oversighted; if it's a libellous hatchet job that's going to get
deleted anyway, well, it'll just get deleted.

It would solve this disccusion rather neatly if all "bad deletions"
were oversighted - indeed, the proposal here is basically for
something conceptually like that to happen, with some way of
differentially deleting "good but not for here" and "actively bad" -
but it's certainly not the way it currently happens.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
 andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk