Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. R adiant _>|< 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks[edit]

This is blatently an attempt to circumvent the fact that Kelly Martin and Snowspinner were not elected, did not get community approval, and are not respected by the community.

Delete and abolish --Victim of signature fascism 12:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the Arbitration Committee is empowered to organise its own affairs. The only thing someone who disagrees with this page is argue why it is a bad idea - to Jimbo or to the Arbitration Committee. The community doesn't have the authority to delete this page. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The community has whatever authority it gives itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ril- (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 January 2006
No, the community has whatever authority those in charge give to it. Remember, this is a private website. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Sigh. David | Talk 12:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-evident speedy keep. --Nick Boalch^?!? 12:38, 29 January 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.