Okay, so, this is something which has been on my mind lately. Right now, having three works up at any given time qualifies you for one, without regard for rating or even basic viability of works added. There are a number of author pages out there that don't qualify anymore. Right now, all of those are older pages that have fallen below the arbitrary three works requirement because those works were rewritten or eventually deleted after a slow decline: http://sandboxcrayne.wikidot.com/authorpages
As an aside, I feel that author pages should be a reward for those members who actively contribute to the wiki. This influences my thoughts on the matters to a large degree. That said, there are a few things I'd like to see happen/talked about.
- I'd like to see it explicitly clarified that new author pages made when the articles listed have only recently been posted and/or are skirting the negatives, can be subject to deletion if those works do not survive. I'm fine with people being enthusiastic, but I feel it's patently unfair to leave those pages around with fewer than the required three pages when there's members out there who've written one or two very successful works, yet can't make an author page.
- I'd also like it explicitly clarified that point 1 only concerns new author pages, and that older pages may be left up as they may contain site history. I'd also like to look at the pages listed under the link above on a case-by-case basis.
- If author pages are not subject to normal deletion for falling below the deletion threshold, I have no idea why we'd have rating modules on them. It's not a big thing, but having a rating module on a page gives the impression that a member's vote matters. As it doesn't in the slightest, I really don't see the use.
In the past I've argued for the outright deletion of those pages not meeting criteria anymore (something about keeping things tidy and being consistent), but I've since changed my mind on that one. I can see how author pages are a part of site history and should be kept around if only for that.
As for the suggestions of adding a requirement that pages stay up for an arbitrary length of time, or reach a certain rating, neither of those would guarantee that the page wouldn't fall below those requirements at a later stage, and therefor don't really solve anything. As long as we are explicit about the fact that we reserve the right to deletion author pages that don't carry site history and fall below requirements, I'm good.
(account deleted)