- From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:12:35 -0700
- To: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 16:13:06 UTC
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