Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:SILIWILI




 * 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 keep. harej 05:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SILIWILI
Cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided. Damiens .rf 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See also SILLIWILI (double 'l') --Damiens .rf 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - XNR's from WP space to userspace when the userspace page is intended communal use aren't necessarily problematic. See also WP:EFD, etc. As a point-of-order: doesn't this belong at WP:RFD? –xenotalk 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:ASE, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ZN, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASTAR? --Damiens .rf 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep And I suspect the same result at RfD in any event. Decidedly does not meet MfD grounds for deletion, moreover. Collect (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The namespace is an abbreviation aimed at simplifying access to the article currently in userspace. In any event, WP:CNR has the status of an essay only.  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Quoting WP:USER "nor should a userspace essay be used as the primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or concept." If this belongs to the community, put it in the community namespace. Miami33139 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: But this isn't an essay. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep - the target of the redirect should make it clear how the "award" is chosen ("by a panel of specialists" is rather vague), and especially make it clear that it is not policy, and not based on community consensus, despite the concept's foundations in WP:LINK. Perhaps the template would suffice? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 19:56, 16 January 2010 (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.