Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination)

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The result of the discussion was Keep per the pile of snow and the nom was withdrawn. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review[edit]

I am nominating the editor review page for deletion. It is, unfortunately, incredibly little-used. Editors post their requests for review and receive no response whatsoever. I posted a request several months ago; traffic was so quiet on the page I completely forgot about it. Upon perusal of other requests, I found no evidence that anyone has replied to them. If you look at the page history, the vast majority of edits within the past five months are from AnomieBot, while the others are from people posting or removing unanswered requests.

Basically, this process is useless and receives no reviewer traffic anymore. I would suggest that some sort of "review request" page be made, which experienced editors could check over, but this page is a waste of space and, unfortunately, a waste of time. dci | TALK 20:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the response below, which I have come to agree entirely with, I'll withdraw the nom and will presently move transclude this discussion onto the talk page. dci | TALK 03:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, this page receives very little traffic if any at all now. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 04:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the process isn't working it should be marked historical, but that is a discussion for a different page. It should not be deleted as it was used extensively in the past and should be retained for that historical perspective. GB fan 12:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark historical. As already pointed out, it was a process used in the past by a significant number of people. That should be preserved. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark historical and delete or redirect all unfinished requests. The fact that some have sat since last year and haven't been touched is alarming. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and instigate a discussion on whether to mark historical. What would be the benefit in deleting it? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The action required here is to discuss whether the editor review process is a useful one that would justify editors spending time conducting reviews; and if so, how to get more participation from reviewers (bearing in mind that the community's time is a finite and precious resource, so we need to prioritize among Wikipedia-space processes). I am quite unsure that MfD is the right forum for this discussion, however, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not a useful one if no one's bothering to do anything here. Any efforts I've seen in the past to increase participation in any forum (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for expansion) have utterly failed and only led to said forum getting marked historical. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss marking historical, as it was used frequently in the past. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss per above. Additionally, we should discuss possible ways of making the page functional, because while it isn't active and doesn't work as it should, it has a useful purpose for the project that could be quite beneficial. —Rutebega (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss I agree with the nom that this is lowly used and not frequently seen wherein the traffic is so quiet. However, this page is just somewhat inactive. It doesn't commit violations against WP policies. Marking this page for historical would be better than deleting this page. Also, as per SarekOfVulcan and Rutebega points, we should discuss this page's marking for historical to know that this page is really inactive. Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Traffic may be low because many editors considering an RFA don't know it's available and those who have passed an RFA don't see this as a chance to "give back" to the community. With RFA reform a possibility, editor review is an especially useful tool for potential admins before requesting (or accepting) a nomination. Miniapolis 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is supposed to be for editor review, not pre-RFA review. KTC (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's both. When an editor wants to know if they'd be ready for RfA, they're often sent here. It's a lot better than people submitting RfA's just to test the waters. —Rutebega (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rutebega; editor review has been used as a de facto pre-RFA vetting. Miniapolis 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of deleting, begin a discussion about marking this page as historical. - ʈucoxn\^talk 23:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps mark as historical - Significant usage dating back to 2006. Useful for editors, and would greatly reduce a stack of WP:NOTNOW closures at RfA. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps with discussion about reform. We don't have enough people who come by to actively review, which means that people who are interested in being reviewed should be more proactive. I've done a fair few reviews in my time, and looking at the page there are at least a few who have been reviewed, generally people who have advertised their review on their user/talk pages or have actively asked for review. Unfortunately, I have less time these days, but I'd be against removing pretty much the only voluntary review process on the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep' no valid reason for deletion outlined by the nominator. Discussing the traffic of the page, or marking it as historical is a talk page matter and MFD, like AFD is not cleanup. As for my opinion, we should have an RFC on this, at one point the editor review process was one of the most active namespace pages, and still can be used in a useful matter, especially with the discussion of RFA reform going on right now. Secret ^account 04:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have withdrawn the actual deletion nom; this was done prior to a few of the more recent !votes. I transcluded the discussion to WT:editor review with hopes that discussion will continue there. dci | TALK 04:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While DCI2026 has withdrawn the nomination, my perusal of the pages indicates we have a greater level of participation. Well, to promote ER and to help clear the backlog, I recommend: 1. provide a nice userbox that says "This editor contributes as an Editor Reviewer". 2. Add a proviso to the Adminship vetting process that says "Experience in conducting Editor Reviews is appreciated/favorable/recommended/required/whatever." – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there now, or could we create, a project dedicated to editor education and improvement? It seems logical. —Rutebega (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked through the page but cannot find such a template. Only the "Editor on review" (as in "being reviewed") templates. The talk page has an ER logo, which might be used to decorate my proposed userbox. As for a project, I'll be looking for such a project later today. Another thought – I have not looked, but is there an ER barnstar? – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 15 February 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.