Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for best User page/Archive

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 debate was delete; it is not appropriate to keep these pages when the main page was deleted. If you would want to contest the deletion of the main project page there is WP:DELREV GDonato (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page and all of the pages listed here may have been an attempt at creating some sort of WikiProject, but was abandoned. None of the pages that I looked at in the list above have been edited in 2 years. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I just found out the main page was deleted via a debate, which can be found here. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep failed or bad ideas, for reference, learning, reactivation or as an example of what doesn't work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as Historical and move on. For the reasons above. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We nuked the project's main page, why not the subpages too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean this: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for best User page, I guess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. MfDs can serve as an archive of failed or bad ideas....that didn't work per above. Keeping archives of deleted projects is absurd. Synergy 07:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping accessible the work of failed and bad ideas, if it is at all useful, means that it can be learned from in future, at the very least, not repeated endlessly. If it is not at all useful, and how could we possibly know all future needs, but if so, then marking as historical, possibly with a note recording the reasons, will be sufficient, and converting the archive to an MfD is a waste of time at an MfD, and it is a poor archive because it is not a true record of the failed effort. Just as we don't delete the failed policy proposals, we shouldn't delete failed initiatives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look useful at all. Editors voted on what they thought was the best userpage. Denied. Deleted. End of story. Keeping a useless archive is a waste of time. Anyone who wants to see why it was deleted and to save themselves future embarrassment need only review this and the other MfD. Synergy 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistent with our normal sensible practice, we should undelete Wikipedia:Votes for best User page, mark it as historical, and convert all subpages to redirects to Wikipedia:Votes for best User page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2008 (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.