Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox




 * 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  Tagged as historical something lame from CBW 12:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox
This subpage of WP:ALBUM no longer serves any purpose. Consensus for deletion has already been established at the project's talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums – Ib Leo (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally, it's better to archive these things. Many editors have contributed to it, but only a few have agreed to delete it.  However, if you are sure that it is best deleted, and no one objects, then I won't either.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that only one other editor has explicitly agreed to delete it. However, WP:ALBUM is quite an active project and I am pretty convinced that if some members disagree with the deletion, they would already have spoken up by now on the talk page (my post over there is one week old). But okay, let's see what input we get here. I agree that the page could alternatively be kept for the sake of history, but I don't really see the value of keeping that kind of information. It's also quite large, so we might as well free the memory space on that poor Wikipedia server. – Ib Leo (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion does not save space on the servers; it only moves the page to another part of the database. Graham 87 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't know this. So I withdraw that argument. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary and horribly outdated. The info is so outdated that there's no point in archiving it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag as historical, it was a maintenence project that had a purpose and there's no reason to make its results accessible only to admins, which is all that deletion does. Graham 87 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the page in question, which was started in April 2004, has had 885 edits and was edited by 215 unique users]. These facts only make it more clear to me that the history should be kept. I don't care whether the page is redirected somewhere else or tagged historical, so long as the history is kept around for future editors. Graham 87  03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really fail to see how any future editor could possibly be interested to know that the infobox of One Step Beyond... (randomly chosen from the list) at some point in the past (and you can't even say when) had a cover image but was missing the album length. And if someone (against my expectations) actually would like to know this fact, it can easily be deduced from the article history. I don't mind tagging pages as historical, provided it really has a historical value. Which this page in my eyes fails to have. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Tag as historical as per Graham. It is hard to know now what in future someone may want to know from the history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2010 (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.