Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*'''Keep''' per Amarkov. I cannot imagine that any certified RfC should be deleted, but were one certified exclusively by users editing disruptively and partaken of only by such editors, deletion might be counseled; here, though, many editors participated in the discussion, and so deletion is surely plainly disfavored. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' per Amarkov. I cannot imagine that any certified RfC should be deleted, but were one certified exclusively by users editing disruptively and partaken of only by such editors, deletion might be counseled; here, though, many editors participated in the discussion, and so deletion is surely plainly disfavored. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' per Amarkov. Important to keep those things as part of an audit/documentation trail. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' per Amarkov. Important to keep those things as part of an audit/documentation trail. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' per all of the above. No legitimate reason to delete a legitimate RfC from WP record. - < |
*'''Keep''' per all of the above. No legitimate reason to delete a legitimate RfC from WP record. - <span style="font-family:comic sans ms;"><b>[[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|<span style="color:#009">Kathryn NicDhàna</span>]]</b> [[User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna|♫]]<span style="color:navy;">♦</span>[[Special:Contributions/Kathryn_NicDhàna|♫]]</span> 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' If it was ever closed no one told me ... and it doesn't show up on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive]]. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' If it was ever closed no one told me ... and it doesn't show up on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive]]. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:*You are correct that it is not listed in the archive page, but it was removed from the active page [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct&diff=121686253&oldid=121615815 here] by [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]]. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
:*You are correct that it is not listed in the archive page, but it was removed from the active page [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct&diff=121686253&oldid=121615815 here] by [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]]. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 03:02, 11 February 2023
- 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 unanimously. Xoloz 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This should have never been certified. It has no real substance and should be made to go away. --South Philly 01:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is closed- it was taken off WP:RFC/U some time ago but we don't delete old RfCs. WjBscribe 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I might say to delete if it truly were just some stupid RfC, but many established editors agree that Evrik did something wrong. -Amarkov moo! 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - old RFCs are not customarily deleted. Also, South Philly - can you please undo the portion of your edit which changed (unicode?) characters all over the page? --After Midnight 0001 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Amarkov. I cannot imagine that any certified RfC should be deleted, but were one certified exclusively by users editing disruptively and partaken of only by such editors, deletion might be counseled; here, though, many editors participated in the discussion, and so deletion is surely plainly disfavored. Joe 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Amarkov. Important to keep those things as part of an audit/documentation trail. --Fredrick day 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above. No legitimate reason to delete a legitimate RfC from WP record. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If it was ever closed no one told me ... and it doesn't show up on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. --evrik (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct that it is not listed in the archive page, but it was removed from the active page here by Radiant!. --After Midnight 0001 00:01, 24 May 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.