UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/New Criterion for Speedy Deletion

Guidelines — Policy Document This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This policy change would update Speedy Delete Criterion 1 to include un-useful duplication of pages (including images), and add a Criterion 13 to clean up any sub-pages from previous deletions (except where they serve an individual purpose despite being orphaned). The changes would be:

---

1. No Content: The page contains no more than a line or two of content that cannot clearly be expanded, consists of random or incoherent content , or is duplicated elsewhere to no purpose. Pages created by Spambots typically fall under this category.

13. Missed sub-page: The page is a sub-page from a previous deletion request that has not been deleted with the request, and that serves no individual purpose (please note the relevant deletion request).

---

Changes to Crit. 1 are in blue italics, Crit. 13 is new.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. So that more useless stuff can be legitimately speedydeleted -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
2. a good policy. it appears it would help make things go more smoothly.--Blood Panther 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
3. More reasons to delete shit. --Cap'n Silly ^T/W/P/C 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Common sense, really. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Gage 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Heh, didn't expect me to do otherwise I hope? -Certified=Insane^☭ 05:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
7. This will make things a lot easier.Vantar 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Sure --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
9. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Sounds great. -- 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Good idea. --Unknowen9000 23:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Woo! More excuses to use the nuclear option! --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Well, it doesn't INCREASE potential abuse, and clarity is good...hope I don't regret this? --MorthBabid 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
14. as long as important information doesn't suffer I think it's agreeable. .--nRnRQBBAN 18.30 CET 18th February
15. Looks like it clarifies, now if people will just fix Crit 12.--The Envoy 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Seems harmless enough. --Specialist290^♠ 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
17. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
18. I agree. --Xtralife ^{| Talk·SCA·FLT |} 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Bandwagonin'. --Toejam 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Sounds good. --Roinator 23:35. 26 Febuary 2007
21. -- Pillsy ^FT 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
22. -- yes -- Asheets 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Fine by me --Belmond^TMZ 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
24. all good. Muadib 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
25. Choo Choo! --CaptainM 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting closed

Against

Voting closed