The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Move to Wikipedia space.. I assume the "delete" people don't object? Else it can still be nominated for MfD. Sandstein 08:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
This doesn't belong in articles space. It either belongs in Wikipedia space or tools, where most of the links in the See also section comes from. Other lists, such as
number of edits by Wikipedians,
articles with most references and other
Wikipedia stats, live in Wikipedia space. Prod was removed with reason given on the talk page.
Bgwhite (
talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: very "meta", not a topic covered by any cited
reliable sources outside of Wikipedia itself yet. Maybe one day it will be, but that day does not appear to be now.
LjL (
talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Too early to have an article about the topic. Also lacks coverage outside Wikipedia to establish notability.
Maharayamui (
talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Currently questionable for a better solid article, can be restarted when better if needed.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Move to Wikipedia namespace, I do not see any perspectives in the article namespace--
Ymblanter (
talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (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 article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Move to Wikipedia space.. I assume the "delete" people don't object? Else it can still be nominated for MfD. Sandstein 08:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
This doesn't belong in articles space. It either belongs in Wikipedia space or tools, where most of the links in the See also section comes from. Other lists, such as
number of edits by Wikipedians,
articles with most references and other
Wikipedia stats, live in Wikipedia space. Prod was removed with reason given on the talk page.
Bgwhite (
talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: very "meta", not a topic covered by any cited
reliable sources outside of Wikipedia itself yet. Maybe one day it will be, but that day does not appear to be now.
LjL (
talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Too early to have an article about the topic. Also lacks coverage outside Wikipedia to establish notability.
Maharayamui (
talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Currently questionable for a better solid article, can be restarted when better if needed.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Move to Wikipedia namespace, I do not see any perspectives in the article namespace--
Ymblanter (
talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (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 article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.