The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.
The result was Keep
This applies to all Sig request archives, and if this passes, no more archives will be made. The reason is that there is no value in archiving these exchanges. 99% of these exchanges are:
- I want sig
- Here it is
And the others are
- I want sig
- Here it is
- Can you change?
BUT WAIT!!! you say, why delete them at all? What's the harm in having them?! The harm comes from time wasted spent replacing image links in these archives that no one ever goes to or makes any use of. BUT WAIT!!! you continue to say, what about people who visit them to find ideas for a signature?! Well, find someone who did. Anyone. I'll take anyone who even thought about going through those archives to find an idea. Good luck!
Delete - As nominator. Psycho Robot talk 05:01, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - They may be kinda pointless, but they are still discussions. They show the history of the page by providing what was said; deleting them is unnecessary. Matt (t) 05:46, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I and other editors often visit them to perform maintenance which is a waste of time. Psycho Robot talk 05:47, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - People wanting sigs may look at examples found here and decide to try and cannibalise their own from the existing examples, however I know this is highly unlikely because the types of editors wanting sigs are usually newer ones who don't know what an archive is. That is why my oppose is weak. And they are still discussions, no matter how meagre. 222 talk 05:51, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - (edit conflict x2)They are not real discussions but have been found to be usefull. Sentra246 05:54, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - So what if it's only "I want a sig kthxbai"? What are you going to gain from deleting it? bad_fetustalk 16:37, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Strong delete - Our archive system is fundamentally flawed and needs a revamping. Our position is to archive every single bit of discussion except for spam. We don't need to do all that. It makes our operations less streamlined and builds the foundation for major bureaucracies in the future. As for signature archives, Psycho has some very strong points. First, the signatures do not qualify as discussions. Second, they still require maintenance work, in the event of image moves or whatnot, which is unnecessary and will be removed with this.
Now, as for the opposers who feel that we may need some examples, we can create examples of a few signatures and plaster that on the requests page. It's much easier than having a large, messy, and unnecessary archive. --LiquidTalk 01:31, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Comment I added a bit to the OP to address concerns brought up multiple times. Psycho Robot talk 02:44, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Two things here. One, replacing a few links takes a few seconds. Two, for the "find someone who goes through them" thing, I know that I sometimes do. bad_fetustalk 13:09, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Not really needed, but I do like to look at some of them for signature ideas :3 03:06, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Like Matthew and 222 said, they're still discussions, so we can't just ignore RS:DDD. Real Mad 07:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, they're not really discussions. They're repetitive statements consisting of signature contents. Second of all, consensus overrides DDD. --LiquidTalk 15:43, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Like Chess said, what is there to gain? It's not like they're clogging up the wiki, the only things that link there are the other archives, the requests page, and this RfD. And people DO go through them, I had a quick scan when I made my signature. And they may be repetitive, but so are some RfD discussions, which are simply
- This article is unnecessary. Delete.
- Support - As nom.
- Support - I don't like it.
- Support - It's pointless.
- Closed - Article will be deleted.
- Would you also delete those discussions? Real Mad 10:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
|A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/RuneScape:Signatures/Requests/Archive 1. Request complete. The reason given was: No new posts for 12 days
10:11, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - Archives will be kept, even though they're useless. @@@@@ --Iiii I I I 01:07, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.