Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Numbers need citations


 * 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 Keep, tag as rejected. Xoloz 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers need citations
This was speedily deleted as the creation of a banned user (CSD:G5). This was challenged at Deletion review, where the majority were in favour of overturning it. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - would it be possible to restore the talk page as well? Thanks. Carcharoth 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I should have remembered to do that in the first place, sorry. Thryduulf 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion occurred at the deletion review. The above diff is one way of reading that discussion. Another way is to read this version, which is the one that existed just before the review was closed. I hope those voting here will read the previous (rather extensive) discussion. If it would help, I can do a short summary of my main arguments and proposals on how to resolve this. Carcharoth 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am persuaded by the argument that rejection of a troll's proposal is preferable to automatic deletion (for the record my opinion is that this proposal should be rejected immediately as redundant to existing policies) Yomangani talk 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I personally do not agree with the proposed new policy, it does cover a concern that has been raised by multiple parties over the months and the page is best handled by the normal procedures for new policy proposals. --Allen3 talk 13:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page and its proposal are factually redundant to existing policy pages, but it does no harm to point out to people why statistics fall at the bottom of the continuum, "lies, damn lies, and statistics," even though it basically does say nothing new. A little editing to remove the "policy" points and retitling or moving to a subpage of Citing sources wouldn't be out of line. Badbilltucker 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Studies have shown that 90% of Flamevipers vote Keep ~  Flame vip  e  r  14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite the proposal being rejected, but we can keep it for storage. --Ter e nce Ong (T 05:49, 12 October 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.