Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility)

Pointless duplication of an existing page with some changes, which already has a widely known and widely recognised name, to a new inaccurate name. The 'change' seems to have been done by cut and paste by one individual, losing the old edit history, on the basis of a supposed survey which most of the people who use the page were largely in the dark about.

• Speedy delete Inaccurate name (royalty and nobility and generally taken to be separate categories. The old page deliberately did not use either royal or noble in the title because it covered both). Needless duplication of an existing page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Past edit history of the page where most of this 'new' page was actually written was lost in the cut and paste. Changes then were made to this 'new' page without a consensus and on the basis of minimal participation because everyone else was using the original page and did not know of this page's existence, with work continuing on old page.[1]. Bad work in every conceivable way and needs to be binned immediately to send a message that you cannot just cut and paste a page to a new location and rewrite it, dumping the edit history. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Deletion for reasons stated above by Jtdirl. Generally better to organize and codify the rules in a single article. Concensus needed for such a change. --StanZegel (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete' for all the reasons above. PMA 00:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support deletion as stated by Jtdirl. Gene Nygaard 10:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think, on the grounds that the new title is less helpful than the existing one. Deb 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I think the title nomenclature here in the Wiki is a mess. --Ghirlandajo 12:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's a useful forum for discussing changes as long as it has a prominent notice that it is not policy, which it does. However, to do proper justice to the contributors of the source page and avoid any confusion, it should be deleted when its purpose is done. Say, 3 months without an edit. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind seeing this moved to userspace. Deco 04:41, 29 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.