Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Unreferenced BLPs

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: Keep (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject listings of Unreferenced BLPs

Full list from Category:WikiProject UBLP lists

Old and unused (10+ years), mostly empty listings by blocked Bot. Sorry for not adding the deletion tag to all these 800+ pages (pointless to do it by hand). Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keepp, we don't delete things just because they're old and allegedly unused; we mark them as historical (or just leave them alone, which is probably best in this case). The only reason to delete a page here is if it causes great harm or was never appropriate in the first place; I don't think either of these things apply here. People may use these pages as interesting snapshots in the future; there's no good reason to deny them this right. Graham87 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It already is the future and I don't see anything valuable or interesting here. Talking about not appropriate, what about [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc without ever containing any articles.

It would only make sense that pages temporarily used to help clean up are also cleaned up. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the sole arbitor of what is and is not historically interesting and worthy of keeping, neither am I or anyone else here. By future I mean the longer term, perhaps tens, hundreds or even thousands of years away. The fact that the bot generated blank pages for a particular month might be interesting to someone, somewhere, at some point. Graham87 18:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. History. Consider archiving. Is there another bot doing the same job? There should be. If not, deleting these pages is counterproductive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRAINWRECK. The effort that would be expended to assess and delete these pages far outweighs the benefits received from doing so. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historical work product of a Wikiproject. Mark historical if you must. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keeps. —Alalch E. 13:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. There are a lot of trains in danger of derailing here. When SmokeyJoe says to consider archiving, does that mean making them historical, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a trainwreck, most could probably be marked historical though (I already marked WP:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs as such, unaware there were a bazillion others.) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.