Should admins delete bad/pointless articles such as Joltectric?
Information
Articles that have no info besides a disorganized description and moves, or other similar articles will be included.
Yes (2)
- — Universal The time guardian
02:12, October 20, 2011 (UTC) - I agree with the idea that we should give users a certain ammount of time to go back and fix up their articles, however if the article is like Joltectric, which was last edited in February, they should be gotten rid of as they are a waste of space on the wiki. I like using the random page button and read whatever I come across but it's quite annoying when half the time I get articles like Joltectric. Magma-Man 20:48, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
No (3)
- It's simply unfair to the user. If by any chance he/she happens to come back, it would be a dick move. However, I suggest moving to user namespace. ~Hyper Zergling 02:54, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Same as above IceBite, the Cryos Specter/Never give in, never surrender. 19:34, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- No I don't think it's fair. Even if the user hasn't payed attention to it, there's no really good reason to remove that article. Who cares if there's a single, "wasteful", article? I suggest you inform the user about editing this article with a warning that you will delete it. Simply just deleting material that belongs to the user isn't fair and is an unfair move. It's not yours, don't touch it. Get that Shinx off my lawn! 03:32, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral
- I'm in neither side because I don't know what to... Nevermind... CattailsWe Heart! 07:07, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
If you mean "bad articles" as in terrible grammar or obscene content. Cmdr Lightning 19:41, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- What we mean by that is articles that are nothing but a name and a moveset or similar, that are left there for months or more without getting touched. Magma-Man 19:47, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no one can be too sure. I would give the said type of article a reasonable time window. If the creator of the article happened to return in 2 or 3 months to add more detail, and if it was deleted without warning, I wouldn't necessarily call that "fair". Cmdr Lightning 19:55, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that. IceBite, the Cryos Specter/Never give in, never surrender. 20:30, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think I agree that we should give them a certain ammount of time to fix it, but if you bothered to check, you see that our example article has gone almost a year without edits. Magma-Man 20:44, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should do what we do on Sonic Fanon Wiki; put a page warning on the article's talkpage that tells them to improve the article within 3-5 days, or it will be deleted.--Ryushu the Cat
- So basically you agree that we should do it? Magma-Man 00:46, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should do what we do on Sonic Fanon Wiki; put a page warning on the article's talkpage that tells them to improve the article within 3-5 days, or it will be deleted.--Ryushu the Cat
- Well, I think I agree that we should give them a certain ammount of time to fix it, but if you bothered to check, you see that our example article has gone almost a year without edits. Magma-Man 20:44, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that. IceBite, the Cryos Specter/Never give in, never surrender. 20:30, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no one can be too sure. I would give the said type of article a reasonable time window. If the creator of the article happened to return in 2 or 3 months to add more detail, and if it was deleted without warning, I wouldn't necessarily call that "fair". Cmdr Lightning 19:55, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
Most of the time only underage/anonymous users create articles like Joletric. If they're underage, you might as well delete these. They can always be re-created after their block until their 13th b-day. If they're anonymous, IPs are shared, that means the articles are pretty much admin property. You could also put the grammar template on the articles, but why go to edit them? The wiki will just get filled up with junk articles, and it would start to take up WAAAAY too much disk space if/when we go independent. The community clearly doesn't support, this, though. I may re-open at a later time. — Universal The time guardian 12:36, October 27, 2011 (UTC)