Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Personal relationship skills/Archive 3

 __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  Userfied In use, but in the wrong namespace given what it's being used for. Wily D 06:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Personal relationship skills/Archive 3


This is not actually the archive of a discussion page. It is a fake article, written by a single contributor, that is clearly intended as an appendix to the associated main-space article. Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: This page came to my attention when the author attempted to cite it as a reference at a sister project. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WEAK KEEP - This talk archive page does not look like an article to me. The archive pages on this main space article have been used to draft the content additions, like I have contributed to the draft addition on Talk:Personal relationship skills/Archive 1.  It seems a handy idea to me to use the archives, for searching and the like.  I expect drafting slowly like this will reduce edit-wars on the main space article.  CathMontgomery (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WEAK KEEP - This page is being used for discussions on drafts. I don't see anything linked from main-space except the drafts. (I've used "Toolbox" -> "What links here").  I'm new to Wikipedia, so not too sure of the rules, hence WEAK KEEPs from me.  What I would say is to give some time before page deletion as I vaguely remember the main contributor to the article said that they were going to a hospice for a while where they had no internet access.  But I can't see the comment any more on the main talk page, so it's just from memory.   CathMontgomery (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP


 * There is no need to delete this page. I have blanked out all my content on this page because one editor objected to it. I will not restore the information here or anywhere else.
 * I hope this helps. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * It seems ironic that the intention to reduce likelihood of deletion has resulted in an "MfD" deletion proposal.
 * As a newcomer, any advice on how to attribute opinions in main space without seeming like an advert would be much appreciated.
 * There seems to me a dichotomy between "no advert" and "attribute all opinions". I was trying to use this page to show background information while discussing additions to the main article. Advert / Opinion dichotomy...  For instance, even with adequate references the sentence - "Relate holds the view that..." could be interpreted as trying to increase the exposure of the organisation in main space.  Whereas on Talk pages these statements do not get indexed by search-engines, etc.
 * Any links to examples, guidelines or previous discussions about treading this fine line would be gratefully received. :Many thanks.   ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside that it would be really nice if the editors above learned the fairly simple conventions we use in XfD discussions (don't SPAM THE DISCUSSION WITH BOLD WORDS, try to keep comments to a single paragraph or at least not excessively spread out), there was nothing wrong with the work page pre-blanking. This is a list of references that the author is suggesting be incorporated into the article. The only real problem is that it's mistitled: it should be moved to something like Talk:Personal relationship skills/suggested references. Either that or it can be userfied. It isn't a "made-up article" and it's pretty unlikely to have been intended as an "advert" as we understand it. The pre-blanking version should be restored and the nominator gently encouraged to discuss things like this with the author prior to going to MfD with them in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit that the nomination was ungentle. I have been following the article for more than a year, since it was still in AfC, and am frankly tired of trying to discuss it. (Cf. discussion at a Wikquote fork.) I am easily confused by such things as voting to keep the result of blanking the content, and am quite at a loss to respond constructively. As I read the preamble of the pre-blanking version, it is not a proposal to add references to the article, it is expressly an appendix of supplementary information not intended for inclusion in the article. When I saw this appendix being used as a citable reference in Wikiquote main-space it raised a Big Red Flag. Though I charged like a bull at a matador's cape, I would not object to "userifying" this research if it is thought it might lead to improving the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chris Cunningham's well put statement. I guess the refs can still be pasted into the article from the "View History" button on this page.  (As long as delete does not happen).  As proposed above, gentle encouragement seems the best way forward.  CathMontgomery (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Conceded I agree with Ningauble that "voting to keep the result of blanking the content" is not meaningful.  Chris Cunningham is happy for the references to be gradually proposed as additions to the article. This can be done one at a time and added via agreement on the article's Talk page.  Thanks too for the pointers to XfD conventions, no-indiscriminate-bolding and the "nominator gently encouraged to discuss things like this with the author prior to going to MfD".   I don't agree with CathMontgomery, going via "View history" is not the way forward.  I'm not sure what would be gained by keeping it.   To explain - Once it is deleted then this page can be a normal Talk archive and the search features she mentions in the first paragraph will be available as usual, page deletion will not affect that feature.  (If that was the concern).  I would like to congratulate Ningauble for his tireless and usually thankless efforts in trying to keep Wikiquote clean and of amazingly high quality.  Ningauble's contributions log of deletes and reasoned arguments is truly a monument to tidying up.   I try to create a little content and I am impressed by those who spend so much time on constructive improvements and are devoted to deleting the dross.  The high quality produced from efforts like these is why I have chosen to visit Wikipedia for a while.  Fine with me to go ahead and delete. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Subpages. Blanking the content does not alter the original MfD request. Userify to User:VisitingPhilosopher/Personal relationship skills where VisitingPhilosopher and everyone else will have three or so months to decide what to do with the information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to user space it seems like VisitingPhilosopher might need this material to work on the article, as no one else has contributed to the page there is no need for it in article space. Its not technically an archive of past discussions.--Salix (talk): 09:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Uzma Gamal and Salix. -- Klein  zach  15:15, 21 October 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.