Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The weather in London

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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The weather in London

Red link and like this one don't have such warnings. Why is one needed here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was used in a tutorial as a redlink. For those confused by the reference to "Red link", and "like this one", see Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Meta_pages#The_weather_in_London. Black Kite 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presumably the purpose is to explain why the article-space page is protected from recreation. Can you think of any reason why the page should be deleted? The nomination is rather lacking without one. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no real reason to explain why it's a protected title by way of an orphaned talk page. WP:LAME and other places already explain that this is supposed to be a permanent red link (like this one). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would make more sense to remove the explanation from WP:LAME and leave it on the talk page, where someone interested in the question is actually likely to find it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The explanation is relevant. I also observe that "The weather in London" is the default template at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and I once linked to it by forgetting to substitute the article name. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a few talk pages like this and they're quite helpful. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be useful to add something to talk:red link that points potentially confused readers to Wikipedia:Red link. --JayHenry (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's good to have a notice like that so people will now why there's not an article and why there won't be an article. Per above, I think Talk:Red link should have a similar notice. I know of a couple other pages that have this sort of thing. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:54, 16 May 2008 (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.