Forum:New deletion policy

Ok, so recently I came up with an idea, and that's to clear out a ton of low quality articles. We're way too relaxed when it comes to housekeeping, so I think one of the ways we can improve the wiki is by getting rid of a lot of low quality articles. Proposal as follows:

This is a proposal for a new deletion policy that aims to reduce the amount of stubs on Pikmin Fanon. Many articles on Pikmin Fanon are very short and low quality, and have not been edited by their author in years. As such, these articles take up room, and need to go. The following are requirements of deletion, and both must be met.
 * Articles less than 500 characters (check Special:Shortpages for a list of short articles)
 * Articles that have not been edited by their creator for at least two years

The following are not requirements, but if an article has these, it is an even higher candidate for deletion:


 * Articles with little to no information
 * Articles with no templates and categories
 * Articles with little to no other articles linking to it (check Special:Whatlinkshere for articles linking to the page)

IMPORTANT: Before deleting the target article, check to see if any other articles link to the target article. If not, ignore this. If yes, transfer the target article's information and images into another article that's longer and more detailed so that the target article's information is preserved.

It is ultimately up to the discretion of the administrator who considers deleting the article, provided that the article they delete meets the two requirements of deletion. If you're not an administrator and you want to help out, mark the article with delete, again making sure that the article meets the two requirements.

The purpose of deleting so many stubs is to spend time fixing articles that actually need improvement, instead of fixing articles that aren't worth fixing. In other words, deleting these low quality articles will let us focus more on the articles that need to be improved.

If your article is deleted but you want it restored, ask an administrator to restore it for you. Of course, don't ask them to restore it if you don't plan on improving it. If you don't improve it within 2 weeks of its restoration, it will be deleted again and will also be protected so you cannot try to recreate it.

Thoughts? 20:07, 6 December 2015 (EST)

I LOVE IT


 * That enthusiasm though. Lol 20:20, 6 December 2015 (EST)

I like the idea, but there's something that worries me. I'd say at least half of the wiki's content falls under at least one of these criteria, and there are certainly more articles that we would consider low quality that don't, with the first example to come to mind being most of our Pikmin varieties. I think we need to be very cautious when approaching QA because of how much utter crap there is here, and I'm not sure if this is a good start. -- En  Passant  02:14, 7 December 2015 (EST)


 * Hmm, yeah. Really, I'm just trying to get rid of the super old and short articles because I don't think anybody cares about those. (We still never got around to fully fixing the Pikmin articles, which are very low quality, as you mentioned. They need a thorough reworking...) I also agree that we should be cautious when it comes to mass deletions such as this, but since I'm pretty much the only active admin around, I'll make sure to be careful about what articles I delete. Also, like I said, even if an article is deleted, it can still be restored, as per the author's request. 03:13, 7 December 2015 (EST)

I think is a good plan. We should probably implement it before the enthusiasm dies. ;)


 * Thanks, and yeah, we should. To En Passant: I clarified the guidelines a bit, making the age and length requirements instead of just guidelines. This way we have a clear definition of which articles should be deleted, and the rest of the guidelines just increase their deletion-worthiness. 21:43, 9 December 2015 (EST)

Something else to consider is looking at "What links here" to find out what pages use the information on a really short page. That way, the short page's information can be put on those other pages, and information will not be lost when deletion comes around. Scruffy 13:43, 10 December 2015 (EST)


 * Good idea. That's one of my biggest worries with this; information will be lost, even if it's tiny and insignificant. Like I've said before, I just want to get rid of all the unnecessary articles, since there's so many of them. I'll update the proposal accordingly; thanks for mentioning that. 20:54, 10 December 2015 (EST)