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: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Links: jw-media.org to jw.org[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Links: jw-media.org to jw.org (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This stale project-related page appears to have been abandoned by its creator. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as far as I can tell, the research that went into the page is still valid. The wikiproject is semi-active and the page itself is not causing any harm. --Whpq (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the articles that I checked so far no longer have the original link/source at all. Many of the 'suggestions' have no suggested alternative target. There are bots that take care of linking to archive sites. I will check the remainder of the referenced articles as time permits, and then the page will no longer have any purpose. Note that this discussion only relates to the subpage, not the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page along with its history is still an historical artifact of the wikiproject. I see no good reason to remove this. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that the page is some important 'historical artifact' is simply wrong. The page was created as a utility to resolve links to an old website. It isn't some 'monument to history'. The original creator of the page explicitly stated that they had no intention of cleaning up the links himself. I am the only editor who made any attempt to take action to clean up the links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appropriate WikiProject subpage. If old, it can be archived. Whether archived, or deleted, that is the business of the WikiProject members, outsiders should not try to manage wikiprojects from outside, especially not page-by-page. Deleting the historical pages is actually disruptive to management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm part of the JW WikiProject and you presumably are not, should I go with your advice of ignoring outsiders and just have it speedy deleted?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least say so. Do you speak for the WikiProject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jeffro77, how do we, MfD reviewers, know that you are not a random troublemaker deleting random pages. "stale" "appears to have been abandoned" are throwaway terms for many nominators who don't give much thought to what they are doing. A standard response is "what makes the content stale", and can you look a bit harder than at "appearances", abandoned means author is on a wikibreak? Is there any ongoing possibile interest or WikiProject-historical interest? I'd ask you to at least think about these things from the perspective of a deletion request reviewer. You do appear active in the WikiProject, with more than twice as many talk page posts as the number 2. So, based on that, support whatever User:Jeffro77 thinks best for the management of his WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with the subpage's History. Or the WikiProject page history. Or the fact that the page creator explicitly stated on the page that he wouldnt make the changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did those things, and failed to see a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice non sequitur. But your actual question I answered was "how do we, MfD reviewers, know that you are not a random troublemaker deleting random pages." Though the reasons for deletion were indeed also evident from the description and page history.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also useful is the report at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses. Thanks for revising your vote. —PaleoNeonate – 15:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nomination by a main contributor of the project, old maintenance page which is obsolete. If wanting to see the current coverage of an old link, a simple insource or link search can be used. —PaleoNeonate – 18:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm going with the editor in the Wikiproject that's done the legwork on this. Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2017 (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.