Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal

 __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:  Move to draft space. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal


Pages (apparently) associated with WP:Wiki Loves Monuments and WP:Wiki Loves Earth. Some editors have pointed that these pages do not belong in project namespace, especially as they have not even been filed as subpages. None of them have been edited in at least the last one month, and probably for a much greater period. Neutral nomination.

Previous discussions: Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_52 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Rapti Zone (2nd nomination). Pinging editors from prev discussions:. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved with the creation of these pages:. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment - None of these pages appear to be tagged with a mfd notice from a quick sampling I just took. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, these pages have ~0 page views and so it is not required. I've notified WikiProject Nepal and WikiProject Historic sites. Best, 103.6.159.65 (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The number of page views something receives has no bearing on whether or not deletion discussion notification templates are necessary on the page(s). See Miscellany for deletion. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Historical precedent: List of people by name with its 700+ associated pages was deleted from main encyclopedia with only one notice on the top page of the entire compendium. Nobody bothered to mention this oversight in DRV. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was 10 years ago, and I haven't the time to do the research necessary to be informed on the practices of that era. I understand that sometimes deletion nominations, especially those with numerous pages listed together, don't always get tagged correctly. That doesn't mean that the notices shouldn't be on all of them, they still rightly should. Ignoring all rules for the sake of expediency instead of following proper process is convenient, but that will not always work out favorably. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Godsy is new (note that time move more slowly as the project ages), and takes the letter of policy overly seriously, and lacks an appreciation of the encultured history and unwritten practices. But we should never criticise someone who is just trying to make sure things are done properly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Earth have been notified of this discussion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good plan. Move to subpages of a willing WikiProject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move preferably to article space if the lists are deemed as reliably sourced. Alternatively to a joint taskforce of WP:Nepal and Historic Sites. Agathoclea (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Having taken about an hour to view all of these pages, I can definitively state that none of them are suitable for the mainspace in their current forms. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft and/or main namespace without leaving a redirect. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I applied a miscellany for deletion discussion notification template to all of the pages nominated here. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to a Wikiperoject if they are willing to take it on, otherwise, draft space. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. We can keep these pages like this one. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move I am quite agree with suggestion, move these pages to mainspace without leaving redirects.-- Biplab Anand  ( Talk ) 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sofixit? Judging from the date when these lists were created (beginning of September 2014) these pages were just put somewhere so that Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 could also be run in Nepal. Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 started 1 September 2014 so was already running when these lists got created. Commons:Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in Nepal contains 1000+ files so that seems to have been just in time. It also ran in 2015 (1500 files) and 2016 (8000+ files, but looks like nobody bothered to expand them and move them to the main namespace. The lists are indexed in the monuments database some statistics and generally these lists exist in main namespace on most Wikipedia's. Probably best example here is the NRHP (random example page). These lists belong in the main namespace, but in the current state (just a list without anything else) these lists won't last long. So I would propose that the people who care and are willing to help out, to clean up the pages one by one and move them to the main namespace. While you're add it, you might as well add some photos from Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites/Unused images of Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal so it all looks better. The current way it's split up gives some very short lists. Probably good to merge some on the province level. Multichill (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand what exactly the problem is. Could someone enlighten me? If the problem is not clear, it's also quite hard to address. I do support the comment of Multichill, it's much more constructive to try and address the issue. Whatever it may be. effeietsanders 21:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These aren't generally appropriate for the projectspace in their current locations, nor are they ready for the mainspace, but they have potential in the latter respect. Some contributors above have suggested moving these to the subpage of a willing WikiProject or the draftspace. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That response is not helping a whole lot :) You're restating your conclusion (they're not appropriate/ready/whatever) but are not very explicit about the actual problems the pages have. I mean, I could guess, and so could others - but it would be helpful to have that clearer. The focus could that way be on how to improve the pages, rather than whether they should be deleted. effeietsanders 11:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Project Space ("WP:") is for documents about the project, not for content, even draft content. WP:WikiProjects are an exception, but even there, there is a recent trend to move their drafts to draftspace. It's a cultural thing, how things are done, but not inherently important.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 22 December 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.