Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ

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 Delete. Please, enough with the personal attacks and accusations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ

Not necessary. The questions that were on here earlier were both 1) not frequently asked, and 2) answered incorrectly. We don't need this FAQ. jps (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page.Such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page" why should the talk page continue when the underlying page has been deleted? That's why I called for the speedy delete--Wlmg (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "answered incorrectly" is a content issue -- and removal of all content before proposing for deletion seems contrary to normal procedure. We should determine whether or not to keep a page on the basis of its content before the AfD nom blanks it. AfD is not a good place to settle content issues as a rule. Collect (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as the page doesn't appear to have been completed yet. Note that the nominator deleted the page's content before nominating it for deletion. I suggest the nominator read WP:ACTIVIST. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Following each other around much, Cla68 and Collect? jps (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Appropriate for an AfD comment, Joshua? The overlap between the two editors is de minimis. 8 articles and one essay, for example. And I do not see how such a massive overlap has anything at all to do with this article one whit. Closing admin please note. Collect (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You two have been active in very similar areas as of recent, including an activist-amount of interest in WP:ACTIVIST on your part, an essay Cla68 penned. Neither of you comments that often at MfD in the past. Let me opine: you were pissed off by me and looked through my contributions finding this MfD. Cla68 simply followed suit. Closing admin please note, indeed. jps (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eh? Try looking at my over 500 edits at MfD for a start. That is not very often? I am one of the most active editors there! I fear you are looking for reasons to dismiss genuine arguments to Keep at this point. Collect (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A might touchy are we? This shows that, until I pointed out your particular interest in this MfD that your activity over the last few weeks was not that of a "Mfd-regular". Anyhow, it's good to see you comment at others. Keep your whistle whet! Cheers! jps (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My last 500 edits in WP space show nearly one hundred separate XfD discussions I have participated in. Somewhere over 30 per month. I count that as being an "MfD regular" but if anyone here other than you opines that I am not a regular, I would love to hear from them! Collect (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever. The pattern is clear. Over the last three weeks, you've only commented on a few MfDs that seem to be centered around very particular issues. Your new forays are to be commended. jps (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        IOW taking off under two weeks from the day after Christmas is evidence that I am somehow conspirng with Cla68 with whom I have less overlap than with you? Or that I am not a regular here? That I skipped fewer than 20 MfD discussions from December 26 to January 8 -- a period when some of us actually have family to talk to? Sheesh -- the pile gets bigger and bigger. Collect (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You can try to twist what I'm pointing out to any designs you care, but it's pretty clear that there are a few MfDs you've taken a particular interest in. Being shrill cannot fix your contribution history. It's a pretty funny lark that you claim you took off from commenting on MfDs for the holidays. Not plausible considering you were editing Wikipedia otherwise. La-de-da. jps (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jps, why did you just vandalize the page in question? Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do NOT call me a WP:VANDAL. That is a personal attack. jps (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an IP had done what you did in that edit, what would it likely be called? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hopefully not vandalism per WP:VANDAL. jps (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever what Jps did is called, he should not do it. It is not necessary. It hinders this conversation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this conversation being particularly hindered? jps (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but sometimes when the page under discussion gets edited, it can be confusing to new arrivals at the discussion page. Most people agree that pages being discussed for deletion are free to be edited, but expect that if you do so, you'll point it out at the XfD page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that these are "frequently asked questions". The talk page history is so short that it's never even been archived, so there doesn't appear to be any need for this page. FAQ pages attached to article talk pages seem to be growing as a place for unsourced, and sometimes non-neutral, assertions about article topics. I see no benefit to keeping this POV magnet. Will Beback talk 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is in violation of the guideline at WP:Subpages where at disallowed use #3 it says that we cannot create subpages which are "for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." FAQ pages are not allowed. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a FAQ; it's a POV push (at least in the version I'm looking at right now). Cardamon (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not really FAQs at all, just POV William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came here from Enneagram of Personality after seeing it listed on FTN. The article obviously has some NPOV problems that could be remedied with more objective sourcing. A Talk page "FAQ" that preemptorily declares (in Wikpedia's voice) that the subject of the article is proven scientifically valid is inappropriate and ill-advised - on so many levels. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a POV fork of the article itself. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Will and Cardamon pretty much sum it up. Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As other say above. I'll add that FAQ have the purpose of providing neutral informative answers to people's questions. This FAQ is absolutely failing to do this. The article is not well researched => it's still unclear what reliable sources say about the subject => questions don't have clear answers yet => too soon for a FAQ => someone creates a premature FAQ anyways => FAQ degrades into a POV magnet => delete it => re-create when the article is more mature. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless POV-pushing fork on a talk subpage? Get rid of it. SnottyWong ^talk 00:01, 20 January 2011 (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.