Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard

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 early and speedy keep. Given that the request wasn't even for deletion, rather a merge, a deletion discussion was not the best way to go about this. I suggest the talk page of the noticeboard. Plus every contributor other than the nominator had argued for keep, anyway. Neil (not Proto ►) 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community noticeboard

The basic premise and more thorough discussion of my closing rationale can be found here. I would like to state first of all that this IS NOT a request to Delete the board, but instead to Close and archive or Merge it. That being said, I present several rationnale for this page's closing, given that it is a significant location and such actions should not be taken lightly (some might argue it was created prematurely before the purpose was adequately fleshed out). I feel that there has been enough doubt on its talk page to warrant its further discussion here. Firstly and most globally, this page fragments discussion in the community. It is a fork that has served to confuse many users (a small sample is: here, here and here). Just recently, the discussion of inappropriate IAR and WP:SNOW closes (obviously an important issue for the community right now) became forked between the administrator's noticeboard and the Community noticeboard. The page has no clear purpose aside from community bans, which require administrator intervention for enforcement anyway. All the functions of this board can be done at the Village Pump and the Administrator's noticeboards as they were before. I appreciate the concern that "Adminisrator's Noticeboard" may scare away non-administrators, which is why I endorse Centrx's idea of changing that board's name to Administrative Noticeboard. Finally, This page's lack of attention has, as several users have noted, led to instances of inappropriate voting, such as the Essjay straw poll incident for example. Although I'm sure this board was created with the best of intentions, and it was a good idea on paper, I don't think it has worked out in practice. I think it's time we re-centralize discussion and look for other solutions if the administrat(ive)or's noticeboard continues to be overwhelmed. IronGargoyle 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The board has only been active for less than a month. I agree with the comment that the board requires more focus, and I believe that this will happen once Community enforced mediation gets off the ground. I think that the inappropriate voting should cease now that people are aware that the board is not for that. In fairness, WP:AN isn't frightening because of the name, but because there's so much going on there. I think that anything that helps alleviate the burden from WP:AN is a good thing, and splitting the noticeboards has had some success. If this is listed again in a month and there is no improvement, I will change my vote, but I think the board deserves some more time to prove itself. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I happen to find it a very useful place to discuss matters that don't quite fit anywhere else. Now people have somwhere to go to bring specific issues to the attention of the greater community without being told "this doesn't require administrator attention" or something similar. I guess I might be a minority, but I don't mind the way it is now. Grandmasterka 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The CNB's central purpose is to discuss things like community bans, where the community needs to make a decision that can't reasonably happen at the breakneck pace of AN/I. There's no good place for this kind of discussion without the community noticeboard. The one I was involved with was the topic ban of GordonWatts, and that seems to have worked, especially since Gordon tried to challenge it at ArbCom, where some of the rejecting arbitrators affirmed that the community ban was valid. Now, of course, we'll need to be careful. Since the thing the CNB is good at is punitive in nature, it will probably need to grow some guidelines to stop discussions from going out of control. We don't want it to be the "Lynch Mob Noticeboard". But I don't think it's really been that so far. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Recommend this MFD withdrawn by nominator. Board has only been active less than a month. Appears to work at those subjects especially suited at WP:CN like community bans and so forth. Navou ^banter / _contribs 10:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - I for one find this fairly useful for community-orientated discussions and any MfD is somewhat premature, as CN has only just got off the ground. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:57, 6 March 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.