Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation 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The result of the discussion was:  nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight晚安 06:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation Archive

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Confusing. YRhyre (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. The page has been improved since I nominated this and I no longer think it needs to be removed. There is one Delete vote so I won't close this by myself. YRhyre (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's confusing and should be deleted. Further, doesn't Wikipedia already do this just with archive.org? It seems redundant.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 12:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an essay by a current bureaucrat and as such there's likely something worth keeping, IMHO. "Confusing" isn't a valid deletion rationale. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I came upon this page from a google search, it has a confusing title for sure. And I think WP:Link rot already covers what it's trying to say; or not, I'm not sure, because it's confusing. Cheers, YRhyre (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with userfying btw. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly valid essay about Wikipedia and the need for Wikipedia to provide its own reference archiving system. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I must admit I'd forgotten that I'd started writing up this idea. It is still the sort of initiative we should do if there was budget available to tackle big problems on Wikipedia. If people don't think it is ready for WP space I'd be obliged if you'd agree that I could userfy this.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll just pretend that the MfD was started by and that the deletion rationale is that it is redundant. It isn't redundant. It's a critical take on something that Wikipedia already does, proposing a better alternative for the future. No comment on "confusing".—Alalch E. 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - No obvious problem with the essay. No need to userfy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2023 (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.