Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-recently created noticeboard that isn't being used for anything. Since WP:SPOV was a failed policy I don't think this is appropriate. N^oformation ^Talk 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Guerillero | My Talk 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would actually like to rescind my comment that it is inappropriate (without rescinding deletion). This NB may actually be a decent idea with or without WP:SPOV, but I think it needs to actually be used for something. I've never been involved with NB creation before so I'm not sure how to go about making it something people use. N^oformation ^Talk 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question If WP:SPOV was a failed proposal, is it now accepted as an essay? If we can clarify its status, maybe we can then decide what to do with the subpage? --Kleinzach 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Essays are meant to provide one (or more) Editors opinions on a policy or guideline, not as a way to "legitimize" failed policy proposals. Achowat (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Overly specific noticeboard for a failed policy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep archived as a redirect to Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. We keep bad ideas archived as a record of what not to do, or at least what didn't quite work out last time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per TPH. --Kleinzach 03:28, 9 February 2012 (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.