Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1




 * 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 something lame from CBW 12:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1
This is a duplicate of Talk:Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1, and is an archive for the page Talk:Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake, not Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake, so should not exist. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a capable admin to sort out the mess, including G6 deletions as required. Looks like a fair WP:CSD, but I am bothered that IPs are creating archives (I thought they couldn't create pages), and are maintaining talk archives.  This is a recipe for confusion.  Recommend employing a bot to autoarchive.  I don't see a good reason to have archived to start with.  The page is not long or old.  Where the problem was a duplication of the article onto the talk page, a solution would be to remove the duplication.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why IPs should not be allowed to create archives, it's just like any other maintenance function that IPs are allowed to do (like this MfD). It's been discussed at VP before, and it determined it was okay for IPs to archive talk pages. Talk page creation is allowed for IPs. Non-talk is disallowed. How would you ever make comments about an article if the talk page didn't previously exist? Or communicate with users, if their user talk did not exist? As for this particular archive, the original archive was the suggestion to create the original page location (Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake) which occurred on its talk page before the page existed (which should not occur, since that's why we have WP:AFC, but it happened anyway, so that's moot) As this involved a dead discussion (what to put onto the page before it was created), it was archived (to Talk:Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1). However this archive was then copied to Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1 - which isn't the page to which it is an archive for, so clearly inappropriate. Bot mediated archival also do not work for improperly formatted talk pages. If a section is not timestamped, a bot will never archive it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, IPs can create new pages in the talk namespace, I didn't know that. OK, creating talk pages for existing pages makes sense.  If a talk page is not formatted properly, fix it.   If a section is not timestamped, and it should be, then time stamp it.  I still don't think there was a good reason to archive anything here.  Premature and erroneous archiving causes much more of a problem than having a moderately large page.  I have no problem with IPs editing mainspace or participating in discussions, but my personal opinion is that if you want to get into administration, then register a username and use it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone wrote an essay about that, WP:IP!=VANDAL (It needs a better shortcut, if you're not discussing vandal assumptions...) where it it is stated than an IP editor was nominated to become an administrator... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. My opinion is that all archiving here should be reverted, the archives deleted, and the duplicated text removed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 13 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.