Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:New articles by topic

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. Dmcdevit·t 00:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New articles by topic

This is a rather sad page of the Wikipedia namespace that I came across while browsing the old announcements. It was meant to be a manually-administered listing of new topics according to top, but it didn't catch on at all. I think we should just delete the page and it's sub-pages... it does not serve its purpose, and can potentially be misleading if anyone came across this and discovered that no game related articles have been created since 2004. :( Coffee 09:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paul Klenk 09:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Some of the pages listed here are still active and play a useful role, such as the Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand) page. I'm not sure that a list of these pages is still useful.-gadfium 09:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since a few of these pages are active, perhaps it would be useful to convert this to a category, containing pages like the one Gadfium mentioned? FWIW the new Zealand one is very useful for finding information for the New Zealand Wikiportal (especially "Did you know" facts), so perhaps the creation of similar pages connected to each subject with its own wikiportal should be encouraged! Grutness...wha? 11:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The only pages that seem to be active (that is, editted in the past month) are the ones for aircraft, Australia, and New Zealand. Perhaps those could be put into the category, and the rest simply deleted. Coffee 11:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I am unable to form an opinion. --Bhadani 12:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are active WikiProjects that correspond to the active subpages here; I'd suggest that the active pages, like Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand), be moved to subpages of the relevant WikiProjects. The rest should be deleted - an outdated, unloved "new articles" page is totally useless. CDC (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a very good idea. R adiant _>|< 22:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Outdated. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Convert the active parts to categories then mark as historical. Thryduulf 10:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep concept, delete pages. What about using these ((([1]))), the DynamicPageLists from Wikinews? -- user:zanimum
Convert the active parts to categories then mark as historical - people, this is a case where deletion is the wrong idea. Historical pages should be marked as such, and left. JesseW 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to archive here, folks. It's just a list of lists of articles. A proposal or project would be worth archiving. But lists of articles are auto-archived by the History button. R adiant _>|< 11:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cool idea but it might have been too much effort for its worth. --fvw * 00:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Convert to WikiProject -- I think it's an excellent concept, but of course yet another manually-maintained list is a terrible idea. The problem with categories is that they do not expire -- and it is even more work to go around adding and removing cat tags. Note that the nominated page is not alone -- it is the master page of a slew of related daughter pages.

The current text in this page should be preserved for historical purposes -- perhaps moved to its own talk page, or a subpage. The topic of the WikiProject should be the MediaWiki Engine changes needed to implement the concept. Absent strenuous objection, this is exactly what I'm going to do. — Xiong 熊 talk * 20:10, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Delete - too much efort required to keep it updated. It is destined to be outdated and backlogged. Some specific topics could be moved to appropriete WikiProjects. Renata3 17:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maintenance, utility, etc. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs enormous amount of maintenance. CG 05:42, September 6, 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.