Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk


 * 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 pschemp | talk 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk
The desk has clearly outlived it's usefulness, and now provides dangerous medical advice that could very easily put the foundation in jeopardy. This project is clearly an embarrassment to the 'pedia, and now must either justify its existence or cease to exist. --anonymous 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Up for deletion:

Time to salt the earth this project was built on--anonymous 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference desk/Science
 * Reference desk/Mathematics
 * Reference desk/Computing
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Reference desk/Language
 * Reference desk/Entertainment
 * Reference desk/Miscellaneous
 * Reference desk/Archives


 * Speedy Keep of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Ehhm.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, not speedy. The reference desk has real problems, but they can be solved by building a consensus to deal with them sensibly.  Dangerous medical advice can be removed on sight, and other problems are being dealt with more leisurly rate to allow compromise in place of force as much as possible.  If people have a problem with how things are on the desk, they should become involved in this process; failing that, as a user involved in improving the desk for some months, I would love to get any feedback on how to proceed on my talk page or by email. -- SCZenz 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Nominator is a SPA who freely admits that their acount was created just for this MfD on their talk page, it's not obvious that the Ref Desk has outlived its usefulness, and a process used this heavily should be discussed somewhere other than MfD first before suggesting its deletion (and if there was such a discussion, please provide a link). --ais523 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Speedy Keep. Disruptive and POINTy nomination made by purpose-created sockpuppet.  Recommend CheckUser to out the editor playing silly buggers here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Speedy Keep - seconding request for checkuser. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:49, 26 January 2007 (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.