Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was:  delete. Factoring in the author request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2

 * – (View MfD)

An editor was archiving all discussion on talk page, even though article only had a few discussions at the time. Per WP:ARCHIVE, we archive to avoid bulk on the Talk page, which was not a particular problem here. Additionally, the Talk page is set up for automatic archiving, which manual archiving can interfere with when it creates a new page. I have restored the discussions to the article's talk page. None of the involved discussions are antiques, all have been added to within the past 6 months. Now this Archive 2 page should be deleted, so the automated archiving can continue to do its job. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as a currently unnecessary archive. Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous is currently (after the reopening of two discussions) only about 25 kilobytes long, which is far below the length where archiving would be needed (roughly 75 kb per Talk page guidelines). Glades12 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Weak delete (see below for why I changed my vote) as archive creator. The main issue is that the first archive is getting too long; it’s over 100k long and covers well over a decade of discussion, so, IMHO, it’s time to rotate the archive.  Anyway, getting in an edit war over archiving talk page discussion when the last discussion was updated over two months ago probably deserves a trout or to be put in WP:BJAODN; I find it quite silly.  Should I point out that an admin appears to not support the deletion of that archive?  Defendingaa (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While archive sizes over 100K are common, the maxarchivesize setting on the automated system can be adjusted, and deleting this page would allow the system to continue to function properly. Your derision for someone daring to stand in the way of whatever whim you had is neither appreciated nor helpful. Admin did not say that page should not be deleted, just said that it was not clear-and-non-controversial enough to be handled by the speedy deletion process. --Nat Gertler (talk)
 * You assertion that I have a “derision for someone daring to stand in the way of whatever whim” is inaccurate. Let’s look at the edit history here.  You started off by reverting my first go at archiving the page.  In the interest of compromise, after the speedy nomination for this page was removed, I archive all discussion expect the discussion we had a few months ago.  Instead of accepting the compromise, you reverted my change again and opened up this discussion.  I am sorry for my exasperation with these edits, but it really stretches WP:AGF when another editor reverts my changes twice in under 24 hours; that is a pattern of disruptive editing.  I am trying my best to compromise with you on an issue which, quite bluntly, should not result in there being an edit war.  It’s a silly issue.  So, let me directly ask you this:  Are you OK with the maximum archive size being reduced in half to 125?  Or is this going to result in another revert of my edit from you?  Defendingaa (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to delete, as a way of reaching out to User:NatGertler with an Olive Branch. I have voiced my frustrations, and am now willing to move beyond this confrontation.  I am hoping that we can be more cooperative moving forward.  And, if any admin with username change permissions sees this, please let me change my username because my current username results in bad faith assumptions from other editors which is not helpful for the Wikipedia. Defendingaa (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the admin opposes deletion altogether, just that he doesn't consider speedy deletion the best process for a case like this. I bet pinging him will clear things up on that issue. Glades12 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't have any particular opinion on how archiving should be done. But, given someone argued for keep here, it seems I was correct in supposing it wound not uncontroversial, and thus not eligible for speedy deletion under G6.  Wily D  15:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doug Mehus T · C  23:37, 18 January 2020 (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.