- 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 speedy keep (non-admin closure) Valoem talk contrib 20:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Footnote: OP since blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. ( talk) 12:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep you've got to be kidding on this one. Essays, even opposition essays, are valid keepers. I am the original author but others have contributed (I haven't made an edit on this one since 2008). Exactly how does this essay misrepresent established policy (just saying it is so does not make it so). If it did, then editing is the first path, not deletion. Between 250-500 articles (mostly Wikipedia: or Talk:) link to this essay. Clearly it is widely used and widely read. Also, its inclusion on the Notability navigation template shows that it has been peer reviewed by other Wikipedians and found worthy enough to be made easily accessible to the population.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep No compelling deletion reason given. It sounds more like "I don't like it" rather than a valid reason. Intothat darkness 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Nomination does not state a cogent reason for deletion; the essay provides some guidance to editors in intepretation of policy. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (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 speedy keep (non-admin closure) Valoem talk contrib 20:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Footnote: OP since blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. ( talk) 12:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep you've got to be kidding on this one. Essays, even opposition essays, are valid keepers. I am the original author but others have contributed (I haven't made an edit on this one since 2008). Exactly how does this essay misrepresent established policy (just saying it is so does not make it so). If it did, then editing is the first path, not deletion. Between 250-500 articles (mostly Wikipedia: or Talk:) link to this essay. Clearly it is widely used and widely read. Also, its inclusion on the Notability navigation template shows that it has been peer reviewed by other Wikipedians and found worthy enough to be made easily accessible to the population.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep No compelling deletion reason given. It sounds more like "I don't like it" rather than a valid reason. Intothat darkness 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Nomination does not state a cogent reason for deletion; the essay provides some guidance to editors in intepretation of policy. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (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.