Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

Proposed mergers

 * 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 per overwhelming consensus. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say that over its lifespan, this page has been a miserable chronic failure. Even many long-time users have only recently learned about this page. It's been chronically backlogged for most of its history, there are enteries nearly a year old. It's fallen into disuse and decay. It no longer fills its originally intended purpose. Even if WP:PRM WP:MRD fails to gain acceptance, this page has no further need to remain here. Therefore I asked this page to be deleted. Ipatrol (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Ipatrol (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 197 edits in 2009 so far is a rather odd idea of "disuse". And we generally don't delete such things even if they were disused, especially if they date so far back in the project that they even pre-date the on-wiki form of the Verifiability policy.  Novice editors often learn from seeing how the way that we do things has evolved over time. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the nomination to delete - This is the first time I've ever heard of anybody trying to delete a full-fledged wikipage. DanTD (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tend to oppose the nomination to delete - many older listings are still there as there is no archive section to the page to place them. We need some general place to list them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not tag added Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC), the nomination provides reasons that are misleading or not justification for deletion. I agree that it is less known and poorly watched (not sure why) and has a substantial backlog (maybe related to the nature of mergers). Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the nomination to delete 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is worth keeping for its history, and it is probably still in use despite a backlog. Because one editor has not heard of it till now does not mean it is useless. 763 pages point to this project page, so it draws plenty of links. Perhaps you should consider Mergers for discussion instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there is consensus to wind it up, then tag historical  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus. The page has a long history.  Speedy keep even.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given. We don't delete process pages due to lack of use, nor for failing at their intended goal. Chillum  13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I wish this page functioned much better, it still does function somewhat. I don't think deletion is the right solution, I think it would only make the problem of merging more fragmented and receive less attention. In the future, I do wish that Proposed merges could be absorbed into Mergers for discussion. The biggest thing missing from WP:MRFD right now is participants, and a vote doesn't take much effort. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not really a compelling rationale for deletion. If anything, it should be tagged as historical. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still in active use! I was thinking a speedy close would be the way for this nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus the "if anything"... although the two competing merging processes should be, well, um, merged. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and not historical. DGG (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum - I think a key point here is the setting up of Mergers for discussion, which is clearly a parallel process (merging mergers to one format or the other is a no-brainer surely?). What really needs to be decided upon is which is the more useful format for what is essentially the same purpose and some discussion on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But since that is a merger it should be discussed on one or other of those pages! This is a deletion discussion, different people could be expected to be involved in a merger/replacement discussion, so this is not the venue for which page is better. From the point of deletion, both pages should be kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, but encourage a shift to Mergers for discussion. Perhaps at a later date this can be appropriately tagged historical.  Them  From  Space  05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion Deleting the page because of the listed shortcomings doesn't actually solve them. It's like sweeping things under the rug so they're out of sight. I'd definitely support a move to the MRFD process, but even if that succeeds this should be archived or tagged historical anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is still actively being used. There is no valid reason to delete it. Hi878 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - the rationale for deletion is disuse, but on a page of this type that would be a reason for tagging it historical, not deletion. Merger with or deprecation in favour of Mergers for discussion should be discussed, but not here. Rd232 talk 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber started a discussion on the two processes at WT:Proposed mergers. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think if the existence of this page is more prominently publicized and better patrolled by willing users it should be kept. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2009 (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.