Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies)


 * 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 Oh, the weather outside is frightful, and the fire is so delightful. For as long as you love me so... Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Village pump (redundant policies)
WP:CFORK of Village pump (policy). No consensus for creation, no useful reason for existence.  MBisanz  talk 05:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't see any value in this split from Village pump (policy).- gadfium 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Move this deletion discussion to Village pump (redundant village pumps). &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  05:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I speedied Village pump (redundant village pumps). I declined to speedy Village pump (redundant policies). One is obviously a WP:POINT violation. The other appears to be a good faith creation, albeit lacking consensus.- gadfium 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't believe we're actually discussing this. There's no chance in hell of this being kept.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:22, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as I see negative value in this split from Village pump (policy); keeping this can only lead to arguments over which Village pump section a given discussion should have been posted in. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also see related ANI discussion.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:27, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:VPP is the proper spot for this kind of thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The policy talk page is the place to debate policies. If anyone feels the need to abolish a policy they can debate there or use WP:VPP. This is a huge step in the wrong direction. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Village pump (policy). It was an bad idea content fork.  No need to delete and suppress the history of this bad idea.  We keep records of bad ideas to help to prevent them from recurring.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we generally keep histories of bad ideas around... Once we've decided something is a bad idea, it usually gets deleted. I'd support a redirect if there were any practical reason to, but there's not much chance anyone would be using this one. "For the record" alone isn't a reason I've ever heard before of redirecting a page instead of deleting it, and I don't see any compelling reason to start now.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:37, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Project space ideas, especially proposals but also other things like this, are not deleted but more typically archived. Redirecting is a cheap and easy way to archive.  There is no need to hide the history of this, and discourging project space deletion in favour of archiving, taggin failed, historical or simply redirecting is a good idea because it encourages consensus decisions on project talk pages as opposed to bringing project discussions to MfD forums.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that if we were talking about some sort of controversial proposed project with at least some support. Not only doesn't this have any support, but it's not even a proposed project. It's just an extra discussion page that a single person created on a whim, either out of inexperience or to get a point across, that no one else sees any value in. This isn't some new idea that failed. It's something unneeded that we're getting rid of.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:43, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We're getting rid of it either way.  In this case, I am not so much against deletion, but if I were asked, I'd say just redirect, for the above reasons.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Village pump (policy). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it as irrelevant, and with only a WP:POINT ambition. Who needs the history?  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No use for this page and it would make for a very unlikely redirect.--Atlan (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as we already have a page for this (two, in fact - the policy talk page and the VP (policies)) Verbal   chat  18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious WP:POINT violation, apparently created just to draw attention to a single nonsensical complaint. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointy. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whenever someone wanted to call this a snow I'd be fine with that. I'm glad we brought this controversial issue to discussion though.  Equazcion •✗/C • 19:49, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just a pointless page. We don't need separate pages of policies at the Village pump. Versus22 talk 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. I don't think it's a good idea to let people create village pump pages whenever they want to; in any case, WP:VPP is a perfectly adequate place to discuss any policies considered redundant.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (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.