- 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 snowball keep - non admin closure Triona ( talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
Redundant page to AN/I, the page is unnecessary and is primarily used by users in edit conflicts trying to gain support. Also, accusing someone of having a COI is inflammatory and does not help the conflict. This would be better handled through mediation. Alpha Quadrant ( talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Even if everything you say is correct and you are right about what needs to be done - I have no opinion on this - MfD is not the correct way to accomplish it. You would want to use an RfC instead. — Gavia immer ( talk) 23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - the page is integrated and beneficial to discussion of the issue, strongest keep . Off2riorob ( talk) 23:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No, this is not redundant to ANI, as the header states. Deleting a well established noticeboard isn't the way to go anyway. Netalarm talk 23:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - The basis for this deletion seems based on misinformation. This board isn't for people in edit conflicts trying to gain support, in fact that's pretty rare (for example, I only see two threads on the board now along those lines, and both were dismissed as not actually involving a COI). Usually when people are reported to this board, it is to analyze the behavior of the person who is reported, and to determine whether or not the person's connections might constitute a COI. As a mediator myself, I don't see this board as redundant at all, most issues wouldn't be helped by mediation as they involve behavioral issues, not content disputes. If it's inflammatory to suggest that a person has a COI, do we do away with WP:COI as well? -- Atama 頭 00:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, Gavia immer ( talk · contribs) and Atama ( talk · contribs) are correct, especially as there exists the corresponding page, WP:COI. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as per Atama. Edward321 ( talk) 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep can this page even be deleted by a non-steward? It serves a use... Pilif12p : Yo 00:49, 14 September 2010 (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.