They were relevant then, they're relevant now. Vote.
A) Support: 12 Votes
B) Oppose: 6 votes
Consensus
Support
I support, duh.
They were relevant then, they're relevant now. Vote.
A) Support: 12 Votes
B) Oppose: 6 votes
Support
I support, duh.
Benboy755 wrote:
Benboy755 wrote: /how/ are they relevant now
b
there is literally no current information on these people who haven't been active in half a decade
So perhaps we should instead let the people who have current information have articles and let the people who don't, well, not
Benboy755 wrote:
Benboy755 wrote: /how/ are they relevant now
b
the old people have archives, giving them current articles would add nothing that the archives don't already have
Makes senses to me, A.
the old people have archives, giving them current articles would add nothing that the archives don't already have
Yeah, this
If I'm understanding this vote correctly, it seems to serve like no purpose(s) lol
B
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
The archive presents information on the user from before the 2012 update.
Benboy755 wrote:
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
The archive presents information on the user from before the 2012 update.
I know what the archives are for, i just dont see why the archives are being kept when the main articles are being deleted. if the archives are that notable to be kept, then the main article should be kept, thats what I was trying to say