GuildWiki talk:What (not) to Delete

Delete Userpage at User request
"All editors may modify the information on their own userpage(s) as they see fit, to the point of blanking the page (i.e. deleting everything on it). It is usually inacceptable to edit another user's pages, unless you have permission."

Should an Admin delete the Userpage if requested by the User? --- -- (s)talkpage  14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can't see why not? It may cause red links in their sigs, but there are users who have a permanent red sig, so it's not disruptive. If the user really wants their page deleted, I think that request should be honoured. Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If a userpage is deleted, admins can still look through the deleted revisions in case a situation ever comes up where that information is necessary. Redlinks to the User: namespace don't show up in Special:Wantedpages, so I don't see a problem with deleting userpages.
 * User talkpages are a different story, however, and should probably only be protected if necessary (see User talk:Stabber), rather than deleted. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that question was meant to get the article updated... But, opinions are always accepted, too :P --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Viper, you know my position on the topic. I'd want to argue this a bit. But current practice is covered by the if no one complains, it's ok clause, so you're good, basically.
 * Why is there no consensus? a) because I'm against it (duh), and b) because it's not even in GW:DEL.
 * It's the wiki spirit not to delete needlessly. There are sentences in "Censorship" like "If you write something that you later regret, you can't just delete it and pretend it never happened - you have to deal with the consequences, or, preferably, think twice before posting." That implies that your information is there for posterity; you've effectively set it free under the BY-CC-SA license, and we're certainly under no obligation to remove it. It stays on the server, so we don't even gain anything.
 * What is the need for a parting user to have the page deleted? To say "I am not part of this community anymore"? Blank the page! Worried about vandals claiming your page in your absence, maybe years from now? Have it protected after you blanked it! Tell the community that it's not a drama-queen exit? Drama queens can easily come back to a deleted page, especially if they saved a copy on their hard disk or know a friendly admin. If a user gets nostalgic 3 years from now and wants to see the old userpage, they're going to curse the decision to delete. They're also going to miss revisiting the pages of the other users they've interacted with.
 * Anyway, if it is to be that we need a rule about deleting user pages at user request that are not empty, put it on GW:DEL and maybe give it a line here in the Total deletion section as it is an admin task. I protest, though.
 * Oh, and thanks for the spelling fix, DE.--◄mendel► 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks for the spelling fix, DE.--◄mendel► 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we cannot command people about their spot on the Wiki, imo. If they want their spot on the wiki deleted, for whatever reason, I think we shouldn't protest. It's like sub pages; if they're not wanted, they're deleted. You can't look back there, either. Does it matter? An admin can always look back, and if needed, undelete. Takes a matter of seconds, really. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to copy every user page on the wiki to my user space just to prove a point? --◄mendel► 18:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I put information about me I want deleted, we should be deleting it. If a user puts information about themselves up that they later do not want made available, we should not be forcing them to keep it or retain it in history. Just because I felt comfortable having info up at the time I posted it doesn't mean that I will continue to do so. In general, we have a precedent for not interfering with the user namespace (within reason). I believe that precedent covers this.&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Just because I felt comfortable insulting you at the time I posted it doesn't mean that I will continue to do so." - and yet you would have me deny deleting that insult in your Censorship proposal. Contradiction city. --◄mendel► 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary
I'm not convinced that this policy is necessary by itself and most of it would be better suited as parts of GW:AR, GW:DID, GW:DEL, GW:ADMIN and Censorship. Additionally, since only sysops are capable of deleting, this policy seems like its only directed towards them. (However, so is DID so that's not a full reason to not need a policy; merely a contributing factor). &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this is a terribly useful policy. For instance, ''Information in articles, templates etc. has to be useful and correct. To that end, incorrect or incomplete information may be corrected or removed.'' I don't think there are many good faith editors who think that GuildWiki should retain incorrect information. Yes, they may post incorrect information which they legitimately believe to be correct, but if they are, indeed, good faith editors, a simple explanation that the information they provided was incorrect should suffice (you shouldn't need to show them a policy saying "GuildWiki doesn't retain incorrect information"). Same goes for illegal content. If a good faith editor unknowingly uploads an illegal image, we shouldn't need to refer them to a policy that says "GuildWiki doesn't retain illegal images." Empty pages - the content has moved elsewhere, or there never was any, and the page is not linked, transcluded or displayed on other pages. Again, unnecessary. It's common sense (not to mention that it's essentially contained in Criteria for Deletion anyway). *Defiant Elements*  +talk  18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This policy is an alternate proposal to Censorship. If the latter is adopted, this here makes no sense any more. However, I felt that though the subject matter and aim is similar to Censorship, the approach was different enough that it would have been hard to illustrate it by discussing there. My aim is to make this policy the first one to turn to when a conflict about deletion needs to be avoided, and thus it summarizes parts of the policies you mention, and links to them so that users will know when to consult those. --◄mendel► 18:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Common Sense = consensus. Doesn't hurt to fix that for others to know. We don't have a common sense policy, either. --◄mendel► 18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)