Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups

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 discussion was blank content related to past discussion (that is all except the header templates). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups

After a discussion at WP:AN about some of the inactive noticeboards I have been reviewing the list of them and closing a few that seemed inactive. However, after taking a closer look at the revision history of this particular board I found that, despite what it looks like, it never really was an active noticeboard. It was created in 2012. Another user made some minor edits. The creator came back a month later and made a few more edits. A year later a user posted a request there that was never responded to. Yesterday it was closed. That's it. That is the entire history of this noticeboard. From its creation tot this nomination some 18 months later it had a grand total of 21 edits, almost all of them by the same user who created it. It was never used by the community at large so there really isn't a "historical" reason to keep it around. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already marked as inactive, and it was clearly used to track clean up issues, even if for not that long. I don't see any reason to delete this, but perhaps we need some category and template cleanup so it doesn't show up where it shouldn't. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A more precise link to the WP:AN discussion would be appreciated. That missing information in the nomination pushes me to "Keep", can you please link to the discussion. I've tried searching and not found it. I'd have recommended bold userfication to User:Fifelfoo/Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups and blanking, where Fifelfoo can {{db-u1}} it if he wishes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Abuse response, but it did not specifically mention this particular page. I personally find it compelling that the one single user who ever used this is currently active and was informed of this discussion but has not felt compelled to speak a word in its defense. It seems pretty clear to me that this was something created and then abandoned without ever really doing anything or being a real part of the community's common resources. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank everything apart from the {{historical}} {{imbox}} and {{Noticeboard links}} at the top. Unused so no point in keeping the text on display, but nothing gained by making the history only available to administrators. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:21, 4 December 2013 (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.