Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:911 POV disputes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Delete, invalid use of Wikipedia namespace for DR. --soum talk 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

911 POV disputes
Not anything like an official Wikipedia page and mostly inactive. Dispute should go through associated talk pages or normal forms of dispute resolution MONGO 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Several existing avenues for discussion of the subject exist. This one is redundant, unnecessary, and does not seem to conform to wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines. John Carter 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not the place for resolving disputes. There is some substantial content on the talk page which may need to be moved somewhere. Hut 8.5 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why do we need a page to say "do what you would do for any other dispute"? -Amarkov moo! 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag historical/inactive The associated talk page has a lot of history, and deleting the project page would make it a casualty of CSD G8. Yechiel Man 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag historical/inactive. Consider protecting, as well. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aude; an uncertified RFC is an excellent analogy. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag historical/inactive - Per YechielMan. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete inactive page that is not a "project page" but a page that has been mainly used/promoted by one editor, to move discussion off article talk pages. This page is not at all needed, since we have article talk pages, as well as usual means for dispute resolution. This unconventional "dispute" page was never recognized (myself included) by many of the editors on 9/11 pages who prefer to keep discussion on the article talk page.  This page is akin to an "uncertified RFC" page which do get deleted. --Aude (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete from WP namespace. If someone wants it in their user space, move the talk page there. - Crockspot 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Tbeatty 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fine for userspace blathering, but 9/11 conspiracy nut articles don't need or deserve special POV treatment -- they can follow WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR just like everything else.  Note that the original author has now for several months tried to weaken each of the notability standards.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:26, 22 June 2007 (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.