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, but don't mark as ((historical)). (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians[edit]

I have two major problems with this page. 1 It places the burden of privacy on former users who, being inactive, are unlikely to realize they've been added to the list and therefore unable to remove themselves if desired. 2 In most cases, the only possible source for a past user's reason for leaving in their userspace. Since other autoconfirmed users are not typically prevented from editing any page in userspace, this makes the past editor's reason for leaving non-verifiable, as the editor is unlikely to be monitoring any undeleted pages in their userspace for inaccuracies. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark historical and archive Seems to be an artifact from the time when everyone knew everyone else and Wikipedia was a much smaller place. I'm hesitant to recommend deletion since it's a time capsule that's documenting Wikipedia's early history, but we surely should not be adding new entries to it considering how unmanageable that would become. Verifiability is not necessary for things in the Wikipedia namespace, and many of the high profile departures were covered in the Signpost anyway (whether the user wanted it to be or not) Gigs (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark historical and archive for the reasons given by Gigs. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. No evidence of maintenance problems. No evidence of serious privacy problems. Should any exist, there are multiple solutions. All data is immediately available from the contributions history of the account or from the link as provided. It continues to be used, both in terms of additions and the many pages views per day. There are many on the list that I remember with affection. This page is a testament to, and tool for encouraging our spirit of community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And note that anyone can easily determine if someone has returned to editing very simply - meaning there is no actual reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how likely is it that an inactive editor would know he/she has been added to the list? G. C. Hood (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion was hardcoded into the July 22 log; I moved it to its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The usernames and accompanying information are useful for assessing the atmosphere of Wikipedia for editors and editing. They are useful for Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Editors adding information to the list or revising information on it should exercise due diligence and check the accuracy of the information. (A sortable wikitable format with a column for the date of an editor's last contribution can help readers to visualize trends.)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, I have a hard time to understand in an instant what you're getting at, an example may help. Also, is there a reason why the issues can't be addressed in another way, so that they don't have to be weighed against the usefulness of the page, because that's a big ask right there for one to override the other. Penyulap ☏ 16:39, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Keep as neither of the reasons for proposing deletion seem particularly reasonable. One, the burden of privacy comment doesn't hold up very reasonably. How is being listed on a page any different from having their own user page which has an easily available option to determine recent edit history? If they wanted the user name they used kept private, why did they use it in the first place? In those, rare, instances when people are OUTed, they might easily contact OTRS. Two, the fact that a page can be edited does not mean that individuals who have left have their own edits deleted, they are still in the page history, so that can in general be determined as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that issues with privacy are important, but I'm not convinced that the page infringes on anyone's privacy. The page only links to userpages, which are publicly available to anyone browsing Wikipedia, and reveals little about a user's personal life. It may be a privacy concern if a user desires to completely vanish from the project, but that's a problem that can be easily handled by excluding vanished Wikipedians, and one that doesn't justify deleting the entire page.--SGCM (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Carter; the page gives the community a good sense of the reasons why active community members leave Wikipedia. It is actively maintained and is on the watchlists of many users (me included). Graham87 01:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, as mentioned by Wavelength above. We should probably get some members to help out and incorporate it more fully into the Project, but that is exactly the kind of information we want and need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carter. I am not at all convinced that this page constitutes a privacy infringement, anymore so than retaining the departed editors' userpages and editing history. The second argument may be something to look into, but it does not seem an adequate reason for deletion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Carter and WP:WER. I do not see a privacy issue here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2012 (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.