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 Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also its redirects + User:Comet Tuttle/Malware + User:Comet Tuttle/Repair – all near-identical copies of the same content.

I'm concerned that it's not entirely appropriate to have detailed how-to manuals on the site at all. (I'm not 100% in favour of deletion myself, but think that this issue should receive community input. I'm fine if the result is "keep".) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this malware FAQ; Steve Summit provided some editing feedback, and of course the community will edit it at will. I wrote this because the Computing Reference Desk receives queries several times a month, on average, from individuals who are asking how to remove malware from their system. Rather than typing in the same (lengthy) response to each querent, I thought a FAQ sub-page would be appropriate that we can just point people to, which should improve the accuracy of the answer and save time for the RD regulars. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand the intention; my concern is, however, what if people want to start creating FAQ for their own topic-areas? How do we stop the site from turning into WikiHow? (Also, the pages nominated for deletion here only have two unique links between them, excepting the notices regarding this MfD...) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It serves a useful purpose and I sincerely doubt one helpful FAQ page for a topic which is brought up very regularly on WP:RD/C will turn Wikipedia into Wikihow. At the very least, the content that is in User:Comet Tuttles userspace should be kept per WP:UPYES, specifically "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community", "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters". 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reference desks themselves are not encyclopedic content of the sort treated in WP:NOT. They in some measure stand apart from the core purpose of WP, and that's one reason why they aren't in mainspace. The page in question seems appropriate within the context in which the desks exist. Deor (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a useful resource we should use more often, not a hindrance we should delete. As Deor mentioned, the RefDesks are slightly apart from the mainspace and exist to help provide answers to user questions. Many of the points given on the page are almost exactly as would be entered in as a reply to someone requesting virus removal advice. By giving that advice a permanent place, we're able to polish and update that advice from multiple perspectives and provide a more thorough answer. Matt Deres (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its not in the article space, so that ameliorates the WP:NOT:HOWTO problems. Very useful at the reference desk for answering the same sort of questions that come up. Given the precedent on keeping far less useful pages in the project space, I'm not sure why this one is singled out... --Jayron32 23:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - but move - I can see why this is a useful thing to have - but isn't there a "FAQ" page for the Ref Desks? Seems to me that it belongs there. SteveBaker (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Answering my own question: Yes, there is Wikipedia:Reference_desk/FAQ - which would be a much better place to put this.) SteveBaker (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a useful page to give an expansion of answers on the ref desk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It shouldn't matter, but in the interests of full disclosure, everyone who has !voted with a time stamp earlier than my sig is a regular on the RefDesk, including the nominator (and me). I don't think that qualifies as a conflict of interest, but I figured it ought to be mentioned - if only to be dismissed. Matt Deres (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the nom that the page may potentially be a problem, yet it is entirely in keeping with the Reference Desk system and should be kept as helpful. Probably should be moved as per SteveBaker. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but ... why not move it to template space so it can be transcluded to malware type questions? Otherwise it is useful (though IMHO it tends to emphasise the "lets reinstall Windows" option over the "try to fix it first" option). Astronaut (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's too long to be a template. I think it would also confuse new users if they were getting template responses to their questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid use of projectspace. Collect (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Reference Desk by nature already seems to have differences from an encyclopedia. At the very least there should be a section dedicated to frequently asked questions which reach the Reference Desk. So my vote to Keep most closely resembles Steve Baker's above. And quite possibly each section should have their own FAQ with a link posted near the top of the page so hopefully people will check it before asking a tired question again. Amordea (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2010 (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.