Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count (3rd nomination)

 __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 snow keep. BencherliteTalk 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Edit count



 * 1) Ancient cruft.
 * 2) POV fork of [] Only difference between this and the project page is that the project page is not years out of date and it uses the placeholder user, per community consensus.
 * 3) It is an attack page, in my view; that's what differentiates it from the regular page; otherwise it's just cruft.
 * 4) Furthermore, the community consensus at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=placeholder&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AList+of+Wikipedians+by+number+of+edits%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search is that the entries for users who requested deletion be deleted. --Elvey (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) It is the work of a now banned user caught using sockpuppets to bolster his lousy arguments.--Elvey (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Most of these arguments are completely fallacious, and the others are very weak. Point 3 and 4 will be addressed by users blanking entries. I do not now imagine an edit war to restore entries. User:Betacommand was a prolific editor, and this documents a piece of Wikipedia history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. The first thing at CIVIL: Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not.  Which of 1-5 are 'completely fallacious'?  Why?--Elvey (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see lots of evidence of that being addressed effectively. . The edit history is proof that's not true.--Elvey (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't consider my keep argument as uncivil, as I was addressing the delete proposal, not any particular person. The fallacious arguments were POV fork - no POV in the list. No one is attacked by the list. Users can delete their entries if they do not want to be visible.  Yet their count statistic is readily visible from elsewhere. Work of now banned users gets deleted if in violation of their ban, but this was not. Lousy arguments is not a reason to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep let's see: "ancient cruft" is not a valid reason for deleting pages. Neither is the fact that it's out of date or that it's written by someone who was subsequently banned. Being out of date is at most a reason for tagging it as out of date, archived or historical. An attack page is a page "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". I don't see any disparagement or threats here. It is true that List of Wikipedians by number of edits has placeholders, but that doesn't mean this page has to and since this is all publicly available statistics I don't see any harm in it existing. Hut 8.5 21:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ancient cruft is routinely used to justify deletion. I see it serves no other purpose; what else of import differentiates it from the regular page?  Why do you ignore the arguments that demonstrate the consensus for the placeholder?  in the form of archived comments the search I provided led to that show they're seen as harassing users who have asked that they not be listed, as they're inaccurate.  --Elvey (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If "Ancient cruft" is a valid argument for deletion, then you should be able to point to a policy or guideline that supports its use for deleting pages. Good luck, because there aren't any. The link you posted above certainly doesn't demonstrate that all lists of people by edit count must remove people on a certain opt-out list pre-emptively. I doubt there would be any dispute if someone were to remove themselves from this list. We don't delete pages because of justifications such as "I can't see any use for this", we delete pages because their continued retention is seen as harmful in some way. Hut 8.5 07:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no attack here. The page is out of date because the user is banned.  It is a record of his Wikipedia contributions compared to others, and if he was banned for using sockpuppets during arguments, that would not affect the statistics on this page, which contain only dry statistics.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it serves no other purpose; what else of import differentiates it from the regular page? --Elvey (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Is someone making you look at this? Get over it and do something useful. John Reaves 00:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * 1 Ancient? Well its about five years old, not five millennia. I suppose if one were hasty one could call it old. That means it might have historic interest, so why would you want to delete it? Um Cruft? Isn't that a word for fan fiction? Doesn't seem relevant here.
 * 2 The link doesn't work, were you meaning to link to WP:EDITS? If so that's a list of non-bot editors by number of edits, this is a five year old list of all editors bots and non bots by number of edits. I'm not aware of another combined list.
 * 3 What attack? Its just a list of editors and their edit counts
 * 4 Yup there is consensus to replace people who opt out with the word placeholder. Feel free to go do that, no need to MFD.
 * 5 Saying a banned editor is banned is fair comment, but less of the lousy plz.
 *  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid delete rationale, this MfD is an absolute waste of time. "Attack page"? Sorry, but that is nonsense. It's getting cold this morning, I think there's snow in the air. --Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2013 (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.