Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD
- 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. There is no support here for deletion. As for merger, there's no clear consensus for that nor even a notice it seems at WT:BRD that would show support for a force putting this back. Therefore, separately from this close, I suggest an RFC or the like for whether this should be merged back in or keep as an aside to BRD or whatever else people have in mind. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Very short, orphan essay with low activity. Content was merged to WP:BRD, then removed. Diego (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The situation here is that the essay/note was created five years ago and has been linked from BRD for those five years. It is a short essay
(hidden at the moment beneath a redirect, here is what it looks like). As it is a short essay, it was merged into BRD as a note: here. The essay and its shortcuts were then redirected to that section of BRD. The merge was reverted, and this was discussed: Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 3#Revert, pointing out that the revert had left things a bit messy, and suggesting four possible courses of action. Deletion was one of them, but is perhaps the least appropriate. I'm not quite seeing the rationale for deletion as the essay is not offensive, misleading, controversial, or inappropriate. Its point is that BRD is not revert discuss revert discuss, etc, but that after the revert a consensus edit should be found, otherwise the cycle will go round in circles and what you have is essentially just an edit war. Seems an OK point to make. The real question here is not should we delete it, but should we restore it and update its shortcuts (WP:ANRBRD and WP:NBRD), or should we merge it into BRD as a note, and if so, what wording would be acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC) - Note. For the time-being I have restored the essay, and fixed the shortcuts, as all the redirects were pointing at nonexistant material. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or merge into BRD. There is no rationale for deleting the essay. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge. The essay's point is a very valid one. The big thread last year at WP:VPPOL proposing to make BRD a guideline instead of an essay brought up this very issue, and rejected the elevation (for a number of reasons). The ability of people to use BRD for "slow-editwar" and filibustering has long been observable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The VPPOL discussion mentioned above is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#RfC: elevation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to guideline status. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid comment related to the project. On an important and contentious matter, too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Restore consensus version Either the merge is restored, or the text remains as an essay. I'm not seeing any other possibilities here. The merge decision is for the folks at WP:BRD to decide. Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- As nominator, I'm OK with restoring it, but I oppose merging it to BRD - as I think it is not entirely compatible with the content of that essay and would change its meaning. Diego (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.