Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review


 * 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 speedy keep, serious policy/guideline/process proposals are debated, discussed and possibly rejected, but never deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
This whole thing just leaves an uncomfortable taste in my mouth. This is not, nor should ever be, a pre-requisite to RfA, and I feel like that's what it's being treated like, and could easily become, despite declamations to the contrary. I feel there needs to be a discussion about whether we should have this, so I am nominating it for deletion and asking the community for input. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pending further discussion. Not a good idea, I agree, but if it's rejected we should have a page saying so and why. I could live with the outcome of the discussion being merged and redirected to some RfA-related guideline eventually, which should be close enough to deletion. -- grm_wnr Esc  18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Doesn't have to be a requirement for rfa. Seems more like a ample oppurtunity to file somewhat of an informal rfc and gain the community's input. Looks like a good place to gauge opinions before filing an full-fledged rfa. The discussion and mock concepts drawn from rfa also help widen the learning experience from the community. Given time, this process' nature and intent sounds quite inviting. -ZeroTalk 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No opinion yet on the merits of the idea, but I'd rather see it discussed than deleted. So, keep.  Friday (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - inappropriate nomination. File an RFC or something to get community input, don't clog up this page for that purpose.  *fD's are polarising, they force you to vote up or down.  I haven't had a chance to formulate a clear opinion as to whether this is a good idea or not...but listing it here pushes me into the "support" camp because I believe that deletion is premature.  Guettarda 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep; we don't delete serious proposals. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as the creator, I feel uncomfortable voting. However, in the description is states this isn't a pre-requisite to RfA. It is just a way for a user to gain RfA-like feedback in a less formal environment. Computerjoe 's talk 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this project is a good idea. Regardless, it doesn't need to be deleted. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  20:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep MfD is for discussing if something should be deleted, not for discussing if something should be policy. That's what we have talk pages for. --Tango 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. &mdash; Deckill e r 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Shyam  ( T / C ) 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion yet whether this is a good idea or not but regardless, we don't delete failed policy proposals. We tag them as rejected or historical and keep them for the record.  Rossami (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I have put my edits up for review, i don't intend to put myself up for RfA anytime soon. I think it's a nice idea to be able to see how community members think you're getting along as an editor and how you could improve your edits, in order to become more useful to Wikipedia in general. Con  D  e  m Talk 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - good stuff.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-yup -- George Mon  e  y Talk   Contribs 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per ConDem. (^'-')^ Covington 02:05, 20 April 2006 (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.