Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of faux pas (third nomination)

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 Faux pas. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of faux pas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has been split, apparently into the listed articles, but what remains is not really an article, nor is it a disambiguation page. Powers ^T 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a useful dab page as none of the lists really is of faux pas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lone editor who did the "split" in November 2006 virtually deleted this page on his own. This is of no more interest or usefulness than a blanked page. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete really of no use as someone looking for a list of faux pas has come to the wrong place. Tavix |  Talk  04:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Redirect to Faux pas per WP:MAD. My rationale remains the same. Tavix |  Talk  15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment doesn't the history need to be kept if this was split apart and the content merged into other articles? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. You might want to log in and sign the comment once more; I hate it when that happens to me. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Faux pas. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in light of 70.29's observation. This is what the page looked like [1] before User:Boston essentially erased it, and this was after the erased content had survived deletion. Whatever we might dislike about that page (and there were plenty of problems with it) I can't endorse that type of action. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't endorse a valid split? Powers ^T 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he means a deletion of this article. Tavix |  Talk  15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faux pas.--Jusjih (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• None or all of the above: Bring back to pre-User:Boston version, copy and paste to Faux pas, and redirect. The old version of "List of" had more info than the Faux pas article itself. The list as it stands is just a recreation of the "see also" section of the faux pas article.--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Faux pas. Don't reinvent the wheel. What happened in December 2006 was that there was consensus that this version[2] was bloated, and it was separated into several "Etiquette of..." articles. See Talk:List of faux pas#Ready.2C Steady.2C Go. Fences and windows (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (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.