Talk:Rackham

It's a dead page, isn't that reason enough for deletion?--Asorel (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in my book. If it's lacking in content, that just means it needs more (it's clearly /tg/-related). Maybe it won't get any more if nobody has content or cares, but there's no reason to assume that will be the case. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been untouched for nearly three years; is that enough time to assume otherwise?--Newerfag (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

As easy as it is to assume that nobody cares enough to fill out the article, I feel that deleting pages (even substandard ones) on less-popular topics would do more harm to the wiki than leaving it. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I just stumbled onto this page today from recent edits, and I did care a little. I'll try and expand on it and the related pages for Confrontation and AT-43 when I can.

Perhaps a new tag for articles that are unfinished and inactive works. Something stronger than an ordinary stub. --Thannak (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough, though I'm not sure what we should call it. Super-stub? Abandoned work?--Newerfag (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned would be good, with the text in the template saying "This project is incomplete and may have been abandoned." Enterprising individuals may then want to browse pages with that tag and find articles which they may want to finish. Or the original creators may end up reminded it exists and/or shamed into finishing it. --Thannak (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea.--Newerfag (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)