Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing deleted files

 __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 tag historical. BencherliteTalk 16:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Database reports/Articles containing deleted files


Delete. Not being updated and Category:Articles with missing files is now being populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or mark historical: I don't really like the idea of deleting these reports. If it's not being updated, it should just be fixed. It provides more insight than the category can, though it may make sense to switch the report to use the category. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess marking as historical is an option. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Update it (i.e. keep) per MzMcBride. Server resources are basically free, and it's still useful.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark as historic - Provided more insight than the category per MZMcBride, so as to provide some historic interest. Also, someone in the future may see the info and figure out a way to make it useful again. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't see the point of having both the article (especially if it isn't being updated) and the cat. Can we use the article to populate the cat and then delete it? -- Klein zach  01:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per MZMcBride. He does a lot of good for the project, and randomly deleting his work not helpful.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as historical. Redirecting it to Database reports would accomplish the same purpose. Either approach is fine.--SGCM (talk)  21:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical. I agree that it's not useful because of the category, but it's not hurting anything, and we should keep pages that document past processes.  Nyttend (talk) 06:59, 25 September 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.