to an extent, theres also OFFICE actions and BLP concerns to be had. But its best not to look to rigidly at the rules, use common sense. The only rule that truely matters is what helps improve wikipedia towards its goal. Thats why we have IAR as one of the five pillars. I just bring this up because Deletion and Review discussions are usually crammed with wikilawyers.
On 8/7/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, Leif Knutsen vyerllc@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently, namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's
my
understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
- Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
criteria for inclusion, outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
- If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
- If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put
to a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
- Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
period of time
- No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a
clear
sense to delete is it deleted
- As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not
have
an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
yep that is correct _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l