Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Times that 300 Wikipedians supported something


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was merge back into WP:200. Thanks/wangi 10:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:300 and WP:400
WP:100 was created a long time ago because back then it was unusual for many Wikipedians to join any kind of debate. Eventually this became common, and now WP:200, 300 and 400 have been created to subdivide this rather common phenomenon. This really boils down to useless statistics; we can create any number of arbitrary pages for this, but we really shouldn't.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Times that 300 Wikipedians supported something
 * Times that 400 Wikipedians supported something


 * Oppose - I disagree. I think even the WP:100 is still a rare enough event. I don't think division by 100 is arbitrary either - these days, much of the world operates using base 10 (with 100 being 10 x 10). I don't oppose a merge of both to Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something, however. (They could obviously be re-split at some later date if they become populated enough.) - jc37 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. As long as it's in projectspace, anything reasonably interesting related to the English Wikipedia is OK. Does serve the purpose of marking some milestones in Wikipedia history, as well as making a record of debates and polls which attracted widespread attention from the Wikipedia community. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about merging the lot of them, before (like happened with the pools) somebody makes up WP:256, WP:111, WP:350 etc?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think WP:100, and WP:200 are lengthy enough to be their own pages, but I agree that the others could/should be merged. - jc37 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, 111, 256, and 350 are not round numbers like 300 and 400 are, in the decimal system at least. :-) But I think the suggestion of merging the 300 and 400 lists (which only have one or two entries) with WP:200 is a perfectly reasonable one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe some sort of Exponential backoff rule is the way to go? In that case, delete 300 and keep 400. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytom (talk • contribs)
 * Merge these two into each other and probably back into WP:200 as well. There just isn't enough activity to justify keeping 400.  Eluchil404 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back to WP:200, with no prejudice against splitting again if the lists become longer. --ais523 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as harmless. Merging or not is an editorial decision that doesn't require an MfD. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. At the moment, there's not enough events to justify two separate pages.  bibliomaniac 1  5  An age old question... 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. I think we need one catchall category, such as Times That Over 100 Wikipedians supported something. Otherwise, we could end up with many many of these cats. One is enough. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tage as historic. This is a historical and we do not need it.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think we'll probably be needing them even more in the near future.  bibliomaniac 1  5  An age old question... 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely useless. If someone was willing to deleted WP:100, I'd say the same for it too. ^ demon [omg plz] 02:28, 15 June 2007 (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.