Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Qatar: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Qatar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This one is already above 2Mb, with the same 84K added by bot every few days. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easy fix – Would’ve been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn’t used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I just said I wasn’t going to follow up on these further, but then I saw this: If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only – The change is just to remove the template at the top. That would turn it into a static page. If anyone wants to resume bot edits, they can restore the template. This seems like a reasonable thing to me for cases of pages created by inactive users and such, although I think Will (Wiki Ed) indicated they may still be using these equity lists? I don’t know the background. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, causing a lot of ever-accumulating crap to be created, and we are now in a position to apply an easy fix, which was already identified prior to the second purported easy fix being put forward. It is the first easy fix (deletion) that I recommend.—Alalch E. 16:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. I don’t necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don’t see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren’t advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider possible BLP (this was brought up in a previous discussion) issues to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created then it’s possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That being said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]