Created subtopic: Red tape
This is purely unnecessary red tape. Why should we bother having requests for deletion if most of the pages we have are exempt for deletion? Most of the pages that caused this discussion in the first place have an extremely tiny amount of information on them. Do we really need to keep pages like this? They’re already all included on the List of online games article, and these pages are extremely unnecessary when we already have that article. This whole discussion seems like red tape. The wiki would look much more professional and cleaner without these tiny stubs filling up the majority of the page count. Figmeister (W•C•E) 19:09, July 10, 2019 (UTC)
"This is purely unnecessary red tape. Why should we bother having requests for deletion if most of the pages we have are exempt for deletion?" I doubt the majority of our 20,000+ articles are exempt from deletion. Those that are exempt are exempt because they certainly merit their own articles. If they don't merit their own articles, or those that are stubs that are part of that section, then there needs to be a proposal to change the content policy because the content policy says the groups of articles that merit their own articles will merit their own articles without any exceptions if I interpret correctly. "Most of the pages that caused this discussion in the first place have an extremely tiny amount of information on them. Do we really need to keep pages like this? They’re already all included on the List of online games article, and these pages are extremely unnecessary when we already have that article." Tiny amount of information that can be expanded. Online games are not the same as minor characters. They can be expanded because they are official games that can be documented like episodes and everything else. If we had SpongeBob SquarePants shorts that had little amounts of information, would we delete them? "The wiki would look much more professional and cleaner without these tiny stubs filling up the majority of the page count." Certainly we can get rid of those minuscule character, location, and object pages that are too minor, but the content policy that defines what merits a separate article page should certainly override the deletion policy.
Think of it this way, if a user contacts an administrator to delete something, they should delete it based on the content policy. The deletion policy grants the right that "1. The requests for deletion process is an optional process; administrators can delete anything they believe is necessary." so I assume administrators can also restore anything they believe is necessary based on the content policy. The whole point of deletion requests is extremely unnecessary in of itself because we had an absurd amount in the past month or two when most could've been deleted by admins. So another thing is that deletion requests should be used when there's lack of clarity between the content policy or when there's a disagreement over the parts outside of what merits an article.
If someone nominated an Stub episode page with little information, it got more votes for delete than keep and it got deleted, would that mean it cannot be overturned? Do administrators have the right to restore based on the content policy, like they have the right to delete based on the same policy too? Should it mean definite articles that deserve pages according to the content policy are protected by it from any deletion? Those that are protected anyway have good reason to be.
Therefore, all online game articles should be restored, and we should put the content policy first before anything else, particularly the important pages that absolutely warrant articles. If one of those pages had to be deleted because of being a stub, then that group of pages shouldn't be listed on the content policy definite section and should be removed by proposal.
The current system is defective.
(Contact • Contrib) 11:28, July 11, 2019 (UTC)