Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

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 keep (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

This FAQ tries to enshrine former consensus as unchangable, violating the principle that consensus can change. Scanning the history, it has been primarily been edited by editors with a particular bias, and is being misused by those same editors as if it were a policy or guideline. It is not needed. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Yworo has brought an editing dispute here. There is nothing about this FAQ that requires deletion, and it was worked on by a number of different editors from all sides of the Manning dispute. Any issues can be sorted out through result consensus processes. Suggest a speedy close, as Yworo has given no policy-based reason for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The FAQ is there to address issues that keep being raised, and as such is very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose.~~ Keep. If consensus changes, so can the FAQ. Meanwhile, it has a clear purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose any proposal made on the grounds of unsubstantiated claims of bias. —Frungi (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. FAQ is there to catch up newcomers as to the results of previous discussions, it's not there to "enshrine former consensus as unchangeable". If you find a problem with a portion of the FAQ you can open a discussion on changing it rather than trying to nuke the entire FAQ. Sepsis II (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose & speedy close. Seems like a spiteful nomination. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per a possible WP:COI issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and never ever ever vote oppose or support (do you oppose the page or oppose deletion?). There's no reason to delete a helpful page here. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems a rather helpful page!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom offers no policy-based reason for deletion.
This is one of 220 article FAQs, which try to summarise current consensus about the structure and content of an article where there has been significant debate. These pages are a valuable guide for editors new to a topic, as well as to readers curious about editorial decisions.
Nothing in the page is unchangeable, and it does not attempt to say that consensus cannot change. Maybe pages such as this should link prominently to WP:CCC to make this clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sepsis II and BrownHairedGirl. -sche (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems helpful. Would be very unlikely to support deletion without evidence of consensus support evident at Talk:Chelsea Manning. Much more likely possible outcomes would be merging to the main talk page, or moving to Wikipedia space for a more generic treatment of such issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BrownHairedGirl. Charlie Rrose Selavy (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2013 (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.