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 Delete. Although it is typical practice to mark failed proposals with "rejected" tags, there is a clear consensus here to override typical practice in consideration of the "poll's" very poor quality. Xoloz 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete: This was a very complex and confusing attempt at resolving ongoing lengthy debates about WP:NC:CITY#United_States (e.g., just about every edit shown here is related to the issue as well as neverending move request debates for San Francisco, California, Seattle, Washington, Boston, Massachusetts...). This tangled strawpoll was initiated by Ericsaindon2 ( talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who has now been banned for a full year for a variety of reasons, among which is plowing forward like a bulldozer no matter what anyone says or thinks. This, IMHO, is another case of that behavior. Several people, including myself, have stated in this page's talk that the layout of this straw poll is useless and misses the point and the chance of it having any real effect is WP:SNOWBALL. With Ericsaindon2 not even present to kick the strawpoll off in the first place, I vote we get rid of it before it makes matters even worse. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: BTW, if someone wants to try to get a real convention change in place, feel free. But the first step to fixing this straw poll would be to blank the entire page IMHO - and therefore it just needs to be deleted. If someone blanks it and starts over with a better attempt, I'm more than happy to end this WP:MFD early. — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Normal policy on the Wikipedia is to save even the failed policy proposals, but mark them as such. This one, however, is such a poorly thoughtout policy proposal that it may be best just to delete it. I was going to make this just a comment, but then decided that there is no reason to save the page, except as an example of bad policy making, and so I decided that it was better to delete it. ^{Blank Verse}
  • Comment: This was going to be worse than a failed policy proposal - it was going to be a failed straw poll that would have only served as a further disruption. If it were rewritten, maybe it could have garnered a failed policy proposal. :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's a needless split from the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), further complicating an already complicated subject. Kafziel 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I cannot speak for Ericsaindon2, but I think this poll was inspired after I posted a message about another ongoing poll/debate. (He had also started Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll, and has shown his POV on its talk page as well.) Instead of voicing his opinion on the U.S. convention change page (and perhaps not wanting to read all that material), he created this poll which is based on his own subjective critieria on city naming. The Communities Strawpoll should also be voided, or if desired, be restarted the right way through discussion then voting. (I think that's how the construction of a strawpoll works, correct me if I'm wrong.) Tinlinkin 00:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but tag it with {{ rejected}} or at least with {{ historical}}. Even badly thought-out proposals should be preserved so that we can learn from them. In fact, it may be that we can learn the most from the poorly crafted proposals. I would tag it rejected and explicitly link to this discussion of the poll's weaknesses. I think that it's often more important to explicitly reject them than to attempt to hide them from view. Rossami (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I might agree except it wasn't really rejected - it just kinda never happened. It was a bad idea that almost no one cared about and never got off the ground. It wasn't even a proposal, just a strawpoll attempt. — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That sounds like a wiki-rejection to me. And even if it weren't, this discussion certainly counts as a formal rejection of the strawpoll. Rossami (talk)
      • But {{rejected}} is for proposals, not for straw polls. Kafziel 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. 1ne 23:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete i am new to this debate and i agree that well known cities such as Boston and San Francisco should be stand alone names without the state. However, well known is not decided by population as this straw poll seems to surimise. A preferable approach would be to come up with a short list of US cities that are notable or unique enough to warrant and exception clause in the policy pages. Clearly NYC sets a precedent for this but how many others? And lets not focus on population size. David D. (Talk) 20:17, 7 September 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.