Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people

 __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) CoolSkittle  (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people


Delete With the bot no longer running for nearly a year, calling the page "recently created" is misleading. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Is anyone doing anything with the report, or is it just a dead list? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: and mark the page as historical or archived if you want. I don't really like deleting database reports. Someone could always revive it if there's sufficient interest. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you give more reasoning not to delete than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You would agree that the title is misleading, even if the page is tagged with historical? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi UnitedStatesian. I don't think I was pinged since you forgot to sign your post. :-) I don't understand your reply. This page is an old database report and it's consequently listed at Database reports/Archive. I'm not sure how you came across this page or why you care about it. As I said previously, we typically mark these broken database reports as archived so that they can be a future reference for others and can be revived if there's sufficient interest. A report of recently created biographies of living people is pretty important for the English Wikipedia (and probably all Wikipedias), so this report or some equivalent should still exist. Do you have any interest in reviving and maintaining it? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not interested; I think the Special:NewPagesFeed effectively meets the need you identify. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per MZMcBride. Graham 87 10:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There needs to be a reason for deleting stuff and the fact that one of a series of useful database reports is not currently used is not a deletion reason. It should be marked historical and kept for future reference so it can easily be used by anyone interested in using or creating similar reports. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:25, 29 November 2018 (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.