Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Nuclear power by country

 __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, it is SNOWing, and this is obviously inappropriate. Courcelles 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/Nuclear power by country
Not a request for featured list removal, but an inappropriate use of the venue for soapboxing. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inappropriate, especially with the misnaming. I considered speedying this, as it doesn't really require a full week's debate, and if any other admins agree with me they should feel encouraged to go ahead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, speedy if you feel like it. MER-C 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unacceptable soapboxing.  Inappropriate location and title.  Single edit SPA makes good faith assumption difficult.  However, not speediable.  "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases ..." is written unambiguously into policy for good reason.  Attempting administrative shortcuts to save time, or protect sensitivities, are usually counter-productive.  Nothing wrong with an early SNOW delete close though.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically you're saying process for the sake of process is better than an uncontroversial IAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I’m saying that our collective wisdom gathered over the last several years is that IAR speedy deletions have a cost.  One cost factor is that an unconsulted interested party may object, rightfully, blowing out the process beyond that bypassed.  Another is that it sends a message to people interested in the page that there is a ruling class who can arbitrarily delete.  This disempowers the ordinary editor, and contradicts the concept that this is a community rub project.  Yet another is that it tells the non-privileged volunteers that such things are more easily left to the admins, thus leading to increased burden on the admin corps.  These are small, but actual, costs.
 * In this case, I see negligible cost in letting this page sit live for a few more days, for the duration of the MfD, to see if there is any objection to deletion. I agree that it should be deleted, but disagree that we should not bother to wait to see if there is an objection.


 * We’ve had this discussion at WT:CSD before. IAR deletions should be an exception.  The need to delete something is not an unexpected situation.  IAR deletion should be reserved for situations for where the page is causing harm, today.  But further against them, if a page is causing harm today, it should be oversighted, as any cry “this page is really bad” serves to draw attention it, including cached and mirrored versions.  So, it is so much better to either follow the unambiguous text at the top of WP:CSD, or quietly request oversight.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Snowball delete per above, obvious soapboxing, no need to let this linger. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:54, 24 February 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.