Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Little Mountain 5/Stats
- 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: no consensus, default to keep. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- User:Little Mountain 5/Stats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
This page only has admin stats, but user is not an admin Hhkohh (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - So what's the reason for deletion? Deadmined for inactivity. Are you arguing this former admin's page for admin stats is unrelated to their efforts to improve Wikipedia? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 18#Non-admin adminstats Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Issue for most of those was that the users never had admin rights. This one has. I don't agree with the closer there that G6 was warranted for those for whom these pages were created legitimately (and, for that matter, could apply again if they get the bit back). They're simply not doing anything harmful, so why bother with deletion? The only reason for deletion I can think of is if it takes a toll on Cyberbot to, I don't know, have to review admin stats pages for former admins. I suspect that's not an issue, but pinging Cyberpower678 just in case. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've cleaned up all the non-sysop/non-ACC creations; all that remain should be former users like this. I think these are reasonable to retain, and have suggested that the bot just not do anything in cases like this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Issue for most of those was that the users never had admin rights. This one has. I don't agree with the closer there that G6 was warranted for those for whom these pages were created legitimately (and, for that matter, could apply again if they get the bit back). They're simply not doing anything harmful, so why bother with deletion? The only reason for deletion I can think of is if it takes a toll on Cyberbot to, I don't know, have to review admin stats pages for former admins. I suspect that's not an issue, but pinging Cyberpower678 just in case. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Per my comments above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.