Wikipedia talk:Last Resort Solution

Controversial
I think this is a good idea, but it's probably unlikely to ever be accepted in the articles that really need this sort of work. Rewriting an article entirely in a subpage seems like a better approach. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 22:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A tentative support
I like this. However, it really should be stressed that this is only for article that are totally POV.. It's a good idea, because there are sometimes articles that are unsalvagable. But it should only be used in extreme cases, and as a last resort.--Sean Black | Talk 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose
This encourages a single user to pass a judgment tantamount to deleting an article. And believe me, half the time when someone says that an article is riddled with POV problems, it is the person doing the complaining who has an axe to grind, not the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, there are very few articles without any useful content. It's almost always better to refactor the existing text then start anew. Superm401 | Talk 04:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that this is intented largely for new articles, not ones that have been around for a long time. You'd have to ask Messedrocker himself, however.--Sean Black | Talk 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised at all that you disagree with this proposal - that's why I labeled it as an experimental procedure, and not a proposed policy (someone else added the proposed-policy tag). —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Renamed
In order to assign a better name to this policy, and to make it more inclusive, I've renamed this to the Last Resort Solution. This new name stresses the importance of how this is last measure, as well as allows for application to other article that might not be POV, but need it anyways. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)