Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls

 __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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. The nominator has now !voted "Keep" so, that's a "withdrawn" in my book. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of administrator hopefuls


In my opinion, I believe that it may be inferior to have this list. Look, we already have Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, and it is almost any Wikipedian's dream to be an admin. We even have a very few users with over 1 million edits (Such as Koavf, who isn't a sysop yet). I expect some admin hopefuls to be inactive or not as active. However, this list is currently fluid and so it does not have users set in stone (like the now-deleted list of banned Wikipedia users). But still, I believe we really don't need this list (and we can move the 3rd userbox to the admin hopefuls category). Right now, this list often has more users with less than 30 edits than those with at least 30 edits, and yes indeed, we have some new users and such accounts are created almost all the time on Wikipedia. Snowager -Talk to Me!  23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is essentially a more informative version of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, providing additional information to anyone who might be considering nominating someone in this category at RFA.  In addition to the username, the list subdivides the users in the category based on recent activity level (it's not 30 edits total, but 30 edits in the last 2 months) and shows the first edit date (for active editors) or latest edit date (for less active editors) and links to previous RFAs.  It is entirely maintained by a bot with updates twice a week.  Without this list, IMO the category is somewhat less than useful.  Yes, the list often has more editors with less than 30 edits in the last two months than not.  BUt this is an argument to keep the list rather than delete it.  Without this list, if you're looking for someone to nominate at RFA from the category you have to slog through a bunch of users who realistically have no chance whatsoever. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what? I agree with you, an I thought we didn't need this list, but your comment sounds like a good idea to keep it. Trout me if necessary. Snowager -Talk to Me!  05:34, 7 March 2015 (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.