- 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 Delete. Courcelles 09:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Antiquette
Previously marked as failed proposal per common sense, but I see know no reason to keep it around, as this page has no historical value, meaningful content or discussion. This really was never even a proposal, it was just created from User:Porchcrop/Antiquette without any discussion. If it's not tolerable in Porchcrop's userspace, why should it be tolerable in the WP namespace? Swarm Talk 02:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
See also:
/ ƒETCH COMMS / 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for same reason as the userpage version. -- Jayron 32 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom; no idea what this was even supposed to be. We have WP:WQA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Keeping this page does serve the purpose of documenting that this proposed process was rejected, and why it was rejected. Deleting would not serve these purposes adequately. Mind you, this is a single-user proposal, and the single user seems bent on supplying reasons not to tolerate this material, so this is a weak keep at best. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Normally this is the case, but in this circumstance, I don't think the creation of this page qualifies as a proposal. There was no discussion whatsoever; it was created without discussion and received unanimous opposition by the community. As I said above, it has no historical value, even as a "failed proposal". Sw♠rm Talk 02:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Absolutely against How Wikipedia Works. Insular groups of people chastising others? please. Hit lists of 'bad users'? Hell no. Just... no. And the user doesn't get it, based on recent responses. Additionally I am quite convinced that the user is a reincarnation, though of whom I am unsure. Also what Swarm said. → ROUX ₪ 02:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- do not delete, but userfy as failed. In general, deleting ideas or proposals because "they are bad ideas" is bad because it would doom the community to repeat the same mistakes. It is, however, a bad idea. As it has only a single user proponent, it should be userfied, and in this case, if it remains live, the {{
failed}} tag should remain at the top. Ideally,
Porchcrop (
talk ·
contribs) will {{
db-g7}} it, but it is Porchcrop's responsibility. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is on a userpage already, and there's a strong consensus to delete that page. Sw♠rm Talk 07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This documents Wikipedia's history and should be kept for that reason alone. I see no need to userfy either. __ meco ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)- It's not Wikipedia's history. Any editor can put anything they want into the WP namespace, that doesn't mean it should all be automatically kept as "history". It was created five days ago with no discussion, garnered no support, was never taken seriously, and was marked as failed with the justification of
WP:IAR. This is about as historically worthless as it gets.
Sw♠rm
Talk
07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm striking my vote. __ meco ( talk) 08:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia's history. Any editor can put anything they want into the WP namespace, that doesn't mean it should all be automatically kept as "history". It was created five days ago with no discussion, garnered no support, was never taken seriously, and was marked as failed with the justification of
WP:IAR. This is about as historically worthless as it gets.
Sw♠rm
Talk
07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Swarm. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ( Contact) 10:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It has already been pointed out that we have WP:WQA and, so, this page is superfluous at best; besides, there's no reason to keep it as historical either, as Swarm explains very well above. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as it adds no value, and could potentially confuse newish editors into trying to participate. Townlake ( talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a failed proposal - well, it wasn't even a proper proposal. A single-user forum for bitching about other people, which was summarily (and properly) dismissed as an idea by the community? No thank you. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes, as Hut 8.5 says below, delete Wikipedia:Antiquette/Members too. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete an awful proposal with no meaningful discussion surrounding it, just a load of editors saying what an awful idea it was. It has no historical value. Wikipedia:Antiquette/Members ought to be deleted as well. Hut 8.5 09:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless and would serve no purpose userfied. This is in essence an attack page and inherently promotes the listing of users one dislikes, so no place for it is appropriate, offending content present or not. / ƒETCH COMMS / 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - if the user later asks for a user copy of the text, no objection to providing it. FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Delete. Courcelles 09:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Antiquette
Previously marked as failed proposal per common sense, but I see know no reason to keep it around, as this page has no historical value, meaningful content or discussion. This really was never even a proposal, it was just created from User:Porchcrop/Antiquette without any discussion. If it's not tolerable in Porchcrop's userspace, why should it be tolerable in the WP namespace? Swarm Talk 02:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
See also:
/ ƒETCH COMMS / 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for same reason as the userpage version. -- Jayron 32 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom; no idea what this was even supposed to be. We have WP:WQA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 02:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Keeping this page does serve the purpose of documenting that this proposed process was rejected, and why it was rejected. Deleting would not serve these purposes adequately. Mind you, this is a single-user proposal, and the single user seems bent on supplying reasons not to tolerate this material, so this is a weak keep at best. —
Gavia immer (
talk)
02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Normally this is the case, but in this circumstance, I don't think the creation of this page qualifies as a proposal. There was no discussion whatsoever; it was created without discussion and received unanimous opposition by the community. As I said above, it has no historical value, even as a "failed proposal". Sw♠rm Talk 02:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Absolutely against How Wikipedia Works. Insular groups of people chastising others? please. Hit lists of 'bad users'? Hell no. Just... no. And the user doesn't get it, based on recent responses. Additionally I am quite convinced that the user is a reincarnation, though of whom I am unsure. Also what Swarm said. → ROUX ₪ 02:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- do not delete, but userfy as failed. In general, deleting ideas or proposals because "they are bad ideas" is bad because it would doom the community to repeat the same mistakes. It is, however, a bad idea. As it has only a single user proponent, it should be userfied, and in this case, if it remains live, the {{
failed}} tag should remain at the top. Ideally,
Porchcrop (
talk ·
contribs) will {{
db-g7}} it, but it is Porchcrop's responsibility. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is on a userpage already, and there's a strong consensus to delete that page. Sw♠rm Talk 07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This documents Wikipedia's history and should be kept for that reason alone. I see no need to userfy either. __ meco ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)- It's not Wikipedia's history. Any editor can put anything they want into the WP namespace, that doesn't mean it should all be automatically kept as "history". It was created five days ago with no discussion, garnered no support, was never taken seriously, and was marked as failed with the justification of
WP:IAR. This is about as historically worthless as it gets.
Sw♠rm
Talk
07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm striking my vote. __ meco ( talk) 08:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia's history. Any editor can put anything they want into the WP namespace, that doesn't mean it should all be automatically kept as "history". It was created five days ago with no discussion, garnered no support, was never taken seriously, and was marked as failed with the justification of
WP:IAR. This is about as historically worthless as it gets.
Sw♠rm
Talk
07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Swarm. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ( Contact) 10:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It has already been pointed out that we have WP:WQA and, so, this page is superfluous at best; besides, there's no reason to keep it as historical either, as Swarm explains very well above. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as it adds no value, and could potentially confuse newish editors into trying to participate. Townlake ( talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a failed proposal - well, it wasn't even a proper proposal. A single-user forum for bitching about other people, which was summarily (and properly) dismissed as an idea by the community? No thank you. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes, as Hut 8.5 says below, delete Wikipedia:Antiquette/Members too. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete an awful proposal with no meaningful discussion surrounding it, just a load of editors saying what an awful idea it was. It has no historical value. Wikipedia:Antiquette/Members ought to be deleted as well. Hut 8.5 09:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless and would serve no purpose userfied. This is in essence an attack page and inherently promotes the listing of users one dislikes, so no place for it is appropriate, offending content present or not. / ƒETCH COMMS / 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - if the user later asks for a user copy of the text, no objection to providing it. FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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.