Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Parole

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, with historical tag. – Will (message me!) 14:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Parole

This page has been inactive for more than six months and looks more like a POV essay than a policy/guideline page. Editor88 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it would be a good policy if it was implemented effectively, and there was correspondence between admins and 'parole officers'. If it were to have proper leaders and a proper cause, I would say keep without hesitation, and if a user wants to take on this project then I would support them, however, for now I have to say that I reccomend deletion. Abcdefghijklm 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee. Computerjoe 's talk 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a good-faith effort even if I can't figure out exactly what this proposal is really about. It has been inactive for a long while and never was very active from anything I can tell. I recommend tagging it with {{historical}} so that we can learn from it and so that maybe someone can make something of it. Rossami (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag {{historical}} per Rossami. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was tempted to agree with Rossami, but then I looked and saw that there is actually negligibly little content here. Martinp 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, tag {{historical}}. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this page was most likely created by a user in response to being named the defendant in an arbitration case. The four sentences it contains do not even come close to resembling a policy/guideline, they sound more like an opinion piece. 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't really any content here to make historical. Wickethewok 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't so much the content as the idea, I think. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
week keep with {{historical}} Benon 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and tag historical. --Zoz (t) 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag {{histoircal}} --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 14:14, 30 June 2006 (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.