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.
Previous discussion occurred at the deletion review. The above diff is one way of reading that discussion. Another way is to read
this version, which is the one that existed just before the review was closed. I hope those voting here will read the previous (rather extensive) discussion. If it would help, I can do a short summary of my main arguments and proposals on how to resolve this.
Carcharoth13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep I am persuaded by the argument that rejection of a troll's proposal is preferable to automatic deletion (for the record my opinion is that this proposal should be rejected immediately as redundant to existing policies)
Yomanganitalk13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. While I personally do not agree with the proposed new policy, it does cover a concern that has been raised by multiple parties over the months and the page is best handled by the normal procedures for new policy proposals. --Allen3talk13:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - The page and its proposal are factually redundant to existing policy pages, but it does no harm to point out to people why statistics fall at the bottom of the continuum, "lies, damn lies, and statistics," even though it basically does say nothing new. A little editing to remove the "policy" points and retitling or moving to a subpage of
Wikipedia:Citing sources wouldn't be out of line.
Badbilltucker13:53, 11 October 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.
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.
Previous discussion occurred at the deletion review. The above diff is one way of reading that discussion. Another way is to read
this version, which is the one that existed just before the review was closed. I hope those voting here will read the previous (rather extensive) discussion. If it would help, I can do a short summary of my main arguments and proposals on how to resolve this.
Carcharoth13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep I am persuaded by the argument that rejection of a troll's proposal is preferable to automatic deletion (for the record my opinion is that this proposal should be rejected immediately as redundant to existing policies)
Yomanganitalk13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. While I personally do not agree with the proposed new policy, it does cover a concern that has been raised by multiple parties over the months and the page is best handled by the normal procedures for new policy proposals. --Allen3talk13:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - The page and its proposal are factually redundant to existing policy pages, but it does no harm to point out to people why statistics fall at the bottom of the continuum, "lies, damn lies, and statistics," even though it basically does say nothing new. A little editing to remove the "policy" points and retitling or moving to a subpage of
Wikipedia:Citing sources wouldn't be out of line.
Badbilltucker13:53, 11 October 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.