The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was speedy keep. David | Talk 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC) I'm closing this early due to the votes cast, and because the nominator appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the page nominated for deletion. reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters

Edit counters should be discouraged, as edit counting leads to people focusing on the numeric quantity versus the quality of their contributions. We shouldn't have a project promoting them as they are antipathetic towards Wikipedia's best interests of an environment where quality is valued over mere oneupmanship through numerical figures. I consequently think this project should be deleted. Remember, editcountitis can be fatal. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Editcountitis is a necessary evil. -- Tantalum T e lluride 03:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. (what he said) I hate Edit counters but how will i know i have enough edits for AWB without one. We can have a Disclamer for edit counters like on Edit counting but removing the whole article does not adress the isuue properly. (Is there such a thing as Speedy Keep. if thier is that my vote) -- E-Bod 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. The project was created because there were several tools coming into life at the time Kate's Tool crashed quite a while ago. I don't see how the systemic problem of editcountitis will be resolved by deleting a page whose whole purpose is to coordinate efforts already underway to satisfy the demands and features Wikipedians ask for. Also, it is an active WikiProject, and those are just not deleted at all. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 03:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Editcountitis may be fatal, but you can't cure a cold by sticking plugs in the sufferer's nostrils. -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 08:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, we don't delete pages that someone has a mild philosophical disagreement with. Also, can we BJAODN xFDs? -- Interiot 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Interiot. Computerjoe 's talk 11:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Zomg, BAD FAITH NOMINATION, lol. — Apr. 13, '06 [12:59] < freakofnur_xture | talk>
• Keep -- That Guy, From That Show! ^{( talk)}
• Keep. Henrik 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - you're nominating the wrong article. Kill the edit counter, not the page that refers to it. Stevage 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ill-thought nomination. For one thing, some processes in WP have sufferage requirements, making edit counts vital, no matter how disliked they are by some. Xoloz 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The editcounters do more than count edits. I find the time and namespace contribution graphs very useful for working out an editors active periods and editing balance for example. Thryduulf 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As above. enochlau ( talk) 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Ter e nc e Ong 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I live off editcounters!!! Besides, don't kill off editcounters solely because some editors find it useless or even counterproductive. They have the choice to use editcounters or not, but they should not deprive the entire Wikipedia community of the privilege of using editcounters. =D Jumping cheese 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There you can find the causes of editcountitis! Definitely a useful page. -- FlyingPenguins 07:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Removing this page does nothing to prevent editcountitis. -- Tangot a ngo 08:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep - see the introduction in the project, where there's a nice warning about editcountitis that I wrote when the project first started. Don't shoot the messenger. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 15:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The way I see it they're like guns, just because people can do bad things with them doesn't mean that we should outlaw them all together. Pegasus1138 ^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Its an active wikiproject, no reason not to keep. Jedi6 -(need help?) 23:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Flcelloguy — vedant ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per Tito, especially considering that Interiot's and Kate's tools don't work right now, so we need this WikiProject to organize creation of alternate edit counters that don't use the toolserver. -- Rory 0 96 _(block) 15:59, 15 April 2006 (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.