Forum:Deletion Policy

Forums: Index > Administration > Deletion Policy

We want to have a wiki with good quality control. To achieve that goal, we really need to set up a good deletion policy. Here is what I propose: we have a single template (needs assistance) that can stay on an article for 1 week. After that the article is deleted. We won't use any delete templates or anything like that. The template will have a link or a detailed explanation of how to move the page to a user sandbox (and delete all categories so that it doesn't show up anywhere) in order to save the article. That's another simple policy that we should have actually: no categories on sandboxed stuff. Anyways, I'm tired so this is probably somewhat incoherent, but I'd like to hammer out some rigid policy for deletion. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 01:27, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, though there should still be something for speedy deletion. I definitely support moving unfinished crap into sandboxes -- the nav pages should only show finished stuff. Surgo 01:40, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a stronger delete policy to maintain quality and not fill nave pages up with incomplete work. I think there's a bit of conflating going on between incomplete things (which are stubs, and should have the stub template or something similar tagged on them) and things which are complete but don't hit their balance target or are too weak for the wiki (and need balance assistance and the assistance tag). I personally think very differently of grossly incomplete things than I do balance issue things (I have little patience for the former and will start applying delete tags or whatever to them) and it would be nice to tell them apart even if the deletion policy for them was the same, which I'm not sure it should be. I'm perfectly happy with a 1 week move it or lose it for incomplete items, but I'd prefer 2 weeks on balance assist stuff because we don't treat all balance assist stuff evenly.

The other problem is that we sorta ignore 'technically complete but still tweaking for balance' things like Jay's Gray Guardian (who failed the SGT first time out but was listed as rogue) and TGCid's tome style sword guy whose name escapes me right now (who was listed as wizard level but wasn't initially, and is still being tweaked up). Both of these really should have had the assistance tag placed on them and been subject to the same deletion policy we're discussing here, but it wasn't done in either case. That sort of lax enforcement makes me want to tread lightly with quickly deleting things that someone properly applied the assistance tag to since we don't apply it to everything that's being tweaked in good faith but is a candidate for it. - TarkisFlux 05:27, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Status: Being tweaked. Should do the trick IMO, it mean it is actually playable, but may be under or overpowered for it balance point. It like releasing a beta, usable but still need to be tweaked, and in theory every classes are being tweaked constantly. --Leziad 07:46, October 8, 2009 (UTC)