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 Mark ((historical)) and soft-redirect. Although the delete !votes have a higher count, the arguments are primarily that the other list is better, now, not that the history of the page is without merit. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts (2nd nomination)[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts (2nd nomination)

Now, I wasn’t sure originally whether to MfD this or not. However, a couple things I realized about this list put me over and made me decide to do this. Note that I don’t have a problem with editcountitis and could care less about that, I am NOT using that as a rationale for deletion, though some may I guess. Anyway, here’s my rationale:

1. It’s near impossible to maintain. Leaving up people that long ago left, people that are on the 5,000 bracket when they have 16,000 edits, admins remaining on the list for months.. it’s too much of a pain to bother with.
2. It’s a duplicate of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Everyone that’s on this Mfd’d list is on the WBE list, only that one’s better updated and in better detail, rendering this other list useless. Plus, that WBE list says what users are sysops and what users aren’t, defeating the purpose of this list.
3. It says not to nominate users for admins by edit count, but by having users who want to be admins in bold, it as a result seems to contradict itself. Plus, there’s already userboxes for the bold and strikeout types of users, and those do a better job of letting people know.

I might not mind the list so much, and would actually want it to stick around if it was not for these points, which make me want to just get rid of this instead of keeping it around. We have better lists that are better maintained, so as a result we do not need this. Wizardman 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, per Wizardman. Excellent rationale. This particular list is unnecessary, underdeveloped, and duplicative of other lists on wiki. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems to be another page that I was going to nominate for deletion, but Wizardman beat me to it. :) Anyway, Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count was deleted on the basis that it was unnecessary, and redundant to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I think that Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts is also redundant to WP:WBE. In addition, I think that this page ends up treating adminship as a "rank" above non-admins, for it, like the administrator edit count page, seperated admins and non-admins, therefore going against adminship not being a rank or position of power over other users. Most users who are on this list are on WBE anyway. Acalamari 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the same time, I would not object to this page being marked as historical. Acalamari 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Acalamari. No need for duplication, particularly when others are better maintained and easier to maintain. Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unuseful and high-maintenance. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It was useful when it was small. Too many damn Wikipedians now. :) However I must say that your first rationale is nonsensical and could be applied to many high-maintenance articles. High-maintenance by itself is not a rationale for deletion; there is no requirement that Wikipedia entries be up-to-date. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-17 18:45Z
• Delete - Although there is no requirement for pages to be up to date, it certainly does help with pages like this that are only really helpful when they are up to date. Redundant to WP:WBE and hard to maintain effectively. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:24, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It did once have its uses, but it's now redundant to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Epbr123 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical with a form of soft-redirect to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. No reason to lose the edit history and talk page discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to mark as historial as a redirect. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical per Ned Scott. No reason to delete it, since it's referenced in roughly 530 pages. There is no reason to lose the edit history ... the page is just less useful now that Wikipedia has grown. The contents of the archive table may be deleted at any time, and there is no reason for the page history to disappear permanently. It is valuable to know which users were addded or removed from the list, how long they were up there, etc. Graham87 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those references are likely transclusions from Template:Wikipediholicism. Wizardman 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical yes this is impossible to maintain and redundant, but we don't generally delete old redundant pages - we keep them for historical and archive reasons. No need to get rid of the history or the talk page. Hut 8.5 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just to point out, I did originally try to mark this as historical, but got rv'd. Wizardman 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferably Delete, alternatively Mark as historical. Can't argue with the nominator: this is difficult to maintain, an unnecessary fork of a better list, and more seriously, encourages people to nominate users for adminship simply for having a high edit count. For all those reasons, we'd be better off without it. I don't personally see the need to keep this page around for 'historical reasons', but wouldn't object if there is a consensus to do so. Terraxos (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, really not necessary. Encourages editcountitis. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical and keep. Like Ned Scott said, there's no need to get rid of everything. Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as first choice, mark as historical second. This page has been hobbled at the top and has gotten too large at the bottom, rendering it pointless. At the top, people keep reverting any brackets above 20,000, which prevents us from recognizing those users who have made some of the largest contributions to the encyclopedia. At the bottom, as we've grown, it's just gotten to be too much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:49, 22 May 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.