Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:'Community de-adminship' - The original Uncle G proposal

Wikipedia:'Community de-adminship' - The original Uncle G proposal
 __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: Closed by proposer, there is consensus to keep but rename as a subpage. This original version of a failed proposal is being moved to a subpage of the final version of the failed proposal, as described in the hatted text. See also procedural discussion at User_talk:Tryptofish. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is a stand alone posting of an early version of a failed proposal (Guide_to_Community_de-adminship). There is no need for it to clutter up the Wikipedia namespace as a stand alone since it is readily available from the failed proposal archives. Here is the link from the archives. I also pasted that link at the Wikipedia namespace pages that link to the stand alone, so if the stand alone version is deleted per my request, no one will be confused, since the link to the archives has been provided to them. (I did not add the link to Jimbos page nor to the generic list of discussions found under 'what links here'). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is retained for historical purposes. Anything written by Uncle G is of especial interest because he was such a prodigious thinker in Wikipedia's formative years. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I explained, it is already available in the version archives of the failed proposal. Can you please explain what is gained by maintaining a stand alone version separate from the history of the proposal full evolution and discussion?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Uncle G's draft is worthy of respect and study. Nothing is to be gained by deleting it.  It is this discussion which seems superfluous; shall we then delete it?  See WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * e/c Study is always great! But you didn't answer the question. He posted the draft, which is oldid=317996992 of Guide_to_Community_de-adminship. It's readily available either through version history of the page, or through his contribs. So why is a stand alone copy necessary? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'll decide later whether I support keep or delete, but I'll just comment on the history, since I was involved in a lot of it. The page that is nominated for deletion here is an identical copy of the first edit in the edit history of WP:GCDA, and there is no proposal to delete WP:GCDA. So it is indeed preserved in the edit history (not, strictly speaking, any "archives"). On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the argument that material crafted by Uncle G should indeed be kept, and it's not like we are going to run out of server space. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking about it Tryptofish. As you ponder, please get past the last part.  Everyone, including me, is advocating that Uncle G's original proposal be preserved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The question, however, is whether or not it should be preserved as a standalone page, as opposed to as a diff in the edit history. Editors make proposals of this sort from time to time, and it is useful, perhaps even essential, to be able to go back and review what has been proposed in the past. That is, or should be, part of the proposal crafting process. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why we have version histories. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ... would welcome your comments here since you created the standalone page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to Guide to Community de-adminship/The original Uncle G proposal. In other words, make it a subpage of WP:GCDA (and preserve its own talkpage in the process). I think that I remember now that Uncle G had made the original page, maybe in userspace, and then editors started editing it until it became GCDA. However, a copy page was made in order to preserve the first version. It was sort of like there were two separate steps: the original creation by Uncle G, and then a group of us reframing it into a new proposal. And the development of that proposal was complicated enough and epic enough that it will be useful to editors in the future to be able to reconstruct that process (particularly if a revised proposal is ever crafted). I can see how it is sort of messy to have all these different pages around, but organizing it into a main page with a subpage would help with that. And yes, I do believe that keeping Uncle G's version is useful enough to preserve it as a subpage in addition to the diff in the edit history. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposer agrees with that compromise NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thanks for the ping. As creator of this copy of Uncle G's fine work, I wanted an easily accessible place for the original proposal that wound up as WP:CDA. As Tryptofish notes, it is useful to have it outside of the version histories, not buried inside. And I agree with Andrew D.'s statement in full. This page is a highly notable moment in Wikipedia history. There is no good reason to delete it, in my view. In fact, looking Uncle G's proposal over carefully for the first time in years, I wonder if the time hasn't come back around to !vote on it in an RfC... but only if the admin !votes are subject to not counting towards the closure as an obvious conflict of interest. Last time, the admin vote sank WP:CDA. But that's a discussion for another time and place. As for the renaming proposal, I'm neutral. Jus  da  fax   01:06, 11 July 2017 (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.