Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:I Predict 1990/Archive 1

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: speedy keep . WP:IAR/WP:BRD This is a silly dispute that MFD clearly doesn't need to deal with. It's been dealt with at AN3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:I Predict 1990/Archive 1

While I appreciate the effort of the editor who created the archive, it is unnecessary. There are three items here. When archives are created, it's usually because the talk page is too large and old topic are removed. That's not the case with this talk. I have restored the previous content on the talk page. If a bot is needed to archive "older than 300 days", "larger than 32 MB" and "leave three threads" parameters should be used, although I could see "leave one thread" as an option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The archive was created due to a move. It should be moved back and the original talk should be restored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is nothing wrong with the archive. It was a simple administrative action. --evrik ^(talk) 16:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Didn't need archiving, but now that it is, is it really important enough that we need to have an MfD about undoing it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points. I could request that the talk page be removed and then I could move it back. Also, it was not a simple administrative action. It was hiding evrik's discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is it hiding? --evrik ^(talk) 20:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Few look at talk pages. Fewer look in archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I would merge it back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge back would be perfect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All this effort for something so inconsequential? --evrik ^(talk) 16:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close, not a decision for MfD. This is just a housekeeping action once you get consensus on what you want to do with the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ask any admin to fix it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus to make the change. --evrik ^(talk) 17:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet there was no consensus to create the archive for three items. The only reason I could see for creating the archive is to hide a discussion where you looked bad. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - really. I have never heard of anyone seeking consensus to create an archive. You are creating an issue where none exists. --evrik ^(talk) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do not edit my comments. It was correct per MOS:LQ. And really, I have never heard of anyone archiving three items in a short talk page. I have also never heard of anyone archiving all comments on a talk page. It is generally common to leave at least one thread, and usually three. So to archive everything there is very suspicious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2018 (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.