Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics

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 debate was Keep Consensus to mark {{historical}} as a result of this MFD is not founded, but if it meets that criteria that could always be added by editors, with tagging disputes brought to it's talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Clinic for Wikipediholics

This doesn't help Wikiholics fight their addiction. It is just a list of people with addiction but no help is given to them. It is unused and unneeded and nearly dead. Marlith ^T/C 17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm inclined to agree. Pretty much dead, and doesn't appear to be serving any purpose. GlassCobra 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did see the humor tag, right? At any rate, I find it funny, and see no reason for it to be deleted. i ^(talk) 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Serving no purpose, nearly dead. Having a {{humor}} tag doesn't make it immune from deleting it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. The tone of the nomination made it seem as if he expected it to be an actual help page. I was making sure. i ^(talk) 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It serves no purpose, all it does is collect a list of people who are wikipediholics, but it does nothing. Take one wikibreak and call me in the morning. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to help out with these addicts that would be good, but it is just a list that grows on and on and on. Marlith ^T/C 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & Move to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic/Clinic for Wikipediholics. How is this harming anything? If this was just created in the past month or so, maybe; but it has been there for four years. Seems like a bit of WP history and I am not interested in being involved in seeing it vanish without a trace.--12 Noon 02:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As an alternative in the case of a failing MfD, we could put a {{Historical}} on it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason given to delete, beside wp:idontlikeit. It is not very active? So what. Rare edits is not a reason to delete anything. It doesn't help? Who says? Maybe just seeing this page helps some people, who knows. If no arguments or evidence is advanced that it is negative or at the very least does absolutely no good, there is justification to do anything but at most tag it "historical"--victor falk 03:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Victor falk and 12 Noon, it may actually help some people, and help could always be provided (if asked for). And a historical tag would be the alternative. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I just came across this, and I think it's brilliant. I don't know if WP:ILIKEIT applies equally to MfD discussions, but I'm not sure I care. Keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clearly stated that it is humorous. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:06, 2 November 2007 (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.