Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do worry about performance
- 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: Keep, marking historical. — xaosflux Talk 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a 10-year-old "quick draft to be expanded later" created by a user who was indefinitely blocked and thus will never expand it. No substantive edits to the page since 2012. Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep (possibly in userspace): I for one like having these old essays and other WP: pages around. They give the wiki a bit of character, and while they may be obsolete as actual guidelines they do no harm as long as they have a “historical” tag on top. User:GKFXtalk 00:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep — should be marked as historical, but it's not doing any harm. — csc-1 00:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Userfy, despite the creator being indeffed. This doesn't deserve the implicit approval of projectspace, but isn't so incoherent or dangerous as to demand deletion. Vaticidalprophet 05:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Userfy and Mark Historical. Part completed draft that is incomplete, a decade out of date, and directly contradicts the instructions from the WMF that normal editors should not be worrying about performance. The editors who work in areas where performance is important (i.e. template editors, interface administrators, bot operators etc) should have sufficient knowledge of the site to avoid creating major issues, and there are much better places to get advice on issues than an "I told you so" essay from a decade ago. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Userfy and Mark Historical as per above comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Project related essay. Could be merged into Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, but it is accepted to have an essay and counter essay. Could be improved, but note that there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Retain in some form per above. No need to obscure the seemingly non-problematic history and content (itself) from public view through deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, or at the very least Userfy + Mark Historical as second choice. The advice in this essay is simply incorrect, not "another opinion" that merely didn't find consensus. We wouldn't keep around false essays like Wikipedia:Books are unreliable sources or Wikipedia:Avoid capital letters or the servers get clogged. There's no value, and minor harm, in keeping this in the Wikipedia space. SnowFire (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (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.