Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in discussions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Redirected - the history is there if someone wants it for a fresh essay, and the page might be converted to a disambig if someone is so inclined. Wily D 07:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in discussions

Delete per WP:USELESS, WP:UNENCYC, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On a less serious note: duplicate of the more up-to-date WP:ATA. Very few incoming links. Might be a candidate for redirecting, but an essay with that name should rather be about something more general, so I'd like to see some discussion first. Keφr (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. WP:REDUNDANTESSAYS should be redirected the larger and more popular essay, if it's identical and there's nothing to merge. The title is a likely search term, otherwise it should be deleted.--SGCM (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing worth merging, so there's no history to preserve. This article was forked from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; compare its creation by Ludwigs2 on 17 January 2010 with this version of the original on 14 January 2010. "What links here" is negligible. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they are pretty much identical. Note however that the essays have diverged since, even if the intent stayed, I think, the same. Keφr (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) [edited 06:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]
Would a disambiguation page between {{arguments}} be a sensible idea? Keφr (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are multiple Arguments to Avoid essays (that aren't duplicates like this one), I agree that disambiguation is a better alternative to redirecting.--SGCM (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In principal I don't mind the idea of a generalised "bad arguments" essay, but this lightly-edited fork isn't it. If the author wants it, no problem at all with userfication. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note; the author in question is currently serving out a 1-year Arbcom block, so if it is to be userfied, someone else will have to step up and claim it. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, undeletion for that purpose is trivial when he comes back if he wants it, and he's been notified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forked from WP:ATA in 2010 and diverged from there. Since it's a disputed, outdated spinoff, no reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions since redirects are cheap. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ATA covers the topic sufficiently and there's no reason to maintain a fork. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I am not the creator, but I have worked on this, and if the creator does not express interest, I am interested in having it in my userspace. Sebwite (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really do not intend to make this a redundant page, you might as well start from scratch because there is nothing original on that page. Keφr (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TPH. We don't need outdated spinoffs. --Klein zach 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This attempt at generalising "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" is not unreasonable, and someone may with to try further any time in the future. In the meantime, as the content is not terribly helpful, it belongs behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or userfy for sebwite, seeing as he asks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.