Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/British Isles-related articles

 __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. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style/British Isles-related articles


This draft proposal has been dormant since August 2011 and has never contained any meaningful content. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add the failed tag and mark as a rejected proposal. Failed proposals are usually tagged, not deleted.--SGCM (talk)  22:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was never a proposal, only an empty draft with a lead and some wikilinks. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question G. C. Hood are you a member of the project in-question? If so and your project agrees the page is dead/never will or has amounted to anything you are free as a "PROJECT" to ask for its deletion. Add  or  - Since its just a project page you guys are free to make the decision within the group - no need to ask here if your a member and others in the group  agree.   See G6. Technical deletions...


 * Keep . We do not delete failed proposals, if made in good faith, etc.  Such a practice would doom us to repeat past mistakes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that it is not a failed proposal but mere idea for a proposal.  In some cases, it could have been userfied for the sole significant author,, who I have just advised, which should be done as standard procedure.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing to keep. This is just an empty skeleton. Why would you keep an almost completely blank page like this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do you really think a page consisting of nothing but headers absolutely needs to be kept?" --TPH
 * Probably not. Looking again, I see there is not much content, but there is a little.  It is like there was a need and an idea to organise resources related to the page title.  Was there no need?  Is the page now redundant to another?  If the page is redundant to others, then I recommend a redirect. I see a relative newcomer wanting to delete a number of old pages and am not impressed with his judgement.  This page has a non-trivial history and a decent post on its talk page.  The original author has not been notified (I don't care if he is blocked, his talk page is well watched 1.2 centijimbos ).  The interested WikiProject has not been notified.  I do not apologise for my impulsive "Keep" opinion and on furhter consideration I stand by it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The content on the talk page was copied from British Isles. Redirect away. G. C. Hood (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like a 2008 failed proposal that was copy-pasted in 2010 as a fresh proposal, without much extra work, before being rejected with very little interest.  "British Isles" is a perenial arguing point, isn't it.  I see little of worth here, but recommend redirecting or archiving or else risk letting MfD become a proposal-judgement-forum, which it expressly is not.  Some cleanup of British Isles Terminology task force (tagged "inactive") is probably a good idea.  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force has already been tried.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or tag as failed proposal Nothing of substance to keep. --Surturz (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as failed proposal. There is a benefit to keeping failed ideas around. It helps us understand the pitfalls of new ideas we may have. Achowat (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What failed ideas? The page is blank! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are incoming links from past discussions. Preserving the history of the page and talk page may be useful. Redirecting to British Isles, as G.C. Hood proposed, accomplishes the same effect.--SGCM (talk)  00:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not needed. There was no proposal. With only two or three editors contributing to the page, there's nothing Wikipedia historic about the page. The incomeing links to the page are minimal.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No meaningful content. Nothing to see. If wanted it should be userfied, or at least moved out of MOS-space. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a failed proposal: it's a placeholder for one. A redlink would provide exactly the same information regarding the status of said proposal to anyone who came across one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2012 (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.