Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sexual content

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 debate was Policy proposals may be marked as rejected if they are rejected, or historical if they fail to achieve consensus, they are not deleted. --bainer (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy proposed after proposing the policy at WP:VP failed to show a consensus for proposal. There's really no need for this; the discussion is essentially duplicated. roux   16:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical: And move on. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but mark as rejected. Epic fails deserve a place in our site history. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep retaining rejection. It looks as if the proposed policy was created after the originator failed to gain any sort of mandate or consensus at the Village Pump. It was a bold act to do so, but not within the spirit of Wikipedia as I understand that spirit. The purpose of keeping it is to show that, while boldness is appreciated within articles, policies are not the place to indulge it. I am nervous, however, that keeping this rejected policy on file would send a signal to others that they might get one to slip under the radar, so some form of making sure that the rejection remains is appropriate here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It should either be appended to Wikipedia:Toby or a generalized page should be created to dump all failed proposals of this ilk. Retaining them really serves a useful prophylactic action. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy/archive but why delete? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (as the writer of said proposal) - I'd like it to be kept - though I think the 'rejection' tag is certainly a good fit... I don't read our policies as requiring consensus prior to starting a proposal. Discussion / commentary on the proposal itself is better at the proposal / talk page, I guess.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in that we need a policy on sexual content, just not this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is notable and verifiable then it makes the cut, if not then not. An exception is if the content itself (not the item described) is itself unlawful. Otherwise we are in the realms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 21 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.