Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)


 * 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 Keep, because there's opinions all over the place- no consensus to delete.--Sean|Bla ck 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)
From what I read on the history this page was created from nostalgia, and since transclusion is a drain on the server, is this page entirely necessary, given it was split in two in the first place? I would argue if it was necessary it would not have been split. Hiding talk 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; while I don't see the point of this page, transclusion like that is also used for MFD, AFD, CFD, FAC, RFC and some other processes. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * weak keep delete. It's mainly of historic interest now. Wouldn't be too disappointed to see the back of it, but it does have a purpose as there are still a lot of people who don't know the way that WP:WSS has been split. BL   kiss the lizard  00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * i got confused too - it was the other page i was thinking of. BL   kiss the lizard  23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Save anyone coming on there any potential confusion. karmafist 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep. Has some historic info, might be useful for someone with a high bandwith connection.  xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep but prune. I don't think it needs to have the transclusion of both the proposal and discovery pages any more (though both need to be strongly linked in to it). There is historical information there worth keeping, though, on a severely reduced page. Grutness...wha?  03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yes - how embarrassing. I was getting it confused with WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. Mild delete. Grutness...wha?  22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for historical purposes, and the sake of an accurate record. Xoloz 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Doesn't present anything original, even as an historical pageCirceus 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * don't care leaning towards weak delete, it was intended as a transition to a new page hierarchy, and I guess noone uses it anymore (if anyone ever used it at all). Note to all people considering keeping this for historical reasons: Are you confusing this with WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria with its illustrious history? This page's history has all of three edits, one of them the MFD nomination and another one a minor edit for category sorting. Any information on here is also on WP:WSS/C. The "server drain" argument, however, is pretty bogus when looking at how far out of the way this page is (this nomination probably gave it the most visitors it ever had) and that it only transcludes two (admittedly huge) pages. I suspect our wonderful world of *FD is a worse drain by several hundred orders of magnitude. -- grm_wnr Esc  18:05, 31 December 2005 (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.