Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits (3rd nomination)

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits


MfDs for this page:  Stale, and not historically useful. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Out of date and not really of any benefit to the project (despite my name appearing on the list, with a measly 444,871 edits). bd2412  T 21:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur.--greenrd (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (but automate updates). Being out of date doesn't necessitate deletion, it necessitates fixing that. Clearly the process of manual updates has been proven to be ineffective, but if someone with the technical knowledge could set it up similarly to List of Wikipedians by number of edits it would mostly neutralise that problem. Unless there's a Labs page I don't know about, there's no replacement method to get a decent overview of heavily active editors, and I feel that it's a tool that the project could definitely use. For those concerned about it functioning as a "scoreboard", relatively infrequent fortnightly/monthly updates (as opposed to the daily updates on other similar pages) could help negate that, with the added benefit of only showing users that are consistently active. Sellyme Talk 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or archive – I don't think we're in a position to judge whether this page could be historically useful. How do we know that no-one might ever need a list of active editors that happens to span the time period covered by this list? It could also be moved to the historical archive. Updating it would be nice, too. Graham 87 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. WPhas a history. It is very helpful to have snapshots at various time periods, rather than need to reconstruct it from the database every time. I do not see how there can possibly be any harm in this.  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No valid criteria for deletion has been given. It seems to me that "Stale" is an argument for improvement rather than deletion, and as noted above, we can't really say something isn't historically useful. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Update or Archive, and Speedy Keep #1 no reason for deletion. "Not historically useful" is an opinion specific to person time and place, it speaks to archiving not deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and revive updates – we keep pages like this so that the present and future generations of Wikipedians do not lose touch with the past. That's why we have the "historical" tag: so that departments like this can be revived if needed, or when the required resources (usually interested and talented persons) become available. Lose the page, and there's no record that this (reporting currently most active editors) has ever been done before.  The page's history serves as a directory of the people involved, who may be able to teach those who wish to do this again. In a sheer coincidence, I was looking for the ability to do this today. See Help desk, and someone pointed me to this list as a lead. I'm glad I found it - it's the appropriate place to post an updated list - there's no way this should be nuked. The Transhumanist 14:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (disclaimer: came here after lurking at the Help Desk, cf. above). If motivation times ability divided by technical difficulty is high enough in one or multiple editors, automate and revive; if not, mark as historical. But "it is not useful" is falsified by any claim of "I want to use it". Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is clearly tagged as "historical". Dismissing/forgetting history is shortsighted. Staszek Lem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 23 March 2017 (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.