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The result of the debate was withdrawn per WP:SNOW and Holderca1's solution. — O ( 说 • 喝) 23:21, 26 September 2007 (GMT)

I just don't seem comfortable seeing this here. It might've been a good idea back when it was first proposed, but now it's just something that promotes owning articles. The template was toast long ago, but even this is bad. "Usurping an article" further bolsters article ownership, and anyone can keep it free from vandalism and such. It's only the improvements to the article that matters O ( 说 • 喝) 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. In most cases, I'd say this is unnecessary implication of OWNership, but when you have thousands upon thousands of articles, you need something like this. - Amarkov moo! 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Anyone can just keep articles clean. No need of a project page that promotes ownership even though it doesn't look like it. — O ( 说 • 喝) 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Like I said, normally I'd agree. But when there are thousands of articles to be kept clean, some organization is necessary. - Amarkov moo! 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Of course there are thousands of articles to maintain. It doesn't have to be glorified to the point as to where one person should actively maintain an article, and usurping as necessary. Wikipedia does not work like that; it's also not a one-man show. This clearly shows that it is made to prevent others from contributing, and that is what we never want. — O ( 说 • 喝) 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
        • No, it is made to show which articles are being actively maintained and which need someone to take care of them. - Amarkov moo! 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
          • That's true, however everyone should help, not mainly the people listed. And certainly not a one user per article system either, since it's also bureaucracy. Even more, it can provoke edit/flame wars and incivility between the "adopter" and the uninvolved user (other side). That stuff completely kills the spirit of Wikipedia, and this page only appears to fuel the fire, no matter what it says. — O ( 说 • 喝) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
            • I don't understand, how does it violate WP:OWN when anyone can come to the page and put their name by the article? There is nothing stopping everyone on WP from putting their name next to I-95 and saying that they would maintain it. -- Holderca1 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is needed to keep articles crap-free. Without this we get WP:CRWP. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep This isnt owning articles, its keeping an eye on them. Just because I adopt U.S. Route 22 doesn't mean anyone else is allowed to edit it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It only has to look like you are owning the article to be considered owning. — O ( 说 • 喝) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • But, one of the first things the project states is that you're not owning the articles, only looking out after them. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Article ownership is a very sensitive issue. Putting this page in the new contributors' eyes basically spells out "please do not edit these articles. Get more experience before changing these articles." This is publicly linked from USRD's page, and new contributors will see it almost immediately. Also, new contributors tend to look around a lot (I still remember doing that when I was new), and we want to be as open as possible. It doesn't matter how many articles that a project has to maintain. We need to spell out "Please edit this article! You are one of our best resources here!" — O ( 说 • 喝) 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep: "I just don't seem comfortable seeing this here." is not grounds for deletion and the template this project uses says "If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page," which is a far cry from ownership. Furthermore, the nomination tag was not been properly linked to this discussion.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

  I am curious about the nominator's reasons for nominating, I notice that just a couple weeks before nominating O removed himself or herself from the list of members, where apparently this nominator had been fairly active. I'm not suggesting bad faith, just thinking the nominator has more insight then initially disclosed. - As for the link to this discussion, I'm not sure what was up, it may have been a browser problem as it seemed to correct itself after I tried unsuccessfully to fix it.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

  First off, if you are referring to speedy keep criterion 1, bear in mind that I will not be withdrawing this nomination anytime soon (unless an admin uninvolved closes this as SNOW) Second, at the very beginning, everyone just started grabbing articles to maintain, and unfortunately I got caught in the crossfire. You're right about more insight; there's some right under Amarkov's last comment. Furthermore, I just kept thinking about AAH for the last month or so (couldn't get it out of my head!), and decided to remove myself completely. As for this nomination, I [mostly] knew that this page would violate policy, spark drama, and just be a danger for Wikipedia's new contributors, who are our assets. — O ( 说 • 喝) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You're right, no grounds for speedy. Just plain keep. Sorry.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 11:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I see no reason to delete the project. This does not promote article ownership; the template that was used for this project was perceived as much. This is a USRD internal project (which anyone can join, but internal nonetheless) to maintain articles. There's nothing wrong with that, as so long as it doesn't turn into one person claiming ownership of an article. Clearly, that hasn't happened, and if it did, then the user should be punished for taking over an article and claiming it for his/her self. Assuming that an editor would do that is assuming bad faith also. -- Son 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the {{ maintained}} template is used by several projects and individuals, and all I see this group doing is urging editors to maintain articles. Maybe the page could be better phrased, but I see nothing wrong with the idea or the practice. John Carter 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Then how do you explain the bottom article listings? It seems like it's one user per article, which flies in the face of {{ maintained}}. The maintained template is already enough; no need for a page like this which can promote article ownership. — O ( 说 • 喝) 23:14, 25 September 2007 (GMT)
    • I actually would prefer this page rather than the template, with this page, you can say, oh, no one is keeping an eye on I-29. -- Holderca1 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, rather strongly, as the rationale for deletion is either a) wrong, or b) not convincing (take your pick). The premise of the page is well-intentioned for a WikiProject with the size and scope of U.S. Roads; if any WP:OWN issues arise, talk them out with the particular editor. There is simply no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater by making grand (and unsupported) statements accusing editors of article ownership. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 06:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, whether there is currently only one user per article or not, there is nothing stopping additional individuals from maintaining the same article. Perhaps it should be restructured to list each article, then have the users that maintain it listed afterwards? -- Holderca1 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep If there are concerns about WP:OWN even in light of the "This doesn't constitute ownership", then perhaps the disclaimer can be reworded. But I don't see any grounds for deletion here. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 23:14, 26 September 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.