Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Contents/feedback

 __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:  delete.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 21:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents/feedback

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I created this page and would like it deleted. It clearly doesn’t do anything to provide feedback. Interstellarity (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Further context, it was used to obtain feedback from the page Contents. I recently marked it as historical because almost all of the "feedback" was just blank or gibberish spam. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 01:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to WP:FEEDBACK as a good enough method of archiving and shutting down. The failure of these things is interesting enough information to justify keeping the evidence available in the history.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong objection to deletion, I just think that archiving failed ideas is better practice than deleting them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The original author has requested deletion, and a check of the page history shows the above comments are correct and that it is overwhelmingly spam and nonsense. I don't think the suggested redirect is a good idea, this was not implemented using the article feedback tool and was specific to one page, so I think the redirect would be confusing as it would be sending people to barely relevant information. "Asking members of the public for feedback produces junk" is a well known effect at this point, and there is no actual archival value in the junk that was produced. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The redirect, an archive by redirect with no incoming links, would not confuse anyone because the only editors to find it would be editors actively looking for it, for wikiarchiological purposes, such as studies into why “feedback” is so complicated to make work well in practice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2022 (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.