| rdfs:comment
| - This serves no current purpose. Egg Centric 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* Keep we don't delete archived discussions unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Hut 8.5 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Maybe it should be archived then? Egg Centric 19:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC) It is archived. It is in exactly the same position as all other archives of the administrators' noticeboard. Hut 8.5 19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* Keep. It serves the same purpose as any other Administrators' noticeboard discussion. Peacock (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* Delete as per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Non-admins aren't allowed to keep a record of perceived flaws forever, and I think admins should be held to the same standard. Admins can always view the deleted page in any case, if their duties require them to
|
| abstract
| - This serves no current purpose. Egg Centric 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* Keep we don't delete archived discussions unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Hut 8.5 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Maybe it should be archived then? Egg Centric 19:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC) It is archived. It is in exactly the same position as all other archives of the administrators' noticeboard. Hut 8.5 19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* Keep. It serves the same purpose as any other Administrators' noticeboard discussion. Peacock (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
* Delete as per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Non-admins aren't allowed to keep a record of perceived flaws forever, and I think admins should be held to the same standard. Admins can always view the deleted page in any case, if their duties require them to do so. --Surturz (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC) We've been through this. For a start WP:UP#POLEMIC only applies to material in userspace - this isn't. Nor does it apply in spirit, as the reason we don't allow people to keep records of perceived faults in userspace is because such material is because it is antagonistic without being productive or useful. That is not the case for the administrators' noticeboard. POLEMIC does not make a distinction between admins and non-admins, and if an admin wanted to keep material recording perceived flaws in userspace it would be deleted. Incidentally the records of deleted pages are only temporary and can be removed at any time by the developers. Hut 8.5 09:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I learned a new thing today, I certainly wasn't aware deleted pages could disappear any time. I see it also says this in the deletion policy, have you any idea where (e.g. mailing list post) they said this initially? I think the deletion policy should have that as a footnote. Egg Centric 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) See here. Hut 8.5 12:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I guarantee a lot of wikipedians do not know that. Egg Centric 13:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hmm, I didn't know that either. If that page is correct it was last cleared in 2004, so there is eight years or so of deleted content still available. --Surturz (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC) As for Hut 8.5's invocation of the "Chiropractic Admin log and subpages" MfD, that's hardly convincing because:
* The page currently under discussion is not a "a log of warnings or sanctions issued pursuant to an arbitration decision"
* The page currently under discussion does not "serve a useful purpose".
* Given that the MfD vote on the chiro log was 3 delete and 2 keep, no consensus or precedent can be claimed Ignoring all the rules for a moment, ask yourself this question: "Does keeping the 2006 Giano page further the goals of Wikipedia in any way?". Would you want any editor to waste their time reading that page? --Surturz (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC) In the MfD I referred to, you nominated a non-userspace page relating to one of our established processes for deletion on the grounds that it violated WP:UP#POLEMIC and that it should be deleted in order to ensure admins are treated in the same way as non-admins. That's exactly the same argument as you are using here. Of course the other discussion was closed as Keep and the closing admin said your arguments were without merit (and consensus is not determined by counting people anyway). This page serves the exact same purpose as every other archived discussion on the site. Hut 8.5 16:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
* Keep but blank or archive and file by all means. WP:POLEMIC does not apply to multi-authored discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
* Keep but at least put archive tags on it. Gigs (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)