Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars (2nd nomination)

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 Snowball keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Previously nominated
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars - Snowball Keep

The counter essay- Wikipedia:Do template the regulars was deleted/redirected. It makes only sense that this should be as well. If someone wants to userfy this then I am fine with that. Bstone (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for the obvious reasons. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helpful essay with good advice for editors. I believe it reflects majority community consensus, and thus should be kept in project space. — Satori Son 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful advice that should be required reading for anyone doing RC patrol. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good advice that has general consensus. Icewedge (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful essay with community consensus.--Ashbey ₮ 03:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The counterargument was userfied" is awfully WAXy to me; this essay reflects a popular community consensus, and isn't inappropriate for projectspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely. I find actual personal comments to be better in every case. Collect (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Should be a guideline. DepartedUser (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. No sensible reason for deletion has been given. Friday (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (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.