Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Falun Gong/Objectionable edits


 * 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 Sole author requested deletion. NAC. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Falun Gong/Objectionable edits
This is an attack page, naming individuals who remove content from Falun Gong articles. The only imaginable use is to create drama. The word "objectionable" being a specific case in point - objectionable to whom? what criteria are to be applied? Why are editors named? The diffs appear to highlight differences of opinions about whether something belongs to a given article. Such content disputes belong in the relevant Falun Gong article, not on a sub-page. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: for reasons given above. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's perfectly reasonable for the user who created the page to put its contents on the discussion page. There is no need to create a subpage. Colipon+ (Talk) 05:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: actually, I just started putting them at Falun Gong/diffs -- and was going to collect diffs to stuff that had been removed and can be used later, and also to diffs that I find objectionable, like those of Simonm223 or whoever. If you want it elsewhere, like on a subpage of my username, that's fine too. Or I can even cram it somewhere else on the gigantic internet. It's not a bad faith attempt to do attack anyone. Editors who routinely break wikipedia's content guidelines on NPOV, RS, and tendentious editing will have their edits documented in an open forum. I'm not going to waste time going back through diffs in a few months from now; I'm collecting it as it takes place. The best thing, of course, is for people not to do things that violate policy. And whether or not they violate policy can be judged by arbcom or whoever is best suited to make such judgements. --Asdfg12345 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll close this MfD for you. Please be careful even moving this to your userspace... material about other editor's actions that you find objectionable is often considered inappropriate even in user space.   I think it would be best to keep this information off-wiki until an actual ArbCom case were opened, if it came to that. Gigs (talk) 18:57, 13 August 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.