Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disruption

This page duplicates material better stated elsewhere. uc 18:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page's name is of limited utility, the content quickly digresses and is redundant with other pages, the page has no non-index links to it. We have far too many pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and it's long past time to cull the herd so that people can actually find the useful policies and instructions there. --Michael Snow 17:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of embarrassed to find that I participated in the previous VfD discussion cited by Angela, which I did not specifically remember, and that I'm taking a stronger stance in favor of deletion. To mitigate my apparent inconsistency, I would say the passage of time and lack of activity has now demonstrated that the page is definitely a useless relic, which I wasn't sure of before. I also still agree that redirecting could serve just as well. --Michael Snow 23:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Largely for the later reasons Michael Snow cites: the name space is so large a thicket that it's hard to navigate, hard to find, and hard to know.  There is nothing wrong with the text here, IMO, but it's not the article that we use for discussing reverting edits, etc., so it was probably a proposal or draft that just didn't win popular support.  Cull. Geogre 18:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with Mr. Snow. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Or redirect as per Angela. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. This has been on VfD before, but no one cares about the page enough to comment on the redirect proposal made nearly a month ago, so it may as well be deleted. Angela. 23:51, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)