Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipediology
Has been inactive for quite some time. Also, the talk of a board and a governing structure are most unsettling. ^demon[omg plz] 23:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 23:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I suggest just prod'ing this, as the creator has been inactive for over a year. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think that this should be merged into one of the relative projects. If I left a message on this person's talk, I can do something quick. Laleena 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's been inactive for a year, and the idea of "Wikipediology" is a relic of the past, I would hope. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is history of Wikipedia. `'Míkka 17:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - already tagged as inactive, no reason to take any further action. Not doing any harm; deleting could only cause confusion and hassle. — xDanielx T/C 02:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I remember this, it was supposed to be a subpage of Esperanza but it was rejected there I believe and quickly became inactive. It was an horrible idea to begin with, and Wikipedia is not a beurocracy and examples of those should be deleted, not preserved. Jbeach sup 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy the essays listed under Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays, delete the rest of the bureaucruft surrounding them. the wub "?!" 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: User:^demon requested my input in this debate; thus my gloriously bureaucratic and authoritarian assimilationist opinion is that retired Wikipedians, such as myself, shouldn't vote in these debates and that their opinions are irrelevant as their knowledge of current policy is often out of date. Now, if you’ll excuse me I have shuffleboard with a plastic pink flamingo in Boca Raton. - JCarriker 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)