W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Norms around Deleting Articles

From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:12:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHZLcPoS3S0PjLSwQS4+FADLjMS56M6FU2z67Zm-kSL_rkY-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Thanks Alex! This is a very reasonable approach.
+Scott



On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>wrote:

> We've got a nascent procedure for deleting articles, documented at
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Flags/Deletion_Candidate . It
> defines how you mark an article for deletion, but doesn't say much about
> what's supposed to happen after that.
>
> Right now we're in the early stages of defining the site, so we all might
> have different ideas on what should be deleted and what should not.
> (Incidentally, we may *never *solve this; a debate has been raging on
> Wikipedia forever between the deletionists and the inclusionists.)  We're a
> community that prefers norms over rules (
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Pillars), but I think we should make
> sure our norms are aligned.
>
> Here's my current expectation:
>
> If the page is not clearly spam and there's a primary author of the page
> (for example, it was created recently by someone) at least *some *effort
> should be made to involve that person in the deletion discussion before
> deleting. Failing that, at least getting a quick sanity check "SGTM" from
> someone on IRC is reasonable before deleting. If the discussion gets more
> involved, it should move to e-mail.
>
> Does that match with what others think?
>
> --Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 16:13:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:34 UTC