Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Girolamo Savonarola/V0.7

 __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. I blanked the page with inactive userpage blanked as a courtesy. Tito xd (?!?) 00:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Girolamo Savonarola/V0.7

 * &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  07:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  07:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is untouched for nine years, by an editor who hasn't shown up in four years. Moreover, this page is over one and a half million bytes, meaning that it takes a ridiculous amount of time to load and a ridiculous amount of time to edit. bd2412 T 03:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete ...Dear God, this page actually managed to make my computer lag. Why would anyone make a 1.5 million byte edit? &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, assuming that it is not clearly useful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously project related. Not a WEBHOST problem. If you think the page size will harm others, feel free to blank the page, use Inactive userpage blanked. Saving people from needlessly downloading a massive 1.6MB page (has that been a problem since 1993?), listing it at MfD for multiple reviewers to view it is obviously a negative. Not a userpage page size problem. Not webhost. Related to article statistics, there is no reason to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's look for a moment beyond the sheer page size. It is a list of about 11,000 movies with information about their pageviews, number of incoming links, and article quality level. However, all of that information is nine years out of date, so I can't see what use this could be to any project now, or any reason why we should permanently maintain it at its present obscure location.  bd2412  T 01:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sheer size"?! 1.5MB?  On first pass I made a 3 magnitudes error given the seeming level of concern.  1.5MB is an average image.  Your concern would be appropriate for 1.5GB.  Page load time is not an issue.  To the extent that it is old and out of date, the solution for a usersubpage is to blank, use Inactive userpage blanked.  The data is going to stay anyway, it is a question admin - ordinaryuser visibility.  Actual storage location issues for never view page histories verses deleted content is a WP:PERFORMANCE issue, not an MfD deletion issue.  Looking at pageview history, it looks like you nomination has caused it to be downloaded more times in two days than the previous ten years.  It's not a WebHost issue because it is obviously a table of project relevant, often specific, measures.  It is in a sortable table, giving some pretty obvious functionalities that would be useful to the editor who was prolific in maintain film articles.  Blank by all means, ideally leaving a latest version note as to what is in the history and why it was blanked.  Do not delete, as there is no need (consider WP:ATD), and deletions of inactive Wikipedian project-related subpages is unwelcoming to them on their return.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well within reasonable leeway for a contributing editor. Was related to the user’s editing.  There should be a good reason to delete other Wikipedians userpage, and there is no such reason here. 1.5MB is a trifling matter for someone’s old userpage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete a WebHost problem Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since User:SmokeyJoe says that this is obviously project-related, I am willing to wait 24 to 48 hours for an explanation of how this is project-related. It does not look like a web hosting issue, but it does look like a pointless burden, since the author who developed this giant table has been almost gone for nine years and actually gone for three years, and no one else has done anything other than make a few tweaks.  So it looks like an abandoned dustbin.  Waiting for up to 48 hours for explanation of how it is actually useful.  It is true that we don't have a specific guideline on the deletion of abandoned dustbins.  ("Do not put white beans in the garbage grinder."?)  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I waited 48 hours and haven't seen an explanation of how this is useful, and it is just a pointless burden. If it is intended to increase the world population of popcorn, say it is intended to increase the world population of popcorn.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The incoming links to the page include WikiProject Film/Wikipedia 0.7, which reference this list and another in the same users space. Perhaps it would be best if both pages were moved to project space instead, to avoid any future confusion over whether these are project-related. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  07:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 4 delete voters vs 2 keeps. This should have been deleted not relisted. Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but blank well within the leeway that we give to contributors. Plausibly project related.  Blanking it will help with load times, but it's not that big of a deal.  Tazerdadog (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Neither the length of time a page goes unedited or its size are valid reasons for deletion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:04, 11 March 2019 (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.