Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive

 __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. (non-admin closure) 99.66.49.162 (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive


An attempt to formalize a process which is informal and therefore in violation of WP:CREEP. I do not object to a user wanting to collate such incidents, but note that the lede link goes to a page which is neither policy nor guideline. jps (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CREEP is just an essay, and one that does not apply here. Even if it did, there's no such thing as violating an essay. If there's a problem with the closure review archive's description, the description can be removed/rewritten. I fail to see a valid reason why the page should be deleted. In fact, I'd like to see more such single-topic-oriented user-maintained noticeboard subarchives as they're immensely helpful to new users. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CCC and WP:FIVE/the intention of WP:IAR --Surturz (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Related MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this page in November 2013 to allow editors interested in posting closure reviews the opportunity to review past closure reviews. The page provides a useful historical record of closure reviews. WP:AN was suggested as one of the places to review RfC closures per the February 2013 close of the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12 RfC. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the CREEP argument, but only just barely. Beyond that, no clear reason for deletion is given.  The lede's link isn't a reason for deletion.  keep as I find the page useful and I don't see the problem with its existence.  Hobit (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't like this as I think it represents an ongoing issue with people endlessly contesting things that didn't go their way. That being said I'm not sure I see a policy-based reason to delete it either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – while I don't see where or how the data is collected (self-reporting or what), it does provide noteworthy information about what happens in these challenges. This documentation that closures are usually endorsed or upheld serves to show that closing editors are doing a good job. – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A simple search can find requests for reviews of closures, and this page will either become out of date or require frequent human maintenance that's better spent on improving the encyclopedia.  Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with the arguments for deletion, but if for some reason it is decided to delete this page, then could the closer please pop a copy in my userspace. I think we're overdue for a re-organisation in the way we deal with Requests for Closure.  The whole subject is taking over the administrator's noticeboard at the moment.  More than half the AN is full of Requests for Closure-related material, including the close reviews, and users are complaining.  I have sympathy with those complaints because so many of the Requests for Closure concern Requests for Comment, and it's not obvious to me what Request for Comment closes have to do with administrators.  I think the eventual answer is to split out a separate noticeboard for Requests for Comment, and I think we'll end up having a Request for Comment about Requests for Comment in order to decide whether to do that.  This page could well be relevant to that future meta-Request for Comment, so that's why I want a copy. I don't really follow Nyttend's argument.  If the page becomes out of date or unmaintained then that's a legitimate concern, but at the moment it seems up-to-date and well-maintained, and it's not really Nyttend's job to tell Cunard how to spend his volunteering time.  The activity is not obviously irrelevant to building a collaborative encyclopaedia. I also don't really follow the nominator's argument.  WP:CREEP applies to new policies and guidelines, and its purpose is to stop users inventing unnecessary rules.  It's certainly not designed to stop users from keeping records.— S Marshall  T/C 13:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful archive. No real case for deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, although a little pointless. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2015 (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.