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 No Consensus. I feel that -Ril- makes a good argument for keeping the article, and that there needs to be a clearer discussion of Consensus on RfC's talk page before this can be deleted. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example article[edit]

Newly created RfC template, used in a changed version of the article RfC process [1], since reverted. Should be deleted to avoid confusion: two RfCs were already made using this changed process, and the result wasn't good (not to mention it diverts the discussion away from the article's talk pages, which is not a good effect). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ril changes RFC process and no one noticed. cesarb 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per CesarB. Xoloz 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per IAR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Much as VfD needed fixing, so does RFC. Article RFC is virtually useless at the moment - only one or two people get involved, the issue gets lost in the talk page when people visit from RFC and its difficult to see what is debated or down what route the debate goes. Doing it like this will allow the debate/issue to be hashed out at a dedicated location, it to be clear exactly what there is in favour/against a position, and for solutions to be expressed more cleanly.

For example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freemasonry cleanly shows what the argument is about, the justifications of each side, the fact that one side is in a clear minority (7 vs. 3) [it happens to be the same side as Hipocrite that is in a minority]. The alternate solution is also workable, and reasonably expressed. No side has engaged in personal attacks, nor has any aggression between editors been expressed - the method suppresses these undesirables quite well, it would seem. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ril's unilateral change to RfC methodology, snuck in without consensus or even discussion. If there's a problem -- and if this is supposed to be the solution -- get some agreement before sneaking it in. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CesarB. Ral315 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, move' to a name different from the correct example, and tag with "proposed policy" or something like that. Am I missing something here? Wouldn't that be a typical solution for this?—This unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 09:14, March 13, 2006.

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.