Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Excellent short articles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 and mark {{historical}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Excellent short articles

This inactive page seems to me doubly redundant: articles listed on it should all theoretically be FAs: according to it, "excellent short articles" must meet the FAC criteria; but then they should be FAs! Practically, articles that are too short to be FAs can be listed at WP:GA. So, let's delete this, but first look through the list to see if any should be nominated for GA or even FA status. Rmrfstar 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Preserve in formaldehyde Such as it is, it's not a bad list for the WP:ACID team to work on. However, I checked some of the articles, and they are not "short" - many of them are long enough to be featured articles, and could possibly be improved at least to Good Article class. Placeholder account 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or tag as historical. How in the world can this page be of any use if you delete it? The nom doesn't even make sense. Let's delete first and then go through the list? WTF --- RockMFR 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that I meant look through the list first, then delete the page. The point is that the list isn't of any use now. We should strip it for what potential it does have then get rid of it. -- Rmrfstar 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Nominate it when you're ready to delete, then; but we should mark it historic, and at all costs keep it out of the GA disaster. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with marking it as historical, though that seems a bit too conservative: it didn't have much historic significance as it got only 10 edits ever. And are you talking about the GA nom backlog? -- Rmrfstar 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, about the hallmarks of bad process which have resulted in the GA collapse; but my essay on that is on Wikipedia talk;Good articles review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as historic. We currently have no need for this.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely inactive. I don't see the need to tag it as historical; nothing ever happened with it. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merely mark as historical. No compelling reason to delete, and space is not an issue. Gracenotes^T §
• Inactive so Tag as historical. No real need to delete. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:08, 10 June 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.