Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ


 * 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 delete--Aervanath (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/FAQ
Written from the POV of projectspace but included in an articlespace talk page. Already covered amply by guidelines available in the correct namespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Either we view this as a reference for a Talk page, in which case it falls well within WP guidelines for a Talk page, or we view it as a potential page for "what can I do if an article is to be deleted" in which case there is no single obvious place that most editors would turn to. In which case, a list of "what do I do now" pages would appear to make sense (which would, of course, then be WP:xxx pages). Collect (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't a WP:XXX page, and it was never intended to be. If What to do if your article is deleted is written, it can surely be written without this litte talk page "F"AQ. Plrk (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Move it to projectspace or project talkspace. Simple. --TS 12:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And put it where? Plrk (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This FAQ was based on two fellow editors questions on the talkpage. As the author of the 4 sentence FAQ which is causing such a stir here, I wonder why the nominator didn't discuss this with editors first on the talk page, or offer alternatives to deletion, as per the policy WP:PRESERVE. Why do so many wikipedians seem to feel like deletion is the only solution to their disagreements? Why do they often ignore steps which will curtail unnecessary wikidrama before putting an article up for deletion? travb (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two. Two? You must be using another definition of wikt:frequent than I. As for why "many wikipedians seem to feel like deletion is the only solution to their disagreements", please stick to the issue at hand instead of venturing into wiki-philosophy-territory. This is hardly a "wikidrama", by the way. Plrk (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult me by telling me to look up a definition on wiktionary. Of the 19 posts subsections, 2 of them were questions about delete policy, that is 10.5%.travb (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So if someone posts a question to an empty talk page, I should set up a FAQ, because after all, the question would be 100% of the posts? Also, your reasoning is flawed: 19 section headers does not equal 19 posts... Plrk (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man argument. I am simply saying that there was a repeated question on a talk page with 19 subsections, I thought it would be nice to assist other editors. I liked your suggestion about adding the two links:
 * "Why is it that the information at MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn is not enough? Why was my page deleted? has extensive information on why articles are deleted and what one can do about it. (The FAQ here didn't even link to that.)"
 * Thanks. I wish we would have had this constructive conversation about adding content before, but I am glad we are having it now. Ikip (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. What? The talk page of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia is for discussing the article Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, not for providing help with deletion-related issues. The "FAQ" in the template name stands for "frequently asked questions" - you might want to look up wikt:frequent before using it. This template has no reason to exist. Plrk (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of discussing the deletion first, and maybe coming up with an amlicable solution, both you and thumperward deleted the FAQ tag then roundly condemned me for creating it, in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE.  I don't see any policy documentation attached to Template:FAQ. travb (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE is primarily about articles and not talk pages, if one wants to go wikilawyering, WP:TALK is more interesting in this case. In any case, WP:PRESERVE states that exceptions include both "duplication or redundancy" (the FAQ was redundant to many pages in the more proper Wikipedia namespace) and "irrelevancy" (the FAQ had nothing to do with the article). Allow me to quote the first line of WP:TALK: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. I removed the FAQ the first time without discussion, because I thought it was uncontroversial - and since then, I have not removed it anymore, instead preferring to discuss it. Discussing it with you seems pretty much impossible as you avoid to counter my argument (the talk page is for discussing the article, not wikipedia procedures), and subsequently, another editor I never heard of or interacted with earlier came by and nominated it for deletion. I did not "condemn" you until you started to get on my nerves. Plrk (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry when I quote policy it is wikilawyering, but when Plrk quotes policy, what is it? So whenever anyone quotes policy they are "wikilawyering"?
 * Plrk condemned me by calling my edits "spam" twice, and said that I was trolling and a troll. Here are the edit diffs:
 * Plrk deletes FAQ, Plrk posts on the talk page that my contributions are spam. I respond. Response is not answered. thumperward deletes FAQ, says my username is SPA. Plrk calls my edits spam gain Plrk calls my edits trolling twice I ask Plrk to remove the personal attacks Plrk  then permited me to remove the attacks.
 * There have been continued attacks on me, with no effort to discuss this FAQ template before being deleted.  As I wrote on the talk page:
 * "Calling an editors contributions to a talk page "spam" is rather offensive. Did you expect a positive reaction?"
 * Plrk set the tone, "[Plrk] continued to discuss it" by calling my actions trolling and spam, twice each. Plrk never gave me a chance to discuss this template before first deleting the template, and launching into personal attacks. It amazes me how Plrk can twist what went on, in an attempt to make him sound innocent here.
 * There is no policy on FAQ tags. I created these FAQ to help other users, to direct them to other pages. I did not create these questions, I was simply trying to answer them. If I would have cut and pasted those answers in the talk page itself, there would be no recourse available to anyone at all, and no AfD. WP:PRESERVE, which is part of Editing policy states: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information" Etiquette states "Work towards agreement." A link to four sentence explaining policy does not violate WP:TALK. travb (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You were the one that started throwing around policies. I see "wikilawyering" as using policies to police situations that they were hardly written for - such as FAQs with questions completely irrelevant to the article on whose talk page the FAQ is placed. Clearly, WP:PRESERVE was not written for that. (Not that it matters - the information contained in the FAQ can be found elsewhere too.) As for the other stuff, I still think you are overreacting, I still think I'm right, and I still invite you to remove any comment you find offensive although I find nothing I have said to be that offensive. You are the one shouting "wikidrama". Anyhow, this is a discussion on the deletion of the FAQ, not a trial against me - can we stick to the topic now? Plrk (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, perhaps I again should point out that I did not not nominate the FAQ for deletion, nor would I have done so if Cunningham did not. I don't care that much. If the closing admin rules in travb/inclusionist's (now that is confusing) favor, I will gladly accept, unwatch the article, and go on with my life. Plrk (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per ignore all rules. My rationale: this is a case where the cost of further discussion on deleting it (a sub-page in a talk section -- not even something in articlespace?) vastly exceeds any potential deletion benefit. Tarinth (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - simply because it has nothing to do with the article. These are not frequently asked questions about the article or how it could be improved but about general Wikipedia practise, the talk page of an article is not the appropriate place for such questions and having the faq implies that it is. If anything there should be a message on the talk page that specifically points out that it is not the place to discuss the relative merits of deletionism or inclusionism or to ask how to delete or preserve content - links to the appropriate fora for such discussion could be provided. POV is irrelevant, even if it went on to describe the methods by which articles are nominated for deletion, the page should still be deleted because the content is simply not appropriate for an article talk page - it does not help develop the article. Guest9999 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a message box based on Template:Notaforum to the article's talk page . It could probably use some improvement but it's a start. Again, article talk pages exist as places to discuss improvements to the article. They are not for general discussion of the topic and certainly not a forum to ask or answer questions on Wikipedia's processes or policies - even when the article is about those processes or policies. When talk pages include faqs it is because questions come up repeatedly about the article's content or how the article should be edited and improved (examples Talk:List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series, Talk:Mother Teresa) in this instance the faq answers general questions about the topic, not the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not used for discussion or working on the article page &rarr; Delete (or possibly userfy just to get the self-reference). --fvw *  01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Outside of FAQs about an article just not being our policy, this one seems to be written from a POV that can't be avoided without a fundamental rewrite. The material on the page is highly inappropriate for the place it's in.  This can be used as an independant essay on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but as a commentary in the main namespace (and especially the particular article it's written about) this page only serves to polarize the Wikipedia community and is clearly written with a conflict of interest.  As an example of what this would look like if it happened to an article outside of Wiki-culture, imagine a FAQ being linked-to from Two-party_system containing "Q: The Democrats have stolen all of my money through their taxes, how can I get it back?".  Now replace "two-party system" with "Deletionism and inclusionism" and "stolen all of my money" with "deleted my article" and the bias becomes clear. Themfromspace (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment That would make sense but for the fact that no one is going to complain "someone added my article" are they? The positive action which would likely result in a person having any concerns is "deletion" and so, while I am not an "inclusionist," there is no doubt that COI does not rear its head here. I personally feel that there is room on WP for such material, as the current acronymocracy makes it difficult for inexperienced users to figure out what to do sometimes. Collect (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, noone would complain "The republicans gave me tax cuts" (or "The democrats gave me welfare")... but that's beside the point, I guess. ;) Plrk (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is yet another of the many, many cases of User:Inclusionist seeing how far he can push the limits of disruptiveness before he gets called on it. He does everything up to the very razor's edge of telling new editors how they can game the system. This article is just another one of the many incarnations of that goal. The POV alone makes it clear that this article needs to go. Trusilver  17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one could accuse me of being a front for Inclusionist, but the position here is not related to personal disputes I trust. I do not find arguments concerning the editor nor his POV to be as strong as the arguments that new users need some sort of information which is not currently as readily available as it ought to be. Collect (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, is this really the place for such information? Why is it that the information at MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn is not enough? Why was my page deleted? has extensive information on why articles are deleted and what one can do about it. (The FAQ here didn't even link to that.) Plrk (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Trusilver, I would appreciate you refactoring the irrelevant personal attacks against me, those accusations are issues you can bring up on my talk page, not here please. Introduction to_deletion process states: "Keep calm and civil. Good advice for any discussion, Assume good faith. Remember that other editors may disagree with you, but may still be trying to help the encyclopedia." This is the first time I have seen your username, I wish you could discuss your concerns with me in another forum. Thanks.


 * Delete' Redundant, POV. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice to closing administrator Plrk suggestion was added to this FAQ page. Thanks Plrk. travb (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So now the FAQ links directly to a mediawiki system message. Great, not. My "suggestion" was that these pages are enough, there is no need for the FAQ to exist. Plrk (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for the suggestion great suggestions:
 * "Why is it that the information at MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn is not enough? Why was my page deleted? has extensive information on why articles are deleted and what one can do about it. (The FAQ here didn't even link to that.)"
 * Plrk, I am glad we are working together to build consensus on this page, I appreciate your continued support and input in this endeavor. Do you have any other suggestions? Happy Martin Luther King Day. Ikip (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Constructive discussion"? My "continued support"? "Working together"? Plrk (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (refactored out personal attacks) Continued insults "idiot, crazy" will result in a report to ANI. This is at least the third time I have warned you civily.
 * If you cannot argue your points without peity personal attacks, you may want to reevaluate your points, because I suspect they have no real merit standing alone.Ikip (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that most people agree with my position, I would say they do. Considering my argument about the mediawiki system message to be a suggestion, and stating your appreciation for my "continued support", clearly counts as "crazy" in my eyes, considering it was not a suggestion and I never supported you. But oh well. Plrk (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - My be well intended - in which case userfication should be acceptable for the creator - but blurs the distinction between encyclopedic coverage of wikipedia (or a subtopic) and project space than the article itself inevitably does. Questions on the talk page can as well be pointed to Why was my page deleted?which is open for amendments by autoconfirmed editors.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.