UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling

Shortcut:
A/D/S

This page will be used for users to request that pages falling into certain categories be deleted as appropriate by a sysop without having to go through all the red tape of Speedy Deletions and Deletions. A list of pages in the Scheduled Deletions list is located here.

Deletion Scheduling

Deletion Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as normal Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Votes in this case shall be as follows:

• Yea - For approval of the deletion scheduling request
• Nay - For disapproval of the deletion scheduling request

Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use ~~~~)

After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the Archive.

Scheduling requests under consideration

Crit 7 by Proxy

If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page.

1. Yar - Doesn't happen often, but would trim that pesky tape a bit. -- Cheese 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Yep - As long as the edit summary links to the talk page. We shouldn't be encouraging people use sysop's talk pages for deletions, but this does cut down on the red tape for newer users who don't know the system. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Yep as long as the request os mentioned in the deletion log. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Yea - All Crit 7 really requires is the author showing they actually want the page gone and it being a reasonable request. Cementing this in the actual rules is nothing but a good thing. --Karek^maps?! 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes - I guess so. --ZsL 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes - Good idea.-- Adward  20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Yay - Less red tape. --Janus ^talk 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes - This makes sense. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Yep - Sounds good. --D.E.ATalk 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Yes I wish we could get Crit 1's in this way too tbh. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Yea - Simpler. Better. In my opinion, anyway.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 08:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
12. No - crit 7 is an author only edit, if it was restricted to pages only in their own namespace I would agree, however often group pages are only edited by one wiki-literate member. They shouldn't be allowed to request the deletion of group pages with no record left as to why except on some other users talk page (sysop talk pages can be simply wiped after all). There are also many template pages that are used by all over the wiki that have only been edited by one person, they shouldn't be deleted without the chance for review on A/SD. History wipes also make it hard to tell who created or edited older pages. Crit 7 isn't as simple as it may seem, and so shouldn't be open to scheduled deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:33 17 March 2009 (BST)

    Crit 12 still applies on all groups and if there was actual content on the page hopefully the sysop that got the request would be able to determine if the request should be honored. Also, the difference between say a "play on names" template like the slew that Tselita created and a Danger Report template is vast. We do still have an Undeletions page in case an error is made.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    The abolition of Crit 12 has nothing to do with Crit 7. The templates I was referring to were ones like this. If they're being used on other people's pages, they shouldn't be seen as being "owned" by the sole contributor, and Crit 7ed. Crit 7 needs watering down, not being made even more arbitrary, in that the author only has to convince a single sysop to get rid of it, and no one else will see it because they don't watch people's talk pages like they do A/SD. This has nothing to do with Teslita's stupid templates, which would go under crit 10 if they're not used -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:59 18 March 2009 (BST)

    convince a single sysop to get rid of it Here is your problem. You don't trust the judgment of the sysops. Sysops that got the position based on knowledge of the wiki, policy, and desire to contribute. Yet, now you seem to think that they aren't competent to know when a page should be kept or deleted. If you trust them enough to ban users why say they can't delete pages? Besides, worst case scenario, gods forbid you have to click *undelete*.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

13. Yes - As link. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Yes - I approve.--ScouterTX 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Yes - Fund it. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)