Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures

 __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:  userfy to User:J947/List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures in 2006. There's not really a consensus between keep and delete here, so moving it to userspace seems like a reasonable compromise. signed,Rosguill talk 22:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures

 * – (View MfD)

Outdated and I don’t think there is any value retaining this page. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's history, it's harmless, it's certainly a good start point for Wiki-archeologists. Much like with Most vandalized pages it's an interesting snapshot of points in Wikipedia's past. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, almost no edits even in 2006, so it's clear no one was supporting this even at the time. Historical value is little to none here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's rationale, and, like redirects being cheap, so too are these Wikipedian vanity lists. Sorry,, I like and respect you, but have to disagree here. --Doug Mehus T · C  03:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - it’s a poorly done, under-developed article that on average, receives zero views per day... Sergecross73   msg me  03:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, already tagged historical. Encourage anyone interested to update it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – no archival value, per TPH. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No historical value. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:J947/List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures in 2006 for historical reference if the creator doesn't want it.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  04:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I concur with SmokeyJoe: an update here would be great.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  04:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - We have loads of inaccurate, outdated stats marked historical like this. Don't see a reason to delete it. Indeed, an update would be better, but I wouldn't know how to start. On Commons, many people have a dedicated user category for this, which makes a table like this one possible. On enwiki, I'm not sure. I know keeps track of his percentage of enwiki FPs. Perhaps there's something there which could be used for everyone? Or is that just a matter of keeping track of your number and dividing it into the total number? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I sympathize with the keep ideas, but this actually has no historical value, because it didn't go anywhere even when it was new, over a decade ago. It was a potentially interesting idea that just didn't happen. Userfy is fine, either to original creator or by request to J947. I also concede that if we used software to auto-generate this and keep it current it might be of use/interest as another internal editorial stats page.  As it is now, it is not one and really never was one, just intended to eventually be one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 31 January 2020 (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.