- 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. DGG's point is worth reading, though. – Riana ⁂ 04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a way to attack new users, and an end run around NPOV by stating a number of "facts" which are not allowed to be present in the article. Also clearly shows ownership issues--RCT 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - useful place to keep recurrent replies; there is no implication that the answers are correct; assertions of "attack" are unsupported William M. Connolley 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's mostly (but not exclusively) written by me, and I usually add a question/answer pair when I've reiterated the same point 3 or more times. The aim is to reduce the number of repeated discussions and to avoid unecessary copy and paste, not to attack new users (where does that idea come from?). --Stephan Schulz 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WMC and Stephan. Note the nom marked the MfD as a minor edit, in direct violation of the instructions given at WP:MFD don't mark it as a minor edit. Hmm, I wonder... Raymond Arritt 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a good place to put questions that come up repeatedly on the talk page (and that happens a lot for this topic) rather than having to chase down and repeatedly repost the same links and discussion. -- Leland McInnes 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. having FAQs on controvertial topics migh tbe a good idea --Andersmusician $ 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but if we're going to use it as auto excuse to ignore comments on a talk page, I think it should be referenced per Wikipedia's standards. ~ UBeR 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in its present formIt is not reasonable to have these as unreferenced brief dismissive answers Answering a question "no there is not" -- wording like that does give the "implication that the answers are correct"--and to me, also the the inquirer is a fool. I doubt this was intended, but it absolutely come across as a one sided POV push. (I fully agree with the view being pushed, but that conclusion is my own & I wouldn't go out on my own authority and say so--even though I personally regard the skeptics as a hazard to us all.) SS's answer does indicate ownership, and that he is personally in charge of presenting the right opinion--again, I doubt that he intends it. If kept, and I suppose it will be, complete revamping of tone is indicated.DGG 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's more useful than the standard reply on pages like this, which is "read the archives!") Guettarda 05:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - To the extent that it's possible, we should try to minimize repeated discussions which ultimately reach the same consensus view. Rehashing old arguments for the 4th or more times doesn't usually improve the article, and come to think of it, deleting the FAQ doesn't help (the editing) either. R. Baley 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, useful to help keep the same discussions from occuring over, and over, and over again on the Talk page. Lankiveil 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Pile-on Keep Dfrg.msc 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and explicitly source - many of the well-written answers provide links to relevant articles, giving more evidence (often sourced) to support the claims there. Nonetheless, I suggest that the page itself be sourced wherever possible - this would help eliminate claims of any POV. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW.--WaltCip 15:24, 15 May 2007 (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.