Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikibooks:Wikibookians

Wikibookians
Not feasible for the current expansive state of Wikibooks and isn't really maintained. Looks very silly and useless. -Matt 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with Matt, Jguk 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. gives more accurate information.  --JMRyan T E C 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is a historic page and is something that I'm maintaining as much as it can be done. This is more of a litmus test that I use that if somebody can even find this page and add their name, they have indeed been doing a pretty reasonable job of searching Wikibooks for content and have a clue as to what is here on this project.  I think this meant something a bit more substantial at the beginning of the Wikibooks project, but I fail to see what policy this is breaking, nor do I see any harm that this is causing by its existance.  If you look at the list of pages that is liked to this page, it is quite substantial.  I guess you can call it useless as it duplicates Special:listusers, but keep in mind that feature wasn't available when Wikibooks started.  There are many other pages for Wikibooks that need to go well before this one, nor do I think this is worth worrying about.  --Rob Horning 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This page may have been useful, but now it's obsolete. I personally saw that page months ago but found it non-comprehensive, useless, and somewhat arrogant if I listed my name there. I see this page as "I'm special" and sufficiently covered by the true source, Special:Allpages. Just because there are other pages needing attention does not mean this old page of special users cannot be quickly deleted with the rest. Also, on the topic of seeing to more important matters first, maintaining this page is extra work when another source of the information is already provided. I don't think Wikibooks is meant for storing familiar pastimes either. -Matt 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other historical pages on Wikibooks that IMHO should either be "protected" and kept strictly for historical purposes or deleted as a group, rather than debating one page after another. A previous attempt to delete pages like Bureaucrat log was met with extreme resistance even though I fail to see the real reason for maintaining it.  This page I feel is equal in importance with the old log pages as well.  --Rob Horning 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral Kellen T 23:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the list might seem obsolete, but I updated the page to feature links to automatic lists (Special pages) first. --Kernigh 04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)