Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Cetacea

 __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  Redirect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiReader/Cetacea




WikiReader is long defunct (e.g. WikiReader has been a redirect to Books since 2009). These pages just clog up what-links-here lists etc and cause extra work for wikignomes (e.g. see page history of World War II wikireader/articles). Example previous MFDs: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiReader/William Shakespeare/Plays and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:World War II wikireader DexDor(talk) 12:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom; if WikiReader has been gone since 2009, then none of these pages are needed. Possibly even Db-subpage since the corresponding project has not existed for a long time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore the Wikireader page marked as historical. It's a part of wikipedia's history which shouldn't be deleted. Brustopher (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping some information about defunct initiatives etc - in archives of Signpost, Village Pump, Wikipedia_talk:WikiReader etc (and there's probably also info in the equivalents on DeWiki), however the problem with keeping bits of the defunct initiative itself is that it adds unncessary clutter/complexity to Wikipedia infrastructure - e.g. I came across these pages because some of them were incorrectly categorized, any editor looking at Talk:Cryptanalysis will see a notice about WikiReader (if this MFD succeeds I intend to TFD the associated templates) and these pages show up in what-links-here lists (which are looked at before an article is renamed/split or for a dab page).
 * Anybody compiling a history of Wikipedia has already had 5 years to look at them and I would expect any serious future historian of failed/superseded Wikipedia initiatives to have some access to deleted pages.
 * An alternative to outright deletion would be to blank the pages (or turn them into redirects) - thus stopping them from appearing when doing maintenance tasks whilst keeping the page history visible to anyone, but I really can't see these pages being of that much historical interest. DexDor(talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect or move to the historical archive. These pages were once useful. Graham 87 06:10, 14 September 2015 (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.