Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011

 __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 per WP:SNOW. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011


Betacommand is currently under a long term ban and the most recent arbcom case concerning him supercedes this. Time for this to go away. Jtrainor (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Q - why should this not be treated like a regular AN archive, which aren't deleted? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence for any future cases can be found here. It would not make sense to merge this into a regular archive as it is so long. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, we don't delete ANI archives. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason for deletion has been given. And unlike regular ANI archives, there is no backup for the content of this page, so the arguments for deleting this should be better than those for deleting a regular ANI archive. —Kusma (t·c) 06:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above, unless some compelling reason is offered why this discussion should be deleted. :/ There doesn't seem to be any real rationale, beyond that it's outdated, but it's part of the historical record, along with all of the other ANI subpages dedicated to Beta documented at Administrators' noticeboard/Δ (and like those dedicated to other subjects that have also been split out). That said, should we add noarchive to all those pages? I don't know that much about search engine indices, so I don't know if that really does much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All well-behaved search engines shouldn't index it anyway due to Robots.txt. Graham 87 00:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ed and Sarek. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Graham 87 00:56, 7 May 2012 (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.