- 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 discussion was keep. JohnCD ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Used on only 10 pages. Seems overly contrived. COI editing is not inherently an issue, so anyone with COI does not need to go through this rigamarole. If COI is concerning, we already have more than one template for it. (As an addition, this creates a redlink category too.) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - no longer creates redlink category, and source code makes it clear this is under development. Not a bad idea to have some sort of warning. No valid deletion rationale I can see. -- No unique names 20:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As per Jimbo himself, COI editing is inherently problematic. This is a userspace-level template under development ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know if I would support such a broad generalization, but I would say certain forms of COI are problematic often enough that it is beneficial to give them advice that will work out better for everyone in most cases. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The template was created under the intention of broader use, but I have been using it on a Bold basis in user space to see if there is resistance. The AfD will be a good measure to see how people feel about it. Instead of deleting it because it is only used on ten articles, I think we should use it on more articles. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think this provides a solution for situations where the person best placed to correct an article to ensure factual accuracy is someone with a conflict of interest (e.g. an employee). COI might be problematic but inaccuracy is worse. -- EdWalker58 ( talk) 09:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Template is Contrived, Confusing, and Unnecessary. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 15:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- If this is being kept, it needs to be moved into the right namespace and advertised. Six months is more than enough incubation time for an editor to decide whether or not a template is a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 14:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- either move it to template space, or delete it. Frietjes ( talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lets put it in template-space and keep improving it. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep with addition of a link to WP:COI in the first sentence. Although Wikipedia generally does not give disclaimers or warnings, this seems reasonable to me. I'd also advocate an WP:Editnotice which advises COI editors to slow their roll, though these are a minor pain to set up. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:25, 3 February 2013 (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.