The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 tag as historical. It's not active, but it wasn't totally useless either. Sr13 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains an impossible-to-maintain list of users as they join Wikipedia. In that respect, it is completely redundant to the new user log. Secondly, it receives nowhere nearly as much traffic as it used to, as Wikipedia has grown and keeping track of new people is much harder than before. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's useless now, since we have so many members that it would be unmaintainable. Unless a bot was commissioned to update it, of course. As such, delete or tag historical, no preference there. --tjstrf talk 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless updated now and more frequent in the future. Crunch13 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, does the new user log contain a list of all users back to the dawn of WikiTime ? Also, I visited the 2001 page, and it includes linkages between IPs and users, which cant be done by the new user log. There is some value here, especially in the older pages, but it is minimal. I dont think the more recent entries are useful, and should be prevented. John Vandenberg 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think that this page should be deleted because it is impossible to maintain. It worked when it was first made, but now it does not.--†Sir James Paul† 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It will be almost impossible to keep track of. Besides, why would anyone want to check on the editors' date of arrival? Besides, aren't they a little arrogant, stating "Indeed, we distinguish ourselves by our ability to write good articles, which is what really matters. We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect"? -Zacharycrimsonwolf 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We now have the new user log. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep those archives that aren't redundant to Special:Log/newusers, delete anything newer, and move to a Wikipedia:Archive subpage. There's no reason to actually get rid of the information; I suppose the main use of the newusers log is to detect vandalistic usernames and provide a source of information for some welcomers, but conceivably a new use may be found for this information at some point, and there's no good reason to delete it. The unmaintainability of the list nowadays is somewhat obvious, though. --ais523 10:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom statement. Redundant and unmaintainable. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical seems appropriate here. I agree that it's an unmaintainable list, but I disagree with deleting it. Acalamari 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmaintainable, redundant, and creates the impression that Wikipedia operates on the basis of seniority, which it doesn't except as seniority correlates with experience and respect from others. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too hard to maintain. Not really needed, could be made historic GreaterWikiholic 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not tag historical per nom. Only a bot violating bot editing standards could possibly maintain this. --Coredesat 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Delete almost impossible to maintain. Also makes new users think that those who are on Wikipedia longer are better editors or more experienced. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical I don't see the point of deleting this, though its unmaintainability now is obvious per the above comments. The earliest revision is from November 2001, and back then it appeared to be the only available listing of Wikipedians. It predates the editable new user log by at least two years and Wikipedia's new user log as part of special:log by at least four. Therefore it has some historical interest. I wouldn't mind a move to a subpage of wikipedia:archive but there's no point in deleting the history. Graham87 10:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical No reason why this page should be deleted, but this page is not in use so it should be tagged. GrooveDog 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Historical freeze it, and keep it. DGG 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag historical As I commented on a recent MFD, I generally support deletion if and only if one of these two conditions applies:

1. The page never should have existed in the first place.
2. The page has completely outlived its usefulness and is no longer needed.

I don't think either of these applies. The page was once needed, for reasons pointed out above, and although there is no obvious need for this historical record, it could conceivably come in handy, if only as a curiosity for the next generation. YechielMan 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not updated, not useful. SparkleMan 12:35, 24 June 2007 (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.