Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

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 Tag as Historical ~ Anthøny 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

Dormant board, moribund for some time. Most news discussions take place at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and newcomers can always raise queries at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Delete as redundant. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tag as historic. Also the archives appear to be missing. Someone should fix that. -Nard 21:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historic and fix the archives. It's redundant, but there seems to be a precedent of tagging articles as historic. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tagging as historic is probably best in this case. Sr13 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historic, it's dead and has gone quietly. No reason to keep this around anymore. If someone was bold and did it before the MfD was up, I wouldn't object to that either. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historic - with a note as to where "news" type stuff can be found, perhaps. I have it watchlisted, but it's been awfully quiet, and seems to get very little in the way of actual news these days. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question: When did the Village Pump news page become moribund, and where is the discussion in which people were directed elsewhere? Until such a time as this has been thoroughly discussed, my choice is Strong keep until there is full community input. Corvus cornix 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If the community isn't using it anymore then the community has spoken, yes?

Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • It's only ever had a small fraction of the stories that get reported to the Signpost, and the latest thread was archived a week ago. It's been entirely blank since then. I don't think any discussion deliberately sent people elsewhere, they just migrated. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historic, repair the archives, and be done with it. We've moved on.--WaltCip 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Say what? Moribund? how do you figure? There were active discussions on the page until quite recently. I guess I don't really care if there is another locus for such discussions, but it seems bizarrely premature to tag this as historical and call it moribund when there have been active discussions there fairly recently. older ≠ wiser 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  I used to participate at that board a fair bit when it was more active. And although I'm not a deletionist, things quieted down to the point where I really wondered why it needed to be there anymore. Since the traffic is fewer than 1 new thread a week the Misc. board can certainly pick that up. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tag historical The page is not used much anymore, and as Durova points out, there are more popular fora for news dissemination. Shalom ^Hello 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and restore: I'm kind of confused by what happened to this space, it's main purpose in the past was always to let users know what was happening, now the nominater is stating that it should be replaced with a tipline for a wikipedia project? If you ask me that really doesn't make much sense the Signpost and the News section have for years lived in harmony and it's only now that that's being questioned. Also of note is that the page is currently tagged as historical which if I'm not mistaken shouldn't be done untill this debate is closed. Deathawk 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  I've dropped by the page now and then for a long time. What I'm saying is it has already been replaced by the tip line on a de facto basis. So the rare times when Village Pump still holds news discussions could easily take place at the Misc. board. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion I think tagging historical is the right move, I have boldly done so. If there is a better place, and folks are using it, then this should be historical, as it is. As far as fixing the archives, this seems to be a maintenance task. I have asked Durova to do this, unless someone gets to it before her, or someone can tell me how to do it. Fixing the archive, I don't think, needs debated. Best regards, Navou ^banter 13:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Make it historical I don't see any use for it now. The most I've heard about it was when Durova brought this topic up on WP:AN. Acalamari 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag historical redundant and unused. Hut 8.5 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It mayn't get as much traffic as some of the other VP boards, but IMO it's the most important of them. There was only a one-week dead period before the deletion nomination. Why not wait and see if it doesn't pick back up again? BTW, I haven't been very active lately, and that's the only VP board I've consistently read and kept up with during my inactive period. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  I ran a check of the last 5000 edits to that page after reading your opinion. Two things I noticed: a steady dropoff throughout 2007 and that I've been posting there since March 2006. I think it's fair to say that this isn't a temporary slump. The board just isn't what it used to be and its remaining functions have already de facto been absorbed elsewhere. Deletion/historical tagging would just formalize what's already happened. Durova^Charge! 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's summer and people aren't posting as much. I see no reason why this page now has any less usability than it had in the recent past. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historic If there is ever a fresh need for it, it can be reactivated after a discussion/consensus on the talkpage. Also, it would take time to track down every page that refers (as opposed to link) to it so a banner advising readers of other appropriate venues would be useful. LessHeard vanU 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There was a slight pause in news, then it was tagged to delete, which has stopped all news items being reported. It is possible it may never recover from this, but it should be given a chance first. I think this listing has been hasty and destructive and unsound. SilkTork 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion. I've been active at that board for a year and a half and watched it decline steadily throughout 2007. The few threads it had were often weeks out of date. Finally it got to the point where it had no threads at all. Durova^Charge! 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • • I have just looked back at the history. I took a look at May 2005 - 58 edits; May 2006 - 103 edits; May 2007 - 81 edits. Which by itself isn't a significant drop, especially as it shows an increase on 2005. However the edits in June were 69, and the edits in July were only 33. There is a definate trend downwards. And with the page being tagged as historic and tagged for deletion it is not going to recover. My feeling is that with some projects there have been pauses or declines in activity which have then been reversed. This news project might have recovered. Now we will never know. I would have liked to have seen it given a little more time to see if it could recover (or even given some assistance to recover). This discussion on the Village pump news will have a knock on impact for the whole Village pump project, diminishing it, and raising questions about Village pump's validity and importance compared with Community Portal. Well - maybe that isn't a Bad Thing. It's good to question things now and again. I wouldn't object to an upfront discussion about do we need both Pump and Portal. But I do feel uncomfortable when the fringes of something are diminished. I'm not suggesting that there is a deliberate intention to undermine the Pump, but that by removing this news section, that is what is happening. SilkTork 09:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Deprecate, we have too many divergent news forums as it is, and that isn't helpful. Lock it if people Don't Get It. Be sure to remove links to this from the rest of the village pumps, et cetera. >Radiant< 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and restore. If the main discussion board isn't getting traffic, that is a sorry state of affairs that needs to be dealt with by promoting it better, not by deleting it. Beorhtric 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever gives you the impression that this is the "main discussion board"? >Radiant< 16:30, 6 August 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.