Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Response to the Guardian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Response to the Guardian, Wikipedia:Response to The Register, Wikipedia:Response to the Mail & Guardian Online

These do not seem to have been successful. If there is no interest, it would be better to delete them.

Delete. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely misleading. --Tony Sidaway^t 11:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can we userfy these? I do agree it's wrong to keep them in the spaces they're in. It's not like all of Wikipedia came together and authored these. Jacqui ^★ 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Eequor started all three of them. HeShe is also the only significant editor to 2 of the three and she is now nominating them for deletion. Doesn't that qualify for speedy-deletion? Of the third (or all three if not speedied), I agree with ~~his~~her assessment, though I could also understand a redirect to Wikipedia:replies. I would not argue for a merge because I don't see any new material to add to that page. Rossami (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the image in my signature — wrong pronoun. These aren't really speedy deletion candidates because other editors had some interest in them at one time, and deleting the articles outside WP:MFD wouldn't really be fair to them. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies. The symbols do not render properly for me. I guessed (wrongly) based on your text username. Rossami (talk)
Delete based on Rossami's points. Xoloz 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP articles are not discussion club. The time wasted on this would be better spent on improving articles. Within a month the whole discussion is forgotten forever. Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally speaking, as a community we're better off either taking criticism on board and addressing the problems, or ignoring it if it has no substance. If public repudiation is necessary, let someone like Jimbo take care of that. --Michael Snow 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uneeded and unprofessional of us. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not like to comment on where exactly this belongs, but it seems to me an important debate worth continuing. The guardian argues to a large extent that wiki is insufficiently POV for a reputable encyclopedia, and no one managed to answer this criticism. I think they were correct, wiki has no editorial stance. Let the debate continue and see if it manages to produce a sensible response. Sandpiper 16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DFelete --Jpkoester1 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.