Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Coredesat 10:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force

Inactive wikiproject. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Appears to be a subpage of a fully active WikiProject. No reason to delete, certainly not the reason the nomination states. IvoShandor (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If the page is inactive, tag it as such, but for historical purposes, I believe these types of pages should be held onto, who knows who may find it useful in the future. IvoShandor (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Retain and tag as Historical. Inactive WikiProjects and their ilk almost always get tagged as historical so that they can be referred to if the need arises. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as Historical per above. Just to clarify, this nomination was discussed on the project's talk page and put up by one of the members. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Should we then close this and tag as historical, or should we wait a little? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait a little; unlike Everett at the moment, there's no SNOW here (yet). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: People have added themselves to the list as recently as yesterday (and judging by that history, there seems to be steady interest). Also I have used the chart if not the paging system to contact active vandal patrollers online. I note that the table has gotten out of whack and I've been shoved to the side (hey!), but I have no idea how to fix that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think the main argument submitted by Tbo 157 is that the task force overlaps with the CVU and the pager system is largely unused, not that the level of interest is low. Your point certainly serves as a strike against that argument, of course, but I just wanted to clarify. Also, I fixed the table--someone along the way missed a line break (don't worry; it wasn't you)! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 13:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for repairing that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The CVU is active. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Moonriddengirl, and also because the process does not require that much maintenance, so there is not that much activity on its talk page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.