Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors list

 __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 and redirect to Missing Wikipedians. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors list


I’m not sure what this is supposed to be. What it looks like is an unmaintained list of some of the thousands of users who have retired from Wikipedia. Some of these users have as little as 1-5 total edits. (In a least one case the account’s only edit was to create a user page with retired on it. Why would we need to preserve that information?) As far as I can tell none of them voluntarily added their names to this list. This seems unused, un-needed, and kind of intrusive. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Do we really need a list of editors who have retired and subsequently don't edit Editor Retention anymore ? .... An "Inactive" list with a few editors is fine but this seems a bit OTT, If they're retired then remove their name from the "Active list. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think this is even that. Most of these users wouldn’t have even been aware of the project, they are just a seemingly random sampling of users who declared they were retired. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh right sorry I thought this was a list of past participants basically .....Dear god why just why ? ...... – Davey 2010 Talk 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This page was last discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30. Although at present no one is pursuing this line of research, I don't see any compelling reason to delete the page. Should someone wish to continue to investigate this area, they can make use of this initial effort. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If no one is pursuing this then it's pointless keeping it around and you could say there's no compelling reason to keep it,
 * At the end of the day once an editor leaves this site you have absolutely no idea why they've left (IE they could've died, they could've ended up in the mental hospital or they could've simply wanted a change of direction and wanted nothing more to do with this site.... you just don't know) .....
 * At the end of the day IMHO this is just a timesink .... If an editor leaves then let them leave and if they choose to come back then point them to ER.... – Davey 2010 Talk 01:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also note that in the eighteen-mont-old discussion cited, of the three people involved only the one commenting here saw any point to the page, so that’s not very compelling evidence of ...anything really. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't citing the conversation to provide evidence; I was providing context so we could resume the last discussion where it left off. isaacl (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't personally mourn the loss of the page, but well... lots of people start initiatives that fade out. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. It's part of the historical record for investigations into an area, serving to show what directions have been examined. I didn't contribute to this particular page, so sure, it'd be easy for me to say delete it, but it isn't much different in spirit than other initiatives I have contributed to. I wouldn't like to see all of a project's history removed just because it's old. isaacl (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s not just that it is old (although I would note that it has not had any substantive edits in nearly six years). As I said in the nomination, it isn’t really... anything, just a snapshot of a tiny proportion of total editors who have retired at some point.


 * I won’t go into details, but this was brought to my attention because someone submitted a request for it to be noindexed because they had barely any assosciation with Wikipedia and yet this page was showing up in search results of their name. There isn’t any real valid research here, just some fairly useless data that isn’t ever going to be used in any real way. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't want their name appearing (and I can fully understand that), it can be removed. I don't like the standard of "data is useless" being used to delete pages, because that's often going to be subjective, there is no deadline to complete investigations, and knowing what blind alleys have been followed is data, too. If someone comes along and says "let's try X", we can say "X has been tried; look here and see if you can make sense of it". isaacl (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this is serving no purpose except to annoy current or former editors listed on it. Is anyone taking names off when editors come back? I think not, so it's misleading. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete then Redirect to Missing Wikipedians. I was originally thinking that this would need a talk page RfC and consideration of archiving, but there is enough negative stuff ingrained, combined with useflessness cf Missing Wikipedians, combine with the weirdness of the very large early versions that I am very comfortable to delete.  Create the redirect for the unlikely chance that someone with a bookmark or recollection of interest here can be sent straight to the right place.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2018 (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.