Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nutshell (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Wikipedia:List of policies. JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Nutshell

Abandoned and unmaintained project from 2009 to summarize policy. The content is redundant to WP:LOP, and is pretty much guaranteed to be out of sync with the current state of play. The page was MfD'ed before, within two days of its creation, and concerns were raised over the accuracy of its content. The consensus at the time was then that it should be marked as an essay, at which point its author immediately gave up. As it stands now, the content of this page only serves to potentially cause confusion, and it definitely presents an unnecessary maintenance burden. Its continued existence offers no advantage over other existing pages, and I suggest therefore that it be effectively deleted ~~and~~ by having the title redirected to WP:LOP. — Scott • talk 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified following Graham87's comment. — Scott • talk 17:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, an unfinished, abandoned page. KonveyorBelt 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well intentioned but impossible to maintain. A nutshell that is in a policy or guideline is very helpful, and because of its position there can be some assurance that it is a reasonable reflection of good procedure. However, a poorly maintained page elsewhere can only create confusion and waste time. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 01:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Also, the problems created by an article of this nature might be mitigated, should my proposal get additional support. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, but why delete it first? There's nothing so egregious in the history that it needs to be inaccessible to non-admins. Sure it's misleading and not that useful, but this MFD makes that clear. Graham87 13:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I realize that in the nomination statement you probably meant that the page's *content* should be deleted and the page should be redirected. Fair enough then. Graham87 13:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I could have phrased it better. Thanks for pointing it out, I've reworded it a little. — Scott • talk 17:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Graham -- history should remain. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No need to delete history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect History is probably useless but we can keep it just in case someone wants to look at it. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 14:46, 22 February 2014 (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.