GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete

This is a stupid policy in it's current form, we get inundated with rubbish being submitted here, if this policy was actually fully followed though, the regular contributors would be a month behind on Recent Changes patrolling. Read these two lines:

"When a new page is added to the Wiki, don't immediately delete the page, even if it seems nonsensical or erroneous."

"If you feel the page is beyond hope and of no use to the GuildWiki audience, mention it on the talk page".

Why would we not add a del tag to stuff that is "nonsensical or erroneous"? Or things that are "beyond hope and of no use to the GuildWiki audience"? Come on! --Xasxas256 05:13, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually (and this may not be 100% obvious from the text) this policy applies to admins only, since regular users cannot delete articles at all anyway. You can put the delete-tag on a page as soon as you spot it if you please, even under this policy. It only applies to actually enforcing that deletion. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:24, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * So when you see a article of nonsenical erronous contect with a +del tag do you wait for a few days or post on the talk page? :P --Xasxas256 06:39, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Neither, as I'm not an admin. ;P -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 07:53, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Picture me saying asking the rehtorical question as I'm standing on a soapbox throwing my hands up and rolling my eyes :P --Xasxas256 08:55, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, the policy has a major loophole by saying "This policy does not apply to changes that are clearly vandalism or spam". The majority of the articles that appear "nonsensical or erroneous" fall into the vandalism, grafitti, or spam groups and can still be deleted immediately.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:44, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Crap policy imho. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

That's 4~ thumbs down. Nuke? &mdash; Skuld 06:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm all for nuking/skudding it. It's a poorly worded policy that nobody follows anyway. Interesting that you should actually choose to put a note on the talk page, therby actuallu following it Skuld! ~_~ --Xasxas256 06:47, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, following it would've been to wait a few days instead of only a few hours following the application of the delete tag. While I agree that the policy needed some re-writing if it were to be kept, I disagree with the method in which it was scrapped.  This was an already adopted policy (admittedly poorly written).  It was eliminated approximately two hours after applying the delete tag, with no mention made in the community portal to advertise the deletion of an existing policy.
 * Note: My primary complaint here isn't about the policy itself, more about the process used to delete it. In my opinion, policy changes should be advertised in the community portal to get as much input to the change as possible, and should most certainly follow the documented process (that was here, but still exists in GW:DEL) to not be deleted until several days following application of the delete tag.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:02, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Correction, it appears that it was deleted within 30 minutes of applying the delete tag, not two hours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:33, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I have had a recent run in with a user about this very policy. I had no idea it was being discussed as my net has been down for most of the weekend, and it doesn't really seem the discussion lasted that long. I will say that there should be a policy applying to admins regarding deletion situations, as there are some admins that are delete happy. The fact that only two admins were aware of a policy that only concerns admins' actions seems kind of odd in my book. Though I may be wrong if notes on prominent memeber's talk pages were added to review this debate, i.e. "For your consideration..."
 * Edit: Seems Barek has informed Tanaric of this situation, though I have seen no other activity on anyone else's user talk page. -Gares 10:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I added notes to PanSola and Tanaric's talk pages, then had to drive into work and hadn't had a chance to leave messages for others yet (partially forgot when I was sidetracked by the Imperial Sanctum changes). Feel free to add the notes to other admin talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:27, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I got Rainith and LordBiro. The others seem MIA lately or at the very least scarcely on. -Gares 12:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

So much irony... Anyways, was this policy originally created in response to the Dragon fiasco? or did the creation of this policy predate that incident? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:46, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * DiD Policy was created March 8, 2006 if that helps with the timeline. -Gares 12:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought that I had most of the policy articles in my watchlist but I must have missed this one. Even if I did have this article in my watchlist, this discussion has not been going on long enough in order to justify anyone deleting what is accepted policy. I don't know why the hell you thought that 4 people agreeing was enough to completely remove the policy Skuld. I couldn't have easily come here and read the discussion in time to post my feelings on the subject before the article was deleted!


 * Personally I think that, even if this policy is not always followed to the letter, it sets a good example and protects users whose content is deleted by trigger-happy sysops. I would argue strongly that this is an important policy to keep.


 * I do wonder if, in fact, you genuinely want this policy to be kept, Skuld, and you are, quite cleverly, demonstrating a reason why it should be kept :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ooh mystery! &mdash; Skuld 13:47, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I was actually wondering that myself. When I looked at the opinions posted up to the deletion, to get 4 thumbs down I had to count each post by Xasxas separately.  The posts by Bishop and myself were neutral to supportive, and Skuld didn't post an opinion either way on it.  So, I was a bit fuzzy on how the negative consenses was determined. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, I do not want a sysop war here, but I believe if other users would like to be involved in this discussion, they have a right to read the policy, so I am reverting the deletion. I will not comment on Skuld's mindset regarding deleting a policy 30 minutes after the delete tag was placed, because only he can really answer that question. I will say that the policy does need to be reworked, but not until this little debate is settled. -Gares 16:21, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Restarting the rework discussion
While I don't feel too strongly about this policy one way or the other (I believe in the judgement of the sysops by and large, and as they're the only ones with power to delete articles, it becomes a minor point), but as intentions go, I think this has the right idea.

At the basic level, I believe that in almost all cases, there's no reason to immediately delete anything that isn't vandalism or spam. The reason for this is that if it isn't one of those two, then someone genuinely thought it would be useful information. And whomeever that person was, he deserves at least a hearing by more than the first sysop to find the material lacking.

As such, I find that this policy should be kept in some shape or form. My suggestion for a re-thinking would be to cut down on the required discussion period (although several hours should be a minimum) and instead simply ask that no admin delete anything (except spam/vandalism) that does not already have a delete tag. Instead, even an admin that feels a page warrants deletion should add the tag, much like any other user might do.

The next admin to notice the tag would then make sure a decent amount of time had passed, and no objections to the deletions been raised... and Bob's your uncle. The effect of this simple measure would be that it would take at least two pairs of eyes, and a naturally occuring time shift, before something was destroyed entirely.

This'll be my last thoughts on the matter, as I'm off to bed. I'm confident that with all the heads already following this, something decent will come out of it either way. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 18:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Fully agreed with Bishop. This sentiment was the reason I wrote this policy in the first place. As, at the time, the admin team did in fact follow this policy, I may not have worded it as well as I could have to indicate its intent. I'm all for rewording it, but I'm strongly against deletion. &mdash;Tanaric 20:04, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I was under that impression that admins don't delete things without there being a delete tag there currently, ie if there's no del tag they add one and another admin deletes it, except in the case of obvious vandalism etc. I'm sure I've seen sysops add a delete tag lots of times before. I also have to ask the question, do we want "nonsensical" pages on the GuildWiki? What's the difference between vandalism and nonsensical content? Who is going to go and fix up something that makes no sense? How can they do it if it cannot be understood? We have to draw the line somewhere, nonsensical content is considered akin to vandalism in my mind, it doesn't need to be kept, it adds no benefit and cannot by nature be improved to a useful state. I'd like that line removed.


 * While I'm at it what keep erroneous information? This is why these policies are a bit pointless in my option. If there's some erroneous stuff in a new article and but there's some useful and correct stuff there, sure keep it. If there's nothing particularly useful in an article and it's full of errors, get rid of it, the sysop just uses their common sense and good judgment, that's why they're trusted with that role!


 * Here's an example of some nonsensical content. If that was put here would I'd like to see it straight out deleted, even though this undoes that user's hard work. And no I didn't read though the thing, it's just an example of what we could be facing if this policy is implemented in it's current form!


 * To me this policy should just be "keep stuff that's worth keeping." I suppose this could be expanded to "Don't delete articles with useful content. If a page is in a poor state but has potential, give the creator and community time to improve it before deleting it. Use common sense when deciding what should be removed and if in doubt seek some clarification on the article's talk page. As an aside, administrators should not normally delete content that doesn't have the tag except in the case of vandalism or spam." --Xasxas256 20:53, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The policy is sound and should not be deleted. It would be a good idea to make the time to pass before deletion can happen more precise: Preferably something like 24 hours or 3 days. With regard to the time, I feel that 24 hours is the absolute minimum to allow everyone who reguarly participates to have their say. --Xeeron 08:28, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the wiki definitely needs some kind of do not delete policy. While trying to re-structure the General Minion Mastery guide I had 4 pages deleted: between them they weren't up for 24 hours, never mind individually. This was despite clearly explaining what was going on in both their and the GMMG's talk pages. People are free to disagree but it would be nice if they actually said why they do - and let other people discuss it - before hitting the shiny delete button. I think all non-spam/vandal pages should be given at least 24 hours grace at the barest, absolute minimum. Like Xeeron I think 3 days is a good figure to work to. --NieA7 09:03, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The policy should be kept, although rewording is in order to better define what is protected under this policy (the term "nonsensical or erroneous" is currently open to interpretation of what makes an article nonsensical). This policy in no way protects examples of vandalism, graffiti, or spam which would still be deleteable immediately.  Deletions due to articles being moved, eliminating broken redirects, or other site maintenance functions would not be protected.  Articles that would violate other policies if kept also would not be protected, and that fact should be spelled out in this policy.  Likewise, deleting sections from within articles that violated policies or established style/formatting guidelines should be spelled out to not be prevented by this policy.  Last, a clearly defined period to keep articles that can be protected does need to be established.  I like 48 hours; but 24 would be the bare minimum I would consider appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:35, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


 * (Edit conflict with Barek, I'm not rewriting because it's 1AM here) I don't think that under normal circumstances people should be submitting half written stuff that they intend to complete over several days. If they want to do that it should be in their user namespace, not in main. Otherwise it's deceptive for visitors who see a half written article. Perhaps we err on the side of heavy handedness but it keeps the wiki clean, I don't want to see a proliferation of the situation that is starting on our build articles, that is users creating bunches of unfinished articles that sit there for ages and are never finished and reduce the credibility of the place.


 * I suppose if we still add the del tag then the admins have to keep track of how many days/hours an article has been sitting in the articles to be deleted category, as well as keeping track of whether or not the article has been edited since the del tag was added and if so, is it enough to keep the article. Seems like a lot of work to me for little payoff but if the admins want to do it, then I'm fine with that. I will say that the user name space or the Sandbox are the places for incomplete, nonsensical and/or erroneous content, not main. Actually that's probably my real concern, why should this policy encourage the retention of "nonsensical or erroneous content"? Our general users don't need or want to see that kind of stuff, it doesn't need to be kept because we don't want to tell users the wrong thing. --Xasxas256 09:48, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The policy as written does not advise against deleting "nonsensical or erroneous" content&mdash;it advises against immediately deleting such content. It should definitely be flagged with a tag if encountered. Further, while in-progress pages should exist within a user's namespace, failing to do that does not justify immediate deletion. Nobody's going to find the orphaned, in-progress article anyway, so there's no problem. &mdash;Tanaric 12:12, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Merge
This is very similar to Criteria for deletion. Both deal with the issue of when to delete articles. It would be logical to have all that information in one article. Whether we keep this heading (which is more catchy) or the more neutral Criteria for deletion does not really concern me, but we should merge both into one policy article. --Xeeron 13:10, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I can understand why this policy is currently on its own, but I wouldn't be opposed to the proposed merge. Currently, GW:DID is geared more towards admins who can actually perform the delete, while GW:CFD is geared more towards everyone on applying the delete tag.  They are two distinct functions; but could easilly reside in a single article if sections existed to clarify the audience for each part. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:12, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * These articles are both fundamentally different. This is a guiding principle article, shortly explaining one ideal the GuildWiki stands for. The criteria for deletion is a detailed, codified policy. &mdash;Tanaric 16:17, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * They are both articles regarding deletion, but I don't think they should be merged. I think it's important that "don't immediately delete" is a short simple article that summarises why you shouldn't immediately delete an article. I think "criteria for deletion" is a more thorough article that explains processes for deleting something. It just seems to make sense to me to be able to say GW:DID or GW:DEL.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:02, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Consensus Change
The consensus has changed. We now immediately delete a page that contains only information that is probably erroneous/nonsensical and cannot be independently verified from the information given. See GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard#Please undelete Acorns, Talk:Acorns, and User:M.mendel/Acorns.

I ask that someone who supports the new consensus position (basically anybody except myself) propose a changed policy to reflect that. I expect though that we can simply retire the policy, because when you strike the clause that it applies to "nonsensical or erroneous" posts, it boils down to "don't delete pages that are pertinent and accurate", and that is covered by GW:AR already. --◄mendel► 10:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, all we need to do is update the exception note to include hoaxes/false information, and we'll be fine. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is going to be hard to enforce. What is the difference between "erroneous" and "false" information? What is a hoax, and what is the difference between a hoax and unconfirmed information that appears nonsensical? --◄mendel► 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it wasn't "immediately" deleted, secondly community consensus was that it should be deleted, and in most content disputes it is generally accepted that community consensus (or admin arbitration) will win out in the event of an impasse when neither side can prove their argument conclusively.--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Check other places, anet homepage, official wiki, guru. If it exists SOMEONE will post about it. PossessedLinebeck 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suppose that a reasonable person fairly knowledgeable about the relevant portion of the game puts the probability of an edit being accurate at one in a million. Should that be left in until we can determine absolutely for certain that it's a hoax?  Is it not better to remove it, and then add it back in the extremely unlikely event that the edit turns out to be correct?  Quizzical 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing points. That has already been done. Now please suggest actual new phrasings or argue that GW:DID does not need rephrasing (Is that what Cobalt was arguing? I can't tell). --◄mendel► 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading this policy, I see that it was broken. It specifies it can be deleted "After some time has passed" (which we did. Not as much as suggested, but still plenty to figure out that it was a hoax for all but a few die-hards). What we did break was the clause "if there are no dissenting opinions". Obviously, Mendel dissented. I suggest we change this clause to "if a consensus has been reached", because on a wiki of this size, dissent is nearly inevitable. Not to pick especially on Mendel, but if one person can stop the entire community by pulling out policies, it need to be changed.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Entrea, when MP47 deleted the page and the talk page, the people who had posted to the talk page at the time were:
 * mendel: "move page away in two days"
 * Franc: "ridiculous"
 * Entrea: "just stupid"
 * Ad Victoriam: "Incredibly doubtful..." "Left a note on the IP's page"
 * Ezekiel "For a second I thought this person was claiming to have gotten a 'chestnut'"
 * Felix Omni: "There is an extremely easy way to check this."
 * Macros: "Mestara Adalet doesn't exist"
 * I count Entrea, Franc, and MP47 as supportive of immediate deletion, Ezekiel and Macros as neutral, and myself, Felix and Ad Victoriam as asking the editor for more evidence. This is hardly a consensus, and even if you count it 5:3 it's not.
 * True, the clause you cite has been broken, but the consensus clause that you propose would have been broken as well.
 * As the events unfolded further, a consensus was established. Then Dr Ishmael deleted the page again. Noone has called for undeletion of the page since (although I still hold that it was premature), so there was no one "stop[ping] the entire community by pulling out policies".
 * Please remain fair to me in how you portray what I have written. --◄mendel► 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it was perhaps a little premature deleting the page. I still think that even the last comment (one of the "finders" in nonexistent) should have been enough to seal the thing up, but a little more discussion would have been fine. My point still stands, though. If the policy is followed to the letter, anyone (not necessarily you) could stop a deletion, and chances are very good there will be at least one hold-out on almost any topic.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The admins are the final arbiters in policy disputes, and if they judge that a policy doesn't apply, it doesn't. Especially in this case there is no further rule needed, because no non-admin can technically revert the admin's decision to delete (unless it's by copy and paste). Hence, a line saying "admins can overrule minor dissent" seems superfluous. --◄mendel► 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, if we really feel we need to rephrase this policy to incorporate one incident in which the policy was ignored in favour of consensus and common sense - (though surely, that is merely to take the "spirit not word" approach - if we followed every policy to the letter all the time we'd never get anywhere -GW:1RV anyone?) - then i agree with Entrea's idea that power of community consensus over one individual or indeed a sufficiently proportionally small number of individuals should be incorporated into the policy. And while it is evident that consensus was not reached when the page had first been deleted, i think that it clearly had been by the time of Ishmael's second deletion of the page and thus argument for keeping the page there after this time because of one disenting voice would be covered under this clause.--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs</B> ) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You think that's just a one-time thing? Next time something nonsensical or erroneous crops up people are going to not delete for a few days and see what comes of it? And I am the gullible one?? The current consensus is that anything that doesn't look like a legit article is likely to be zapped, the sooner the better, subject to common sense. We don't need a policy for that. What do we need GW:DID for now? I don't see any use for it. --◄mendel► 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think mendel's right - we don't really need this policy anymore. I'm sure it was very useful back when Anet was actually adding new stuff to GW every other week - it might have taken a couple days to prove/disprove new information.  But now, there's very little new content being added to GW, and what is added is always announced in the game updates.  I move that we archive this as an outdated policy.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know this was a genuine policy, and I don't see any real disadvantage with just plain good-old fashioned skepticism. If the article looks fishy (and reasonably so), then what harm will come from zapping it? If the information is legit, and the person who created it put forth alot of effort, I'm sure they won't take it in silence. I guess the point I'm trying to make is accuracy over speed. We can afford to do this, because it is only a game and it's not like people will lose their minds if it trails behind official release dates a bit. I mean, the miniature polar bear article came up fairly late, and most people discovered it after availability had ended, and people were only mildly disappointed. &mdash; Powersurge360 Violencia  23:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)