Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Buddhism/Revised

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. In my capacity as an editor, however, I'll follow Cunard's advice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism/Revised


Delete. Abandoned draft. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – its history contains 149 revisions and its mentioned quite a bit at Talk:Buddhism/Archive 9, especially in the sections "Regarding the sandbox version" and "can we please make the neutrality dispute more visible on this talk page?". I just can't understand what harm it's doing and why all its edits need to be made inaccessible to non-admins. Graham 87 10:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, its mention in the talk page means we need to keep this. Make sure any article specific categories and maintenance templates are deleted, though. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Violates Subpages. Also, there a time limit on writing drafts of major article revisions. Since the last edit to the Buddhism/Revised article was 9 November 2010, that time limit ended long ago.‎ Any Buddhism/Revised consensus material was incorporated into the Buddhism article long ago. It's important to turn the editors attention to the article itself rather than memorializing how things could have went differently. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, blank, and tag as historical. Because the material at Talk:Buddhism/Revised may have been used to formulate the current article, it should be kept to satisfy the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing requirements. Blank because as notes, it violates Subpages in its current form. Keep because of the licensing requirements and because of 's argument that the page is referenced many times at Talk:Buddhism/Archive 9 and should not be made inaccessible to non-admins. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cunard solution - seems like to easiest way to deal with the issues at hand. Achowat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2012 (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.