Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Ras Al Khaimah WG

 __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:  keep. kingboyk (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:User Ras Al Khaimah WG

 * – (View MfD)

Unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * keep. Was used. Not currently used is not a good reason for deletion. It is a perfectly good userbox for a WikiProject.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Being unused now is a perfectly good reason for deletion: otherwise, nothing once used could ever be deleted. As for the project, there have been zero substantive edits on the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Emirates/Ras Al Khaimah work group since the edit that created it twelve years ago. It has just two members listed, one of whom is blocked, the other last edited in 2018. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)other
 * Oppose selective deletion of inactive WikiProjects. Userboxes are part of the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your second !vote. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's not a vote; even if it were, is just reiterating his rationale for keeping with flair—that is by bolding for emphasis. I see no problem with that. Doug Mehus  T · C  14:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's why I didn't say it was a "vote". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . This is not "unused," with nearly 20 transclusions. No real reason for deletion here, and I note the nominator has been active at TfD of late in their nominations of long-standing user templates like education wikibreak for deletion or merging. Doug Mehus T · C  13:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are transclusions in documentation, not "uses" and not reasons to keep. The vast majority of my recent TfD nominations have resulted in deletion, or otherwise merges or redirections, so your point in raising the subject of my activity is not clear. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as historical; why delete this?  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is not used, not needed, and apparently never was. Infobox consolidation explains why such templates are a burden upon the project. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You appear to confuse infoboxes with userboxes.  Infoboxes are used across a variety of articles, and consistency, and workability of options is important.  That is completely non-applicable to a userbox displaying membership of a WikiProject subgroup.  Userboxes are best kept simple so that ANU user can use and adapt them. There is no burden with this template, nothing for maintainers to have to maintain. Instead, you are creating work with the mfd nomination, and trying to do damage to a WikiProject/workgroup by deleting its resources and records. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I confuse nothing. The page I link to has a paragraph, near the top, saying "Several of the principles apply to other types of template, equally.". Did you not read it? your "trying to do damage" allegation is utter poppycock. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the onus is on you to say which of the principles apply to this userbox and .  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  01:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "it is not used, not needed, and apparently never was". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was used by its author, and possibly others. “Not needed” can be said about many things in WikiProjects, and many good things are not needed. The principle of simpler maintenance for a few expert template writers is not relevant to isolated workgroup userboxes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 22 February 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.