Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Pugwash USA

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Talk:Student Pugwash USA.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

'''The result of the debate was to delete the page as it was an inappropriate use of a talk page. 6 votes to delete, 2 abstain, only original author voted to keep. However, the original content has been removed and replaced with information more relevant to a talk page, so there was no 'hard delete' of the page.'''


 * Talk:Student Pugwash USA. As I just said in the mailing list, I normally don't object to things on Talk pages, but this is an exception.  RickK 03:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Can you expand a little on your resons for objection? Anjouli 05:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a chat room. RickK 04:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. It looks like the author of Student Pugwash USA used the talk page of the article as a forum for some of the org's members to review a proposed "mission statement". Accepting this would not be a good precedent. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. (oops, forgot to sign. This is my comment. Anthropos 13:38, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC))
 * I abstain. Seems a worthy cause and there are worse things happening on WP. I agree it should be discouraged, but I would not go so far as to delete.Anjouli 13:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can you say off-label use of Wikipedia?  Daniel Quinlan
 * Delete. Clear abuse of the talk page for non-article related purpose. If for some strange reason someone thinks this should be kept, imagine the terrible precedent it would set. Maximus Rex 04:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete Abstain. I left a note on the creator's talk page, so maybe that will help... -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 03:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ortonmc 05:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * KEEP! Dear RickK, Ortonmc et al.: There is no clear Deletion Policy guidance with respect to what is acceptable or not on talk pages. Wikipedia's own Purpose of Talk Pages article (which I recommend be linked from the Deletion_Policy page) indicates that our discussion was clearly within the scope of what a Wikipedia talk page should do:
 * 1) As noted from the outset of the Student Pugwash talk page, the purpose of the discussing therein was precisely to "improve the contents of the main page" and to provide "commentary on the main page".
 * 2) The entire dialog on that page is about how to better frame the mission statement for this 20 year-old organization. Consensus on this talk page (just on as operates on wikipedia as a whole) will result in an update of the wiki article it is talking about -- i.e., to revise the mission statement expressed in that article. Thus, this dialog also directly meets Wiki's Talk_Page standard for "arguments relevant to changing the text".
 * 3)If it is the cultural concept of framing that concensus in terms of a "memo" which offends Ortonmc, I can remove all reference to the term "memo," but please keep the overall discussion intact. The alternative of censorship is counter to Wikipedia's intent of allowing for pertinent (inoffensive) free speech on an article's Talk page, including "commentary on the main page."
 * People discussing clarifying communication about the subject of a wikipedia article is clearly within the scope of what a Talk_Page is expected to do. I urge my fellow "wikipeople" not to err on the side of censorship with regards to such communication.
 * Thank for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Dann 14:00 to 16:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I'm not sure why I got singled out by name here, as I was by no means the first one to bring this up. But I feel bound to respond now.  (I'm speaking for myself here.  Et al are going to have to voice their own opinions.)
 * It appears Dann and I have different impressions of various things. Granted, Deletion Policy isn't crystal clear about talk pages.  If it were, there would be no need for this discussion.
 * I do not agree that the discussion on Talk:Student Pugwash USA is "clearly within the scope of what a Wikipedia talk page should do." It may be clear to Dann, but it's not at all clear to me.  As I see it, the guiding principle is this simple statement in talk page:  "Talk about the article, not about the subject."  In the discussion on Talk:Student Pugwash USA, the article is not mentioned, except briefly to say if changes are made by the organization it will be reflected in the Wikipedia article.  The discussion is entirely about SPUSA itself.
 * I think it's incorrect to assert that the purpose of the discussion was to "improve the contents of the main page." It looks as if the purpose of the discussion was to effect a change in the SPUSA organization.  Improving the main page is more of a side-effect.
 * It's not a question of censorship. Nobody here wants to stifle the discussion on the subject.  It's just that Wikipedia isn't the place for the discussion.  I'd suggest setting up a Yahoo group or something.  It seems like the kind of thing they'd be good for.   Ortonmc 01:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I would just add that improving the mission statement of the organization has absolutly nothing to do with improving the article. If the organization's mision statement changes, then it could result in a change to the article. But even if the mission statement went from pitiful to brilliant, it would have no effect on the quality of the article, because the quality of the article is not in any way dependent upon the quality of the mission statement. -Anthropos 01:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstand the intent of a Wikitalk page -- my understanding from what I read at (check it out) seems to indicate an intent to breathe life into the overall process of developing a Wikipedia article.
 * IM[H]O, What makes Wikipedia different than a "traditional" encyclopedia is not just the community authorship, but also the opportunity to use the Talk pages to collaborate and innovate.
 * The express purpose of the discussion here, as previously mentioned, was to explore and refine the essential description of this organization (i.e., its mission statement). This has direct bearing on the article itself. I firmly believe that a description of an organization's mission, i.e., its purpose, should be part of an encyclopedia's article on a given organization. Could you imagine describing the UN High Commission for Refugees without stating its purpose? (It's the very first sentence of that wikipedia article.)
 * If community consensus on that purpose were evolving (just as a wiki article does) isn't Wikipedia an ideal medium to explore, document and clarify such evolution before inclusion in the article itself?
 * Further, as our total dialog here nearly exceeds the length of the talk itself, are we really contributing to anything substantive in this "delete" discussion or just blowing off steam and wasting time regarding a benign (or perhaps even innovative and beneficial?) use of wiki's functionality?
 * Finally, the fact that wikipedia's policy sanctions this use of the talk page - given evidence and citations I presented above - it seems bizarre that a few people's impressions should override such policies. If the policy is unacceptable, update the policy. Otherwise, attacks voiced on this page appear arbitrary and capricious -- a hedgemony of the most active, not aligned with or supported by any Wikipedia usage statements nor any rule of law. Such hedgemony for censorship does not bode well for an information service which thrives upon the contributions of many enthusiastic volunteers. - Dann 04:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Dann, could you please explain how changing the Pugwash USA mission statement will help to improve the article, or Wikipedia? -Anthropos 16:22, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The discussion appears to be about changing the mission statement, not changing the article's description of the group's mission. Tuf-Kat 03:04, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Anthropos says "Talk about the article, not about the subject" and I must agree with that. However it's a rule that's much abused. There are any number of remarks about the subject itself on talk pages. But they are mostly brief asides. I think what's different here is the volume of text, and I'm sorry Dann, but I think it could be the thin end of the wedge if everybody is allowed to do it. WP does not have infinite bandwidth or storage resources and they must be mostly concentrated on the core task. In the interests of peace and harmony, I hope you will now voluntarily move the text to a more suitable host, perhaps a Yahoo group. Nothing to stop you from linking to such a group from the Talk (or main) page. Anjouli 16:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Dann To respond to Anthropos: Any change in the mission should be reflected in the article, otherwise the article would no longer correctly reflect the organization and its purpose. Meanwhile, I understand the community has spoken - I don't agree with you, nor do I feel like Wikipedia's stated rules provide sufficient justification for your verdict - but you guys are the cultural establishment here and I am the newbie. So, I'll respect your verdict, back down and take it somewhere else.  Finally, I am not clear to what extent I have the authorization to erase what other people have freely contributed to the "talk" page. Could someone please provide clarification/guidance to me? (I.e., just because I agree to remove the stuff doesn't mean the others do nor that I have the right to delete their contributions.)  Thanks to Brian for his efforts at making this a more civil process and to Anjouli for being so kind as to suggest I take care of this voluntarily instead of its forced deletion from on high. ~ Dann 7:00, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) PS: After contributing 4 new articles and many edits to WP in my first month, I've found this dogpile (the process if not the result) has put a damper on my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia in the future.

Regretfully, Dann 8:00, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Dann As I was editing this talk page over the past hour to reflect your collective will, it was deleted. Given my previous conciliatory message (above), I find this highly disrespectful. I am posting the text I'd prepared to my own page, with hopes that someone will either place this text at Talk:Student_Pugwash_USA or else inform me of having restored my ability to do so.

WP, like the world, is a constant struggle between persons of different intellect and intent. Sometimes the disrespectful are more pro-active. But you can always Revert! I think you have shown yourself to be intelligent and responsible, even if you disagree with the majority opinion in some cases. I hope you stay with WP. Anjouli 17:15, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)