Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Junior Admin Squad


Considered marking as historical but there's absolutely no worthwhile history to preserve. This group has had no members and has essentially been inactive since its creation in September 2009. Current 'junior' editors wishing to become admins may have better luck getting involved with the current WP:Tool apprenticeship proposal. &oelig; &trade; 10:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Kep Hello son only came o t this pagw as looking for somewhere I can buy a horse but dfound this and the lovely yelow badge and thought "THAT is what I am looking at" and click! signed it up, I think this just needs a recrutment drive and I for One will stand in the street and give out leaflets about this thing. Are you with me? Cloddy Hans (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it never got going, it would never have gained acceptance as it stands, and the thought that people might have to or want to learn admin in-jokes (whatever those are) in order to become an admin is... novel, to say the least. User Junior Admin Squad is unused and could be deleted along with this page (later: now tagged and added to the nomination). BencherliteTalk 12:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I regret that the project did not achieve the success that I had imagined. Perhaps I should have been more active in recruiting members or publicizing the project, but it was a valuable learning experience for me nonetheless. It would be great if this MfD sparks new life into it, but if it does not then I have no issue with deletion of those pages. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah.. it just wasn't linked to enough. Couldn't get off the ground if noone knew about it.. We could always userfy it too, if you want? -- &oelig; &trade; 14:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Cloddy Hans (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How interesting; your first ever edit asks a very odd question at the reference desk, and then your second, third and fourth ever edits add the userbox, sign up to the squad and give a silly commentary along with your "kep" [sic]. Have you used Wikipedia before under other accounts?  If so, would you mind signing into your main account before editing again?  It's just unusual for genuinely new editors to behave like this. BencherliteTalk 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whats a matter with a kep? I'm a hardworkin junior admin trying to make it best in a world filled with brusty horsehair! Cloddy Hans (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag failed or historical or closed down, whichever works best. This was an idea that didn't prove fruitful.  We archive failed ideas instead of deleting them so that we don't doom ourselves to repeat the same mistakes.  Note that any editor is welcome to contribute to discussions on WP:ANI and WP:AN.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical/closed down/etc. There's no need to delete this, but it should be labelled as inactive, and added to the great list of 'junior admin' proposals that never went anywhere (I assume we have such a list somewhere). Robofish (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Bencherlite. There really is nothing to save here. -- Klein  zach  23:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The suggestion that the page should be tagged historical or failed is unconvincing because there is neither anything historical about the project nor was it a failed proposal. The project never gained traction. I agree with, , and that there is nothing here to save. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On one hand, the notion is flawed (all editors are welcome to participate in the administrative backrooms of the encyclopedia (or was it an effort at building a supportive network?)) and the page has minimal content. On the other, tagging Closed down but keeping available the content and history allays the mistake to serve as an educational example.  In this case, there is minimal content to serve as an example of a bad idea, but someone may like to check out exactly what was the bad idea if they are developing a similar but different proposal, and they will be interested to see what is not in there.  For example, someone may attempt to write a detailed proposal on WP:Provisional adminship.  If this MfD deletes this page, it will be unclear that this page was not proposing provisional adminship as widely understood, and someone may mistakenly infer that this reflected a consensus against Provisional adminship.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This WikiProject gained no traction because of lack of interest and because, as you note, "the notion is flawed". Your concern that someone will regard the deletion of this page as a rejection of provisional adminship is allayed by your summary of the page: "the notion is flawed (all editors are welcome to participate in the administrative backrooms of the encyclopedia (or was it an effort at building a supportive network?)) and the page has minimal content." It is fair to say that no one will mistake this as a proposal for provisional adminship because this MfD serves as sufficient documentation. I also note that the creator does not object to the pages' deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "this MfD [now] serves as sufficient documentation". True.  This MfD page now is more than three times larger and has more authors than the page it discusses.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2011 (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.