Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted

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 keep but blank with an explanatory link to this MfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted[edit]

There is no reason for this to exist, it was created in clear violation of policy (if it were a template it would easily qualify as a T2 CSD) and has absolutely no use in its present state. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe Kharkiv07's description to be completely false, it serves no particular purpose now, and hasn't done so for a year. I would suggest keeping it until relevant Arbcom cases are closed. I'd do it myself, but I would undoubtedly be accused of destroying evidence.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: useful. 333 -blue 06:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is this useful? Per Kww, delete upon completion of the relevant arbitration case. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete after Arb case closes~~ unless this was some kind of bizarre DS enforcement, this is really sketchy. Brustopher (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to arbspace per SmokeyJoe and MER-C Brustopher (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a subpage of the ArbCom case, and leave it to the judgement of the Arbs and their clerks. At MfD we should stear clear of ArbCom active cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The case is closed, the message should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message is explicitly linked to in the final decision (FOF 3). MER-C 05:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have consulted Liz, the clerk for the arbcom case, and will close this as move or delete as she advises. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but blank. This will prevent anyone from using the deprecated template, but leave it available in the history in case anyone later wishes to research the arbitration case (as unlikely as that might be). A brief explanatory note can be added to the page if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While semi-canvassed (ok, I was canvassed, completely and throughly, on the clerks' list) I agree with Newyorkbrad's idea. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but blank per Newyorkbrad. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2015 (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.