Consumerium:Proposed deletions: Difference between revisions

    From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
    (three proposals, let 'em stand for a week)
     
    Line 10: Line 10:


    *[[article hub]] - meaningless name:  everything is an article and any article can be a hub to reach others;  move the content to various other articles on the specific topics, as part of streamlining of [[Consumerium Process]] pages, and attempt to outline what a [[Consumerium Research pilot]] and working [[Research Wiki]] would look like
    *[[article hub]] - meaningless name:  everything is an article and any article can be a hub to reach others;  move the content to various other articles on the specific topics, as part of streamlining of [[Consumerium Process]] pages, and attempt to outline what a [[Consumerium Research pilot]] and working [[Research Wiki]] would look like
    *[[Ending Wikimedia]] - not a [[Consumerium]] related matter. We aren't in the business of scrutinizing [[non-profit]] organisations. We are leaving it up to each [[consumer]] to decide what organisations to trust and what not. See [[Preferences]] on this

    Revision as of 11:22, 8 September 2004

    Place proposed deletions on this page with a rationale. They will stand for at least a week before any action is taken. Elaborate arguments under each page name in point form; Try to stick to TIPAESA form or a subset of it.

    Proposals for deletion made September 8, for action September 15:

    • troll droppings - redirect used exactly once seemingly only to degrade troll text; unwisely applying an overly organic conceptual metaphor; one ought not to confuse mythological creatures that have no body with real living creatures that do, and which leave droppings; presumably it is only one's non-troll body that can leave any fertilizer around
    • Craig Hubley - article was deemed too inaccurate for Wikipedia and is probably not relevant to wiki mission; also there is apparently some kind of policy against pages "about person X" though some have advocated that there be exceptions for people relevant to specific worst cases and threats. Unless this person represents such a worst case or threat, which would have to be proven by documenting a case study or design fiction that made some reference to him, that was more credible with him in the story than with anyone else, his name is irrelevant to the wiki and should be deleted. If important it can re-emerge in the Research Wiki.
    Talk:Craig Hubley might stand however as it has some useful accusations and comment in it. If we consider suing for funding to be useful that is.