| Revision as of 20:14, 4 October 2005 editA bit iffy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,246 editsm →The proposed policy: Spelling← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:41, 4 October 2005 edit undoLord Voldemort (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,762 editsm speeling fixesNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| This is a proposed policy with the intention of generating agreement on when closing debates at ] before the normal discussion period ends. This proposal will only apply to closing such discussions with a "Keep" result - i.e. it is intended to be complementary to ]. | This is a proposed policy with the intention of generating agreement on when closing debates at ] before the normal discussion period ends. This proposal will only apply to closing such discussions with a "Keep" result - i.e. it is intended to be complementary to ]. | ||
| Also proposed are a set of associated ''guidelines'' to |
Also proposed are a set of associated ''guidelines'' to accompany the policy. The guidelines are independent of the policy and so one or both may be accepted or rejected. | ||
| This is not about ], the policy and guidelines are intended to work for the current system only, and in that way can be considered interim. Whether they are relevant to a future system or wanted by the community in a future system is irrelevant. | This is not about ], the policy and guidelines are intended to work for the current system only, and in that way can be considered interim. Whether they are relevant to a future system or wanted by the community in a future system is irrelevant. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ==The proposed policy== | ==The proposed policy== | ||
| Debates at ] (AfD) can be closed with a "Keep" result before the standard discussion period has elapsed in the following circumstances only. | Debates at ] (AfD) can be closed with a "Keep" result before the standard discussion period has elapsed in the following circumstances only. | ||
| #The nomination is obviously bad faith. Examples of this |
#The nomination is obviously bad faith. Examples of this include: | ||
| #*nominating an extremely high profile article (e.g. ], ]) | #*nominating an extremely high profile article (e.g. ], ]) | ||
| #*nominating a "key article" that unquestionably belongs in an encyclopaedia (e.g. ], ], ]) | #*nominating a "key article" that unquestionably belongs in an encyclopaedia (e.g. ], ], ]) | ||
| #*the reason given for nomination is entirely unrelated to Misplaced Pages (e.g. "] should not exist because it has broken the international law that created it"{{ref|Israel}}) | #*the reason given for nomination is entirely unrelated to Misplaced Pages (e.g. "] should not exist because it has broken the international law that created it"{{ref|Israel}}) | ||
| #At least two of the first few good-faith expressions of opinion call for a speedy-keep, AND | #At least two of the first few good-faith expressions of opinion call for a speedy-keep, AND | ||
| ##there are no good-faith votes for actions other than Keep ( |
##there are no good-faith votes for actions other than Keep (including "strong keep", etc) | ||
| ##there are no good-faith objections to it being a speedy-keep (e.g. "Keep, but don't speedy it"). | ##there are no good-faith objections to it being a speedy-keep (e.g. "Keep, but don't speedy it"). | ||
| ##at least four different users acting in good-faith have expressed their opinions. | ##at least four different users acting in good-faith have expressed their opinions. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ==Voting== | ==Voting== | ||
| Users |
Users eligible to vote are those that have at least 50 edits when the voting opens.<br> | ||
| '''Voting is not yet open, please discuss the proposals on the talk page instead.''' | '''Voting is not yet open, please discuss the proposals on the talk page instead.''' | ||
Revision as of 20:41, 4 October 2005
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Preamble
This is a proposed policy with the intention of generating agreement on when closing debates at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion before the normal discussion period ends. This proposal will only apply to closing such discussions with a "Keep" result - i.e. it is intended to be complementary to Speedy deletion.
Also proposed are a set of associated guidelines to accompany the policy. The guidelines are independent of the policy and so one or both may be accepted or rejected.
This is not about deletion reform, the policy and guidelines are intended to work for the current system only, and in that way can be considered interim. Whether they are relevant to a future system or wanted by the community in a future system is irrelevant.
The proposed policy
Debates at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (AfD) can be closed with a "Keep" result before the standard discussion period has elapsed in the following circumstances only.
- The nomination is obviously bad faith. Examples of this include:
- nominating an extremely high profile article (e.g. George W. Bush, Misplaced Pages)
- nominating a "key article" that unquestionably belongs in an encyclopaedia (e.g. Food, Antarctica, Milk)
- the reason given for nomination is entirely unrelated to Misplaced Pages (e.g. "Israel should not exist because it has broken the international law that created it")
- At least two of the first few good-faith expressions of opinion call for a speedy-keep, AND
- there are no good-faith votes for actions other than Keep (including "strong keep", etc)
- there are no good-faith objections to it being a speedy-keep (e.g. "Keep, but don't speedy it").
- at least four different users acting in good-faith have expressed their opinions.
- "Good-faith" means those opinions, votes and comments that would be taken into account at the close of an AfD debate after the standard discussion time has elapsed.
- Criterion 1 supersedes criterion 2.
When a discussion is closed as a speedy-keep the following actions MUST be completed:
- subst the {{at}} and {{ab}} templates at the top and bottom respectively of the AfD sub-page. The outcome of the debate should be listed as "Speedy keep"
- remove the afd tag from the nominated article, noting in the edit summary that the outcome of the debate was a speedy keep (e.g. "Removing AfD Tag - SPEEDY KEEP").
- The AfD subpage should not be deleted.
The proposed guidelines
- Although closing AfD discussions that end in keep votes can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to vote "speedy keep" instead.
- Whether a record of the nomination is added to the talk page of the article is at the discretion of the closing user. If it is noted, it is recommended that {{subst:oldafdfull|date=date of nomination|result=Speedy Keep|votepage=article name}}
- Featured articles that appear on the m:List of articles all languages should have qualify for criterion 1.
- Articles should not be kept under criterion 2 until at least two hours after the AfD tag is added to the article.
- The afd tag can be removed from articles that meet criterion 1 if no AfD subpage has been created within 30 minutes of the tag being added.
- Articles meeting either criterion can be kept if the discussion has not been linked to the apropriate AfD day page within 30 minutes of the sub-page being created.
Discussion
All discussion on the talk page please.
Voting
Users eligible to vote are those that have at least 50 edits when the voting opens.
Voting is not yet open, please discuss the proposals on the talk page instead.
References
- Paraphrased from an actual nomination.