Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk page

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page. Uncle G is right in that this discussion was not conducted in a very rigorous policy-based manner and I am therefore reluctant to find a well-reasoned "delete" consensus. But, frankly, most people here for one reason or another don't think that this is article-worthy, so the next best thing is a redirect, until a consensus to the contrary emerges.  Sandstein  18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable. Should be deleted per WP:ASR and WP:N. The sources do not give it enough coverage to write an encyclopedia topic about it, and some of the article is WP:OR. Boshinoi (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination; self-referencing and original research. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Wipe the history and just have it redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page. After reconsidering the article and looking up some of the references I find myself changing my !vote to Keep as it passes WP:RS and I feel the topic is notable beyond the WP:TALKPAGE wiki article. --Pmedema (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any rationale based upon our policies and guidelines for that action? You haven't given one. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for providing a rationale. Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page makes the most sense here. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: what else would a person be looking for when typing "talk page" into a search box, no? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An encyclopaedia article about talk pages. Please explain, with reference to our policies and guidelines, why it is not possible to have one. A bullet-proof rationale based upon policy will make a convincing argument for the closing administrator to hang xyr hat on. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect...no strong preference either way. Doesn't deserve its own article. A wiki does not need a talkpage by nature, and it can be covered perfectly well in wiki and Mediawiki as appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk pages can also be covered in an article entitled talk page. It seems like a sensible title. So please explain how your notion of what "deserves" an article matches up with our policies and guidelines. It is not apparent. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WP:TALKPAGE. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? You, too, have provided no rationale. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has become a term beyond Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that match up with our various policies and guidelines on Verifiability, No original research, Deletion policy, and Notability? I have gone beyond Wikipedia, too. (I have an account at Wiktionary.) Should I get an article now? Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect per Verdatum, Mufka and Theseeker4. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one of them has given a rationale, and xe did so after you wrote that (in response to my request to xem for a rationale). What rationale do you propose for that action? Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge Redirecting is a bad idea as it links external users to the backroom of the project. Wiki has the extra space required. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has become a significant concept and notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean that it satisfies the primary notability criterion? This is the closest that any editor has come to a proper rationale in this entire discussion. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Isn't this just WP:TALKPAGE? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this diff, the answer to that question is clearly "No.". Do you have another rationale? Please make a case that is firmly based upon our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost entirely original research/self-reference. No need to make any cross-namespace redirects. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither you nor the nominator have explained exactly how this is original research. And you both appear to not understand what a self-reference actually is. Please re-read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and learn what it is in fact aimed at. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.