Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Urban75/Archive 1

 __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  Blanked. --RL0919 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Urban75/Archive 1


Nothing to do with Wikipedia - from the page: "This archive was created on 29 September, 2005, to take from the main talk page a lot of discussions that seemed to have no relevance to Wikipedia or to the article, but seemed rather to be flame wars or continuations of flame wars pertaining solely to Urban 75." Pontificalibus (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A six year-old talk page archive. Discussion may be off-topic, but we don't usually delete talk page archives for being irrelevant. Blank it if it annoys you.--Scott Mac 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would think that a talk page archive should be left alone...  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, and this stuff's already preserved in the edit history is it not? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the guideline re: Ten Pound Hammer although it is, wading through the history to find the archive blankings seems more trouble then it's worth Crazynast 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That guidelines refers to user talk pages, which can surely accommodate more off-topic discussion than article talk pages. Rather than being archived, these comments should have been blanked or reverted at the time. This isn't a normal talk page archive but a page of selected crap that didn't belong on the talk page in the first place. It will need to be moved anyway in due course to accommodate the genuine first archive of Talk:Urban75. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but courtesy blank. Come back here only when a real problem is discovered.  Deleting bits of history makes our history unrelable and possibly biased.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't a bit of history. The history here is all preserved in the page this was cut and paste from. In any case, even if it DID made the history incomplete, how would that make it biased? Biased towards what? I mean, I can't see the point in deleting this, but neither is there any point in keeping it. Who cares? --Scott Mac 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a history of a case of dispute resolution. While there are merits in the idea of deleting all dispute resolution once resolved one way or the other, I don't think random or biased deletions should be readily agreed to.  You might not know what the bias is, but fiddling of one side of a story in the records is not to be treated lightly.  If this material has no purpose, then it can be blanked on the decision of a single editor.  If there is nothing offensive in it, leave it be.  If there is something offensive, don't come to MfD and publicise it, go to oversight.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Factually incorrect. It is a cut and paste of dispute resolution, which is still in the case history of the original page itself. This is a duplicate. Deleting it would not be random (although there are doubtless other such pages) and you've shown no evidence of bias. "Fiddling" is just silly. Who is fiddling what? I agree that there's no pressing need to delete it, and blanking would be the obvious loss-hassle alternative. But your case for keeping it is simply absurd. That why, logically, no one ought to care either way. The page, and this MFD, (and indeed my posting here) are a waste of bytes.--Scott Mac 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Confusing archive.  Someone might reconstruct a clearer archive from this history of Talk:Urban75.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I created this archive a long time ago. I've been notified of this listing as a matter of courtesy. My opinion is that there is no pressing need to delete this page and no need to keep it. I agree with the editor who suggested courtesy blanking, that this might be a sensible thing to do even at this last stage. --TS 20:43, 7 August 2011 (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.