Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback

 __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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Gather/User Feedback


Flow is for the moment unwanted by the enwiki community, and the WMF has promised in 2014 not to roll out Flow any further here. This isn't the first time they have broken that promise, but other pages where the same happened have since been deleted. Not a single reason why this page couldn't have been created as a standard talk page, and since it takes effort to create a Flow page on enwiki, this clearly was done deliberately, not by simple error. Fram (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per everything in the nom. BethNaught (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur with Fram's assessment. —  Scott  •  talk  21:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is consensus to not enable Flow pages on en.wiki without a well-publicized RfC (at the Village Pump or some similar place), and there has been none that I'm aware of. The Flow page could be placed at Mediawiki instead, where the base page redirects anyway. Diego (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the Gather project is suspended. There's no reason at all to keep this page around here. Diego (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only was this page created without consensus, there was effectively consensus against creating this particular page. When the project was announced at wp:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270 the consensus was that the community wanted nothing to do with it. "Lists of my favorite bands" and whatnot fall under our speedy delete criteria. Administrator Consensus was if illegal content were found that administrators should NOT do anything about it... if the WMF wanted to keep keep Gather as their own (non-community) pet project then the WMF could pay employees to police it themselves for legal or other abuses. (That consensus was evaluated by the project manager himself!) I've been considering an RFC to shut off Gather, but so long as it is active it has no business directing users to a problem-handling page on EnWiki - regardless of whether it is a Flow page or not. Gather really should be shut off, but so long as it's active any issues relating to it should be directed to WMF servers for handling. Alsee (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unauthorized Flow page serving an extension that was deployed in sheer contempt for the volunteer community. MER-C 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Community sentiment about the Flow debacle is loud and clear. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should be a normal talk page until the enwiki community have decided to use Flow. Although as others have pointed out above, we don't really need a talk page for the Gather extension on enwiki in the first place. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concerns an unwanted and problematic "feature" that the WMF have been told to deal with in their own space; in a format that causes problems for the editing community. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. It feels cold. Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to let this run its full course. Flow is somewhat controversial and an early close could be seen as short circuiting the process. --Salix alba (talk): 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, what a ghastly mess. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (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.