- 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. LordViD 17:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a consensus policy or guideline, but cited as though it were one in AFD disputes. Not even consistent with the extensive discussion on the pertinent talk page. Monicasdude 15:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This nomination may be construed as being in bad faith. Mark with a notice that it's not an official policy if you wish (as with Wikipedia:Listcruft, but don't delete it. Stifle 16:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep blank main page and replace with either a note about lack of consensus and/or the professor test. It is a good criteria to keep around in principle, but nominaor is correct, what is currently up does not reflect consensus. --Hansnesse 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a content dispute. Feel free to change the page, but don't delete it.--Prosfilaes 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A good guideline. Agree that the nomination may be considered bad-faith. --Wingsandsword 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a guideline. It's a page one user wrote less than two weeks ago, and it doesn't even represent the consensus of the small number of users who commented on the talk page. Monicasdude 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be a guideline to me. Not an official guideline, but a broad set of guidelines on determining the worth for an academic being notable enough for a wikipedia article, which is something Wikipedia needs. If you disagree with this very broad criteria, keep debating it on the talk page, keep trying to reach some form of consensus, but it certainly does not warrant deletion because you don't agree with it. After reviewing the talk page, and the history of the page, my vote stands. --Wingsandsword 06:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created out of process -- [[1]] -- and should be deleted for that reason alone. There's a consensus-developed and -approved mechanism for establishing pages like this. Whether any particular editor, or small group of editors, approve of it isn't relevant. Note in particular that the editor who wrote the page did not conform to the requirement that a proposed policy/guideline be publicized. Monicasdude 13:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep whether created out of process or not. The subtopic seems a good one for a guideline so why not work to get general consensus on it? I won't go so far as to say that the nom is disruptive because I can see why it might have been nommed, though. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in line with the below discussion, which I agree with, if the policy isn't good yet, [[tl|sofixit))... work to improve it. Many useful guidelines and policies came about because one person started working on them and sought acceptance. Tag it as proposed, disputed, whatever, mark up the talk page, get more people in on it but don't delete. Who cares of it was created out of process? What matters is, is it a good and needful guideline. 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think there may be some confusion. The nominator seems to want deletion since s/he disagrees with the (non-consensus) material currently posted. Most of the votes seem to keep because having a criteria for academics is good in principle, not necessily these standards however. Perhaps we should be clear about what this vote represents, and what the nominator believes it should be for. That is, does the nominator just want the criteria replaced with to-be-determined new criteria (or a note about lack of consensus in the interim)? Would the nominator withdraw the nomination if that were to take place (and would other users be ok with that)? It seems to me the above messages are talking about two distinct things: deletion and specific content. --Hansnesse 01:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is one user's opinion disguised as a policy page. If the user wants to devote a page to his/her opinions, there are appropriate ways to create one, but he/she didn't follow any of those. It's not a content dispute, because I expect the content actually reflects its creator's opinions. But it's not a policy or guideline, has never been appropriately proposed or debated as a policy or guideline, yet it's used in AfD disputes as though it were one. It belongs. at best, on its author's user page. Monicasdude 16:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a proposed guideline. It shouldn't be on a user page, because it wouldn't be openly available to comment upon. --Prosfilaes 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is the best guideline available at the moment, simply because too few people have actually bothered to participate in a constructive discussion that could lead to a better one. We have plenty of old VfD/AfD debates on academics that could be used to create a guideline better in accordance with whatever consensus verifiably exists. Monicasdude, if you are unsatisfied with this one, I suggest that you participate in the discussion. u p p l a n d 17:28, 12 February 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.