Only the very largest Wikipedias have votes or other formal mechanisms. Generally, from what I have seen, most Wikipedias only delete pages if they're obviously vandalism or something else of the type that would be speedily deleted on en:. I think that this is because they have few enough articles that they don't worry so much about whether or not an article really belongs -- they welcome anything they can get. Mark On 05/08/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: -- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE

Serbian Wikipedia has vfd page, but the way of making decisions is not so formal like on en:. In general, if the article is related to to the field which some of sr.Wikipedians know good (i.e., we have a couple of good mathematicians; one has PhD), existence of such article is related to her/his decision. We don't delete articles often. We have a group of articles "huh-ah-hoh, I am the best, you are the worst" :) Those articles are deleted when one of admins see it. Nazi propaganda, too. But, other kind of articles usually become a stub or good articles. Yesterday I deleted one "huh-ah-hoh..." article about one village near Belgrade (we would make better article about it using NGSA data). But, one month ca pass between two deletions (except deletion was not made by creator of the pate or according to her/his demand). I suggest to make a teams in different fields which can give it's opinion about deletion of some article. And it should be the part of deletion process. (Btw, that kind of teams are very important for many other things, such as facts inside of articles or even new Wikipedias; I am preparing a mail which is related to this matter.) Rule can be: if relevant team (for example, the team which works on geography) say something (for example, to delete the article "Papajakafana islands"), more then 80% of at least 10 votes should be enough for opposite decision (i.e., to keep that). And I am sure that at least 20% + 1 person would be reasonable enough :) And if 80% of voters say something which is opposite to the team's decision: we should find what is wrong. Also, if some team constantly votes against the majority, we should find what is wrong, too. On 8/5/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: