If any specific proposal from I to VII (or proposal X) receives a 70% majority of disagree votes,
Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion should explicitly rule it out as a criterion for speedy deletion.
Unnecessary. If an article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --
Slowking Man 07:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Either it is a candidate for speedy deletion, or it's not. I don't see the point of pointing out what's not on a list of what is outside of "everything else". --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 20:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shane King 01:43, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) All policies should always be open to review. Why block off the potential to change our minds as circumstances dictate?
There is no need for that.
Josh 11:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete criteria should be clear enough that there is no need to spell out what they exclude.
GeorgeStepanek\
talk 01:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ike9898 02:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) That's not what many people meant with their disagree votes. Many of the disagreements are not absolute as this proposal would suggest.
Strictly speaking unnecessary since CSD already specifies that "For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion." --
JuntungWu 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
bernlin2000∞ 16:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): My reason is
here. As stated in the link a survey generates a concensus with Wikipedians. Just because a majority disagree doesn't mean the proposal should be rejected by Jimbo or any commitee that controls these things. That would make Wikipedia a pure
democracy, which it is not.
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Unnecessary and redundant.
BesigedB(
talk) 17:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Redundant
you have 3 cows... if 2 of them are horses...
Pedant 03:46, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Eric119 Er, what? By definition, candidates for speedy deletion are those specified. Anything unspecified is therefore not a candidate for speedy deletion without need to explicitly say so. 05:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Proposal bad. Make brain hurt.
Edeans 08:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If any specific proposal from I to VII (or proposal X) receives a 70% majority of disagree votes,
Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion should explicitly rule it out as a criterion for speedy deletion.
Unnecessary. If an article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --
Slowking Man 07:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Either it is a candidate for speedy deletion, or it's not. I don't see the point of pointing out what's not on a list of what is outside of "everything else". --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 20:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shane King 01:43, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) All policies should always be open to review. Why block off the potential to change our minds as circumstances dictate?
There is no need for that.
Josh 11:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete criteria should be clear enough that there is no need to spell out what they exclude.
GeorgeStepanek\
talk 01:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ike9898 02:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) That's not what many people meant with their disagree votes. Many of the disagreements are not absolute as this proposal would suggest.
Strictly speaking unnecessary since CSD already specifies that "For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion." --
JuntungWu 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
bernlin2000∞ 16:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): My reason is
here. As stated in the link a survey generates a concensus with Wikipedians. Just because a majority disagree doesn't mean the proposal should be rejected by Jimbo or any commitee that controls these things. That would make Wikipedia a pure
democracy, which it is not.
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Unnecessary and redundant.
BesigedB(
talk) 17:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Redundant
you have 3 cows... if 2 of them are horses...
Pedant 03:46, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Eric119 Er, what? By definition, candidates for speedy deletion are those specified. Anything unspecified is therefore not a candidate for speedy deletion without need to explicitly say so. 05:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Proposal bad. Make brain hurt.
Edeans 08:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)