Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Cleanup listing

 __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  mark as historical. MER-C 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Cleanup listing


Two weeks ago, I raised the what-to-do issue at WT:NRHP, the talk page for the project to which this page belongs, but I got one noncommittal response and nothing more. I'm accordingly requesting input from non-project members. I'd like to see this page deleted because it's thoroughly useless. Some months ago, one person removed some (but nowhere near all) of the cleaned-up entries in one section, and another user made some edits in 2012, but most of the page is three years out of date. It's a bot-generated cleanup page (the bot hasn't been active in years) with a history consisting solely of bot-generated dumps and people removing occasional fixed items; there's no substantial history that we'd need to save. As a result, it's not at all useful for facilitating cleanup, and it's never been useful in the past, so there's nothing old to keep. As a project member, I can testify that WP:NRHP has a lot of unused project pages (enough that they're easily lost and contribute to confusion, even for us old-timers), so it would help to get rid of one of them. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: I don't know enough about the wikiproject to have a view on whether this page is useful now, but assuming it isn't, would the history have some value to retain (i.e. should it be tagged "historical" rather than deleted outright)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. It's just a few bot dumps of cleanup pages, followed by a few people removing occasional entries.  I thought of marking historical, and I only came here because I decided that a historical tag wouldn't particularly be helpful.  Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest marking it historical. I perused the list and found it interesting. I don't see how it would benefit the encyclopedia to delete it. I don't see any harm in leaving it has a historical page and moving on to other matters. And, it would be great if we could generate updated lists like this one.

As a side note, checking out some of the articles and seeing so many tagged with the silly NRIS warning at the top was distressing. Can't a list of articles sourced this way simply be generated internally so articles aren't mucked up with ugly tags that are of little or no use to readers? It's always good to add additional sources to articles and the NRHP certainly makes its share of mistakes, but we'd be much better off making articles on ALL of the NRHP properties with their information than spamming these ugly mainenance tags and pretending we've done good. This list motivated me to improve at least one article so it's done more than those discouraging maintenance tags. Those make me want to create more articles sourced to NRHP. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be better to mark it as historical. You never know when gnomes may take a page like this and work with it. I know I've done likewise with a WikiProject's cleanup page. It was also fairly stale, but in most cases, the issues were still outstanding. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2014 (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.