Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates
Rejected policy proposal that User:Netoholic nonetheless continues to refer to as though it was authoritative. Should be deleted in order to prevent any such further abuse. LevelCheck 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The page makes several valid points whether it is "authorative" in some undefined sense or not. Sounds like the problem, if it exists, is with Netoholic, not this page. Pcb21| Pete 22:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - this nomination is intentionally disruptive (just like Template:Utterlyrejected was), created by what looks like an agenda-pushing sockpuppet account. The vast majority of the text is not mine, but from the database developer User:JamesDay. VfD is not how you handle your issues with policy proposals. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
- Keep. Already has {{notpolicy}}. Contains some useful information and generally sensible advice. Not surprising if Netoholic often refers to it. But even if it didn't, I'd still oppose deletion because we don't generally delete rejected policy proposals. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP!. VFD is not the place to deal with Wikipedia policy. BlankVerse ∅ 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Tony Sidaway and BlankVerse. There should be a form of vote to speedily lift candidates like this out of the VfD pile. Samaritan 01:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and admonish LevelCheck to nominating non VfD stuff to VfD, as it waste's everyones time. Klonimus 04:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Historical policy proposals are valuable. --iMb~Meow 15:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Stuff like this should not be deleted. N-Mantalk 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)