Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Twin paradox/explanations


 * 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 (note that SmokeyJoe switched to delete near the bottom). The sole keep did little to influence this decision. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Twin_paradox/explanations
Page was created for express purpose of conducting original research. -- Paradoctor (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion involving the page's creator lead to the conclusion that deletion is appropriate. -- Paradoctor (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The page is already huge, along with its history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see your point here. We can't change history, but we can prevent irrelevant material from crowding out the useful bits. And per WP:TPG, we should: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.". As the archive review (permalink) has shown, the page is huge because the vast majority of it does not adhere to long-standing policy. A history of mistakes does not justify continuing the bad habit. Just say no! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or archive. We don't delete history created in good faith.  It may have future uses.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please name one, and I'll archive it myself. Per WP:TPG: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.". An honest mistake is still subject to correction. The handful of possibly useful citations have been introduced in already archived pages, and are contained in the toolbox I'm currently building. The page consists, as intended, entirely of original research, irrelevant and/or already present material. I had offered the option to move the material out of the way, but none of the participants, including the page's creator, mustered enough interest to be arsed with a few minutes of work. There is no conceivable future use for it on Wikipedia. Paradoctor (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One what? Bad idea? We don’t deleted even the worst policy proposals (unless disruptive, or perhaps pointy).  This MfD reminds me of the following:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments (kept)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments (2nd nomination) (kept)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox (deleted, but I still disagree with deleting it)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Miley Cyrus/Comments (archived)
 * Even if now useless, these pages are part of the talk page history, separated with the intention of providing organisation. They should not be deleted as per any talk page history.  A history merge is overkill as too much work for something that probably contains nothing of great importance.  Converting to a redirect (keeping the history available), or boxing and tagging as an archive, are reasonable option for any editor to boldly do subject to consensus (see WP:BRD).  Yes, irrelevant discussions may be best removed, as a normal edit, but this doesn’t mean (allegedly) irrelevant things should be administratively deleted.  I would only support deleting this page if you could explain why archiving or converting to a redirect isn’t good enough.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "One what?": "It may have future uses". As I said, name one.
 * "even the worst policy proposals": We're not talking about a policy proposal. A rejected proposal can at least serve to inform that this proposal has been made before.
 * "unless disruptive": So we do delete proposals? And for the same reason this MfD came to be. If you take a few minutes to look at the archive review linked above, you can see that the talk page already drowns in irrelevant material.
 * "This MfD reminds me of": I haven't yet had time to give your argument by authority the attention it deserves, but a first quick look appears to reveal nothing new or relevant. More tomorrow.
 * "Even if now useless": Right up there with "future uses".
 * "should not be deleted as per any talk page history": I'm not aware of any policy to that effect. Also, the implicit assumption in the custom of requesting no edits to archived talk pages is that the discussions are relevant to the article.
 * "something that probably contains nothing of great importance": As pointed out repeatedly: It contains nothing of importance. This is not just my opinion, it is not-so-rough consensus established in discussion with the majority of the contributors to the /explanations page.
 * "redirect" ... "archive": From the point of view of an editor coming to check out prior work this accomplishes nothing. He or she would still have to read the stuff in order to find out whether it contains anything relevant, only to come up with nothing. FYI, merely going over the archive for the review took me almost three entire days.
 * "boldly do subject to consensus": As stated two bullets above: It is you who argues against consensus.
 * "WP:BRD": "Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made." Nobody has a problem with stuck discussions on /explanations. The idea is not to have this kind of discussion. Oh, and thank you for considering me an "experienced wiki-editor", I thought I was still learning the ropes. ;)
 * "(allegedly) irrelevant": Not just my opinion, please read the discussion, this is consensus.
 * "doesn’t mean (allegedly) irrelevant things should be administratively deleted": Again, I'm not aware of any policy to that effect.
 * "I would only support deleting this page": Would be nice, but I'd be perfectly happy if you just ceased opposition. ;)
 * "explain why archiving or converting to a redirect isn’t good enough": Already done six bullets above.
 * Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My Alzheimer is getting worse ... : A possibly not representative survey of talk archive page counts: Talk:Creationism 21, Talk:Race (classification of human beings) 26, Talk:Nigger 4, Talk:George_W._Bush 61. Considering the relative obscurity of the twin paradox, its talk page is grossly oversized.


 * One use?: I may want to look at the history and style of contributions of one of the contributors for the page, when they do an RfA.
 * The decision to archive this page will serve to show that this page is not they way to go. If you leave it accessible, then future editors can see what it is that is not the way to go.  We don’t delete proposals except for sometimes when they are not really genuine proposals, and this is not often at all.
 * The referenced MfDs may or may not be illuminative to you are others. I see them as similar, and consider that none of them should be deleted.  Archived, or converted to redirect maybe, but not deleted.
 * “Talk page histories generally should not be deleted”. Does no policy say this?  Maybe it should?  Policy description can be lax in areas of assumed understanding.
 * If you are certain that the page contains nothing of importance, then I suggest that you note that in the archive header, or in the edit summary when making the redirect. It’s that easy.  Allegedly unimportant is not a reason for deletion.
 * I read the discussion. I disagree.  The page should be achived or redirected, not deleted.  An appropriate summary will prevent needless re-reading by new editors.  Do you understand that deletion results in no saving of space or performance benefits, while needless deletions are sometimes the cause of frustration?  I’m sorry if you don’t like my opinion, but I think we should err on the side of not deleting where there is no good reason to delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "may want to look at" ... "contributions" ... "when they do an RfA": For a moment, that almost sounded sensible. But the stuff on /explanations is not going to make or break an RfA, and even if it did, deleted is not gone. If you want me to desist, give me something good enough to outweigh WP:NOTFORUM.
 * "will serve to show that this page is not they way to go": Unnecessary. Stuff like that creeps up everywhere, and is undesirable by wide community consensus as expressed in WP:NOTFORUM.
 * "We don’t delete proposals except for sometimes when they are not really genuine proposals": That's not what you said before! Are you trying to confuse me? ^_^ And as already pointed out, old proposals serve our purpose, unlike the subject of our discussion.
 * "referenced MfDs may or may not be illuminative to": It is illuminative to me just fine, as you can see below.
 * "Talk:0.999.../Arguments"+"Talk:0.999.../Arguments (2nd nomination)": Xoloz closes with: "talk subpages are generally disfavored" ... "exception" ... "utility to the editors of the page in maintaining their encyclopedic work", ruling WP:IAR in accord with his view of rough consensus. That's his right, but that consensus would've been different had I participated. The "keep" arguments boil down to 'it's the lesser evil', which was correctly refuted by Coredesat: "remove them and tell the editors posting them that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum". As for the 2nd nomination, more of the same, Aervanath didn't bother with justifying his decision, and Oli Filth put it very well: "Every time a thread is off-topic enough to be transferred from Talk:0.999... to Talk:0.999.../Arguments, it's off-topic enough to be deleted!". Refreshingly, one contributor retracted his "keep" after being informed that discussion can be performed elsewhere. Pretty good indication that a bit more fight from the deletion/userfication supporters would've prevented consensus being determined by well-intentioned but misguided contributors.
 * "Fringe_theories/sandbox": I don't know why you brought that up, consensus was "userfy", result was deletion. Disagreeing with the decision is your right, but we're looking for argument here. Your current point of view is clear, it was the first thing you posted.
 * "Talk:Miley Cyrus/Comments": Completely irrelevant here, that page was kept because its content was "transcluded as part of a WikiProject banner". Furthermore, you accepted the proposal "for the edit history to be merged into the main Talk: page, and delete this one". And even so, the result was archiving and deleting redirect.
 * "I see them as similar, and consider that none of them should be deleted. Archived, or converted to redirect maybe, but not deleted.": Just like two bullets up: Where are your arguments?
 * "Does no policy say this? Maybe it should?": If you want an exception from community consensus, please argue for it.
 * "Policy description can be lax in areas of assumed understanding.": May I, very politely, suggest the possibility that your assumptions are at odds with those who created the policy?
 * "Allegedly unimportant is not a reason for deletion.": I followed your wording. You're right, I should've said: "Importance? Relevance, as defined in WP:TPG!"
 * "I read the discussion. I disagree.": Yes, that has been established sufficiently by now. And I brought that up because you seemed to think I am working against the consensus of my fellow editors, which I provably do not.
 * "An appropriate summary will prevent needless re-reading by new editors.": Summarizing material that doesn't belong here in the first place? You should propose that on WP:WikiProject Vandalism! ^_^
 * "deletions are sometimes the cause of frustration": Sure. Now imagine my frustration at having to summarize a megabyte of mostly useless material, in order to avoid future contributors being frustrated even more. If I wasn't paid for doing this, I wouldn't probably do it at all!
 * "I’m sorry if you don’t like my opinion": I have no problem with your opinion, I like to argue. ;)
 * "not deleting where there is no good reason to delete": Sure, but since I've given good reason ...
 * A quick summary of the debate so far, from my POV
 * /explanations violates WP:NOTFORUM by establishing such a forum, discussion with contributors to said page has led to the consensus that the content does not belong in talk space, that deletion is appropriate, and that nobody is interested in the offered alternative of userfication.
 * Graeme is either satisfied by my reply, or has lost interest altogether.
 * SmokeyJoe wants to keep content and its history, claiming possible uses.
 * IMO, I have refuted his arguments so far, and we're slowly approaching the realm of decelerating returns. That is, if SmokeyJoe does not come up with a splendid future use idea in the last minute. ;)
 * Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I have no problem with your opinion, I like to argue. ;)". I am pleased to read that.  I was concerned that you were taking this personally.  I see now that you've been doing an excellent job improving the encyclopedia, and that you know what you are talking about.  At the very least, I'll yield this debate to you on points.  Delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 16 May 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.