Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Self-linking pages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Self-linking pages
This page is now empty, with a redirect to a non-existing Special page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. While some old WP namespace pages are preserved for historic reasons, I'm not sure I see value in doing so with this page which was used for maintenance tasks at one point. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete More or less an orphan page (just a few talk pages and this MfD) which is currently only a redirect. See no reason to preserve. Xoloz 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, it doesn't harm anything, and it shows good work by the users who worked on it - it should stay in their contributions list. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not to be argumentative, but I don't like that logic much. Pages exist for the encyclopedia, not to pad editor's edit counts. Editors can take away the satisfaction of having done good work; they don't a page kept as a reminder of their edits, way back in their contribution histories. That logic could be used to support keeping any page ever edited. Xoloz 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- If it were just random edits, I wouldn't worry about it, it's an absurd argument. But...it's upkeep edits. Behind-the-scenes upkeep is the sort of thing relevant to deciding things like RfAdminship. It is "edit counting", but it's counting a particular kind of edit, which it is sometimes useful to have a record of. Given that it's very, very old, I doubt it's relevant, and I recognize that it's not a very strong argument: thus weak keep. I won't mind if it's deleted. (I would point out that the resources taken up by archiving this discussion is likely to equal the resources currently taken up by the page itself). :) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not to be argumentative, but I don't like that logic much. Pages exist for the encyclopedia, not to pad editor's edit counts. Editors can take away the satisfaction of having done good work; they don't a page kept as a reminder of their edits, way back in their contribution histories. That logic could be used to support keeping any page ever edited. Xoloz 03:36, 3 April 2006 (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.
