Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attack page

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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attack page

Redundant and covered under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It's not a good idea to have a large number of small guidelines created by users whenever they want, as you end up with contradictory guidelines. In this case, if the guideline on attack pages changed, it might well only be updated in one place. Stevage 12:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This belongs in Miscellaneous deletion, or it would if there was any question of deletion. It should either be merged or kept, please discuss on the relevant talk pages. Kappa 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merge or keep. Kappa 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. (Ignoring for a moment that AfD is not the right place for it.) I fully understand what you are saying. However, I'm voting to keep for two reasons: 1) There is only one sentence fragment on WP:CSD referring to attack pages ("Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject"). If the guidelines on what is and what is not an attack page should change, it is unlikely that this fragment would contradict it. 2) I believe the purpose of WP:ATK is much like that of WP:VAIN and WP:MUSIC in that its purpose is to go into greater detail on what is and what is not within the guideline. On this, however, WP:ATK is sorely, sorely lacking and is currently nothing more than a dicdef. Rather than see WP:ATK deleted, I would prefer to see it expanded to differentiate what is an "attack" according to the guideline and what is a critique that merely violates WP:NPOV. -- Shinmawa 19:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable search term, and no misstatements of Wikipedia policy that I can see. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to WP:CSD. This page will be too easily forgotten. If a user has a complaint then it should be discussed on that user's talk page. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shinmawa. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shinmawa for now. This is a reasonable drill-down page. Give it a few months to grow and to prove its worth (or not). If, after a reasonable period of time, it's not working, change to a redirect - though I'd want to give some more thought about whether WP:CSD or WP:NPA is the better destination. Rossami (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Re-Word - to allow thoughtful criticism of actions and politics.--God of War 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shunmawa. --Aaron 01:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The argument that this explicates CSD A6 is spurious since CSD A6 is policy and the page in question is merely a guideline. We do not want to confuse users into thinking that THIS page has the same level of "officiality" as the criterion itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Page should probably be expanded to cover attack pages in general not just speedy deletion of attack pages. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shinmawa. Stifle 00:19, 17 January 2006 (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.