Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep, but tag as historical. Xoloz 00:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are more comprehensive than on Encyclopedia Britannica
This project page compares articles between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. I nominate for deletion because it is unneeded. Its last edit was three moths ago and it now has a total of two partial reviews and a small list of articles which WP has that EB does not. -Icewedge 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, I hardly see any use for this article. – sebi 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not what I intended to mean, what I meant was something along the lines of how-is-this-helpful-at-all, or something similar. – sebi 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, never really took off. However, I should point out, that just because Spebi can't see a use for it, I certainly can. If it had taken off we could have compared our progress against a quality source. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or possibly tag as historical as a second choice, unless someone wants to go through the effort of bringing this anywhere remotely up to date. It is kind of unfortunate that it wasn't used more. — TKD::Talk 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Convinced that deletion is unnecessary; tagging as historical would be sufficient. — TKD::Talk 16:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag as historical, this looks like a fairly nice idea if it is actively updated. It isn't, so tag it as historical, but don't delete it.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag as historical, per Melsaran. It is a nice idea, and if someone wants to revive it, they should have this as a springboard to work from. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but make historical There's nothing inherently problematic with this--it's just inactive Nathanww 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical Genuinely of historical interest... an important part of understanding Wikipedia's development is preserving these examples of what earlier editors thought was really important to analyze and be proud of. See also Wikipedia.org is more popular than... --W.marsh 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as Historical Good information (but not actively updated). Could be of historical intrest.-- Pre ston  H  22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as historical if nobody follows it up further.DGG (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2007 (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.