- 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 KEEP and mark inactive -- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A failed policy (its talk page refers to it as a policy) which calls for deletion of articles with numerous maintainance templates leaving just a definition. Although it is made clear that it is kept for historical reasons, it may nevertheless lead some editors into believing that this is an acceptable process. If a user wants it in their user space that's fine, but it should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. -- SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mark as rejected. We don't delete policy proposals like this, even if they have no support, because it's best to document that the issue has come up before and failed to gain consensus. However, this one looks like it will permanently never have consensus, so marking it as rejected is useful and proper. Note that it can be historical at the same time, so the existing {{ historical}} tag doesn't override tagging it as {{ rejected}}. — Gavia immer ( talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mark as rejected. per Gavia Thanks. Ikip ( talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have marked this as rejected since this is a normal editing action. As was pointed out, we pretty much never delete good faith policy proposals, so this could probably be closed speedy keep. Gigs ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't, and shouldn't, normally delete good faith proposals. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 14 September 2009 (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 KEEP and mark inactive -- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A failed policy (its talk page refers to it as a policy) which calls for deletion of articles with numerous maintainance templates leaving just a definition. Although it is made clear that it is kept for historical reasons, it may nevertheless lead some editors into believing that this is an acceptable process. If a user wants it in their user space that's fine, but it should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. -- SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mark as rejected. We don't delete policy proposals like this, even if they have no support, because it's best to document that the issue has come up before and failed to gain consensus. However, this one looks like it will permanently never have consensus, so marking it as rejected is useful and proper. Note that it can be historical at the same time, so the existing {{ historical}} tag doesn't override tagging it as {{ rejected}}. — Gavia immer ( talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mark as rejected. per Gavia Thanks. Ikip ( talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have marked this as rejected since this is a normal editing action. As was pointed out, we pretty much never delete good faith policy proposals, so this could probably be closed speedy keep. Gigs ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't, and shouldn't, normally delete good faith proposals. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 14 September 2009 (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.