Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board

 __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. signed,Rosguill talk 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board

 * – (View MfD)

This seems not to have really gotten off the ground, neither had much community support, and has been dormant now for a few years. Other noticeboards have this within their purview. Bsherr (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft delete per nom so WP:REFUND can apply; Userify if requested. Doug Mehus T · C  18:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While WP:SOFTDELETE only applies to articles, and is a procedural outcome, not a !vote, I don't see why Requests for undeletion would not apply if any user wanted to userfy at a later date. --Bsherr (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's the case, but per common sense and "Ignore All Rules", I would ask that the closer, in their closing rationale, to allow userification or e-mailing on request at WP:REFUND. Thanks. Doug Mehus T · C  16:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can provide more detail. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is that about it being an outcome rather than a vote, it only being for articles, or both? --Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as proved useless in a case where I made an inquiry that should have resulted in my being advised to consult this board. The pageviews for Bible in the spring of 2019 cannot be believed, even if Christian groups were generating high pageviews to the page. I inquired at the Help Desk, and no one mentioned this board, but the experienced editors there who advise other experienced editors should have known of this board if it is functional.  So it isn't functional.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unclear what this is, and no indication that it is fundamentally inappropriate. It is not working. Userfy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete even if this was active and used I don't think there's any benefit to the encyclopedia from having a group of editors who attempt to figure out why some article's pageview count has gone up or down. There is no meaningful history here so it doesn't need to be kept for archival purposes.  Hut 8.5  13:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth the concern about an abrupt main page view drop in 2017 which prompted this project appears to have been justified. Something happened that caused a sustained 40% drop in average enwiki main page visits and it's unclear why. This should be an active project possibly under the WMF's purview, but for whatever reason it's not. For that reason I disagree with User:Hut 8.5 that this project shouldn't exist but I believe this should be userfied or deleted as the project doesn't exist. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, why was it justified? What conceivable benefit is there to the encyclopedia from spending time investigating why the main page got fewer pageviews?  Hut 8.5  22:31, 17 February 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.