Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments

Runs afoul of WP:NOTFREESPEECH. This page was being used as a forum, and Wikipedia's not a forum at all. Requesting deletion on this page ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 12:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I asked about this at WP:AN#Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments since I also agree that it's not really suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. However, I think Someguy1221's comment about archiving the page, perhaps by using {{historical}} or {{archived}}, might be worth discussing. The page appears to have been created back in 2008, and some of the posts may be relevant in some way to the current Cantor's diagonal argument article. However, the page shouldn't remain live if it's not deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a summary of content that has appeared on the talk page in the past that can serve as a sort of FAQ for future arguments against the diagonal argument when they appear on the talk page. It is not essentially different in nature from archives of talk pages, just more convenient. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A FAQ? That page is loaded with OR on it, sorry, that can in no way serve as a faq. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 16:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean a mainspace FAQ, I mean a resource for the talk page. It is in talkspace, so OR doesn't apply. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Take a look at WP:OR, in the box This page in a nutshell. It's saying that all material in Wikipedia needs to be attributable to an RS. Note the "all material" part of it. I think OR does apply on talk pages as well. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's a few pages like this around the place. I don't think they contribute much to improving the associated article. They are forums. However I do think they are helpful in presenting a friendlier face to people with a bee in their bonnet who might otherwise start thinking of Wikipedia as a place they should oppose. We can explain that the article has to be the way it is because that is what reliable sources say and that's how Wikipedia works, and maybe try explaining the problem with what they say though that is rarely successful. I'm not sure that deleting will improve the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IAR case I think for it, helping directing discussion to somewhere where it can be handled better etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Archive - Many of the arguments are fringe, but the fact that they have been made over and over again may prove useful in the future if disruptive editing of the article has to go to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Whether the crummy arguments against the validity of the proof should be mentioned and dismissed in the article is another question, not being considered here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Archive would just mean to mark as closed discussion, I guess. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]