Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Warsaw/Vote

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was invalid listing. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Warsaw/Vote

Arguably, this page is already on VfD via Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Warsaw/Vote. But that's not entirely clear. To ensure prompt deletion of the page presently containing the poll, please vote here as well --Jerzy (t) 15:46, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

• Delete (vote by nominator) for reasons i gave on the other VfD page. --Jerzy (t) 15:46, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Query. If this page is already on VfD, what is the point of nominating it twice? Doesn't that just unecessarily increase vfd bloat? And what would happen if the result of one vfd was keep, but the other was delete? Dave the Red (talk) 19:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant. Treat it like any other page that's moved during vfd. One debate's enough. —Korath (Talk) 21:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Please see CSD criterion G8 and please read Wikipedia:Deletion process. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Actually, i shan't reread the less memorable portions of those pages, until i need the info: While i have an active interest in policy, and value the Wiki-lawyers who keep it codified, becoming a Wiki-lawyer is not part of my calling. And i don't need that info bcz none of it could change the clear fact that either the nomination for deletion names a page that was a redirect when nominated (obviously (to anyone who knows of RfD) improperly), or the instruction (placed on the page via template in the process of nomination) not to move a nominated page has been contravened. A VfD that does not make sense on its face has unacceptably high cost in distraction of participants -- as would an RTFM msg like the one above, if it went unanswered.

  My disambiguation of the situation at a point immediately visible to the VfD participants is a mediocre solution, but superior to what i found. I welcome a yet better solution; one might be

  1. moving ("my") Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Warsaw/Vote to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Talk:Warsaw/Vote,
  2. deleting the resulting historyless redirect,
  3. moving Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Warsaw/Vote to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Warsaw/Vote,
  4. adding to it a brief note with link to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Talk:Warsaw/Vote, and
  5. adjusting other links accordingly,

  but IMO only a Wiki-lawyer is in a position to judge the acceptability of that means of making the VfD sensible on its face.

  If WP:CfD and Wikipedia:Deletion process don't provide for that or some other means of achieving face-value sense, i'm prepared to wait for the Wiki-lawyers to correct that deficiency in the codification and/or the on-the-scene instructions, and will continue, until they get to it, to edit, VfD, and responsibly improvise for the sake of face-value sense.

  --Jerzy (t) 04:46, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.