Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Mwb in lab.JPG




 * 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  delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Mwb in lab.JPG
Ok, this is an odd one. This was previously deleted, and then restored for reasons not made entirely clear in the log. Then it was blanked by an ip and tagged for speedy deletion. Since this was speedied before and then restored, I'm bringing it here for discussion, but I see no benefit in retaining this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As the file is not being deleted, deleting its talk page is rather useless. It is unusual to delete article or file talk pages as far as I can tell.   Does the talk violate something? Not that I can tell. Collect (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll elaborate a bit on my reasoning: If you go to the page and try to edit it, a big fat edit notice pops up explaining what the page is not for, and it says in part that it is not for "general comments on the image or its subject, e.g. "aww, how cute" (Wikipedia is not a forum)." This is a discussion page for a file that is not even hosted on en.Wikipedia, it's on Commons, and the talk is just two unsigned drive-by postings that are not an appropriate use of the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep content is harmless, and useless, but was added against the advice of the edit notice. But there is no clear reason to remove it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't? The first remark is basically vandalism, not in any way an attempt to discuss the image, and the other is just an observation and not related to... well anything remotely relevant to this image's use on this project. Most files don't have a discussion page, they are a type of page whose creation is actually discouraged. As we all seem to agree that it is useless, what point is there in retaining it? It's not going to keep me up at night with worry if this ends up being kept, but I have to say I'm surprised that anyone would argue to keep such a pointless page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt this page will be particularly missed if it is deleted, nor do I think it will cause any harm were it to remain. If I recall correction, the reason for the deletion and the restoration was a script that MBisanz ran and received many objections to the way the deletions were carried out, so they later reversed the deletions. –xenotalk 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If everything on this page that should not be on it were removed from it, it would be a blank page.  There's no value in retaining a blank page. TJRC (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete File talk pages are not meant to be just blah blah blah about the image. As mentioned, the image is hosted on commons anyway, so having this here is even more pointless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Beeblebrox -- SPhilbrick  T  20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's a useless page that's serving no purpose whatsoever. There's no reason to keep it; conversely, there are reasons to delete it (if anything, it's one less page to watch over) --Waldir talk 10:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Am I missing something here? Why can't the page just be blanked? Tarc (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically people expect a blue link to lead to something rather than nothing. –xenotalk 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I wouldn't challenge the speedy deletion of any page in the File_talk namespace that is not clearly useful. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty darn sure I could have just deleted it and nobody would have noticed or cared, but when I saw that it had been deleted and restored already I thought I'd just cover my ass by bringing it here. Now that xeno has given some backstory it seems even more likely that nobody would have cared... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2010 (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.