Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions
finalised the examples. page is now pretty much done, though others should review |
|||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
* Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing) | * Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing) | ||
* Needs additional verification (for an article that might be basically fine, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are very sus. | * Needs additional verification (for an article that might be basically fine, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are very sus. Should only lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch policy, and no good sources exist with which to fix it) | ||
* Questionable Relevance (for an article that is on the edge of not being relevant, and an editor feels falls foul of the inclusion criteria above. Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision is made on their deletion) | * Questionable Relevance (for an article that is on the edge of not being relevant, and an editor feels falls foul of the inclusion criteria above. Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision is made on their deletion) | ||