Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikitime

 __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:  Userfy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikitime

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Negligible page views. Created in 2003, but the page says the term was first used on February 4, 2007. Will probably be better in userspace, but the page has been edited by more than one user. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The user who created this page has been banned from editing Wikipedia. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The history is an ugly amalgam of three different pages:
 * A 2003 proposal for a standardized time system. (last version: Special:PermaLink/16198151).
 * A 2006 essay on the amount of time people spend editing Wikipedia (Special:PermaLink/43004690).
 * A 2007 claim that "Wikitime can also be used as an announcement of the near future use of Wikipedia" which seems bizarre and likely a hoax.
 * The 2006 essay is the highest-quality version of the three, but I still see no good reason to keep even it, and there is no point in userfying any version since all three creators are long gone. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A perfectly reasonable half-proposal essay.  It is historical, and history should not be deleted.  The histories of old users, even departed or banned, do not and should not be disappeared.  There may be merit in classifying old projectpages like this, and even moving them to a subfolder format, if that's how you wish to help, but do not delete things that were reasonable at the time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Userfying (despite the author being banned). Largely agree with SnowFire. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that comparing a MFD discussion about a potentially problematic page opened in good faith to soviet disappearing is particularly appropriate. In this case the block of the creator is relevant, since one of the thigs they were blocked for was creating incomprehensible, weird, useless and poorly thought out project space pages like Wikipedia:Homosexual and related guidelines and policies or Wikipedia:Ratings and rankings system 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate. An editor being blocked/banned is not a good reason per se to delete their prior contributions.  Doing so is similar to the soviet practice.  I think this discussion should be blind to the current standing of the editor.
 * There is absolutely no ban-worthy element to this page.
 * This page is not incomprehensible. Or particularly weird. The 30 September 2003 version, which is surely the version you are referring to, is stubby, but weird or useless, I don’t agree.
 * What’s the connection with these other pages? Do you have a history with the banned editor?  I still think that IPs should not be welcome in these discussion, you should register, and contribute to project discussions with some accountability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as historical, per SmokeyJoe. (historiasn are likely to have a hard time with the early 21st century because we update information on digital media, instead of appending new one as was forcibly done with paper) - Nabla (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form per those above. Harmless and historical. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (2nd choice: Userfy even despite the creator being banned). It's meandering rambling about nothing.  There's nothing of value to keep here.  Historians would have to be very bored to be interested in this nonsense, but if there's really a desire to keep absolutely everything, that can be satisfied by userfication.  There is a cost, if a minor one, to having very low quality essays in the Wikipedia namespace, because it makes it harder to find useful stuff and harder to get rid of new poorly written essays; even if we're generous about having a low threshold for inclusion, this particular essay is really only one step above about Pure Nonsense.   SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per SnowFire who sums up my thoughts on this "essay". I fail to see any value in this page, even as an archive - I can't foresee any situations in which keeping this as an archive would be useful, and not just project space clutter. The first version of the page is a dead on arrival proposal that is out of scope here anyway, the English wikipedia has no authority whatsoever to force other projects to use a different time zone. The second version of this essay could be summarised in a single sentence at WP:Glossary - there is no need at all for an entire rambling essay that just says the same thing in multiple ways. The final version of the page about "Wikitime is the same as Hammertime" and "people should resolve disputes by dancing while reading wikipedia" appears to be vandalism and should be removed regardless. This is just meaningless, barley coherent waffling about nothing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This are good reasons to kick it out of projectspace, but not good reasons to delete from userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and essay-fy. This is perfectly acceptable as an essay (or a page marked as historical), but I really see no affirmative reason to delete this. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:03, 22 August 2022 (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.