Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not


Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not. Moving this to userspace and claiming the other MFD doesn't apply anymore is simply gaming the system. There was a clear consensus at the previous MFD that this is inappropriate, regardless of the namespace it is in. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is worth, there is a brief discussion regarding the closing of the previous MfD at User talk:RL0919. --RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Still say delete - useless joke page, will never be accepted in mainspace or by the project it was intended for. No reason to keep. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * STOP IT! STOP CALLING MY ESSAY A JOKE!!! I AM SERIOUS IN WRITING IT, THEREFORE IT DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY QUALIFY AS THE DEFINITION OF A JOKE!!! --Bowser the Storm Tracker   Keeping skies bright  Chat Me Up 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mike, obvious gaming of system to try and circumvent MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mind telling me how a user-essay about TCs is against policy? --Bowser the Storm Tracker   Keeping skies bright  Chat Me Up 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per the previous discussion. Material inappropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It still violates Wikipedia policy. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mind telling me how a user-essay about TCs is against policy? --Bowser the Storm Tracker   Keeping skies bright  Chat Me Up 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia isn't an essay, isn't your personal web page, and isn't a guidebook (and you're definitely trying to guide people through what a tropical cyclone is not). --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obviously gaming the system.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 23:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If not about the content, it doesn't count. concerns about me do not count as a reason. Even if they did, they are wrong in this case. --Bowser the Storm Tracker   Keeping skies bright  Chat Me Up 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bowser423, userfying is not for saving pages that the community does not approve of. Sorry.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * General comment, unrelated to MFD: In a clear-cut case like this where it would be preventing further disruption and not a punitive action, why the hell has no admin yet blocked Bowser? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Initially I thought it was misguided enthusiasm, then as the IDIDNTHEARTHAT built up, it seemed to be a COMPETENCE issue. However, when something looks like trolling, and smells like trolling, it may be trolling, and all these ongoing deletion discussions do nothing more than demonstrate what a goldmine Wikipedia is for trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am NOT a troll. I hate trolls' guts! I am just trying to make a guide to misconceptions about TCs! --Bowser the Storm Tracker   Keeping skies bright  Chat Me Up 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * strong comment Aside from a lot of talk about the author I don't see much comment on the content. Discuss the content, not the contributor please.  That said I'm not sure what's wrong with this re-wording a few of the more aggressive points it seems like good advice. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a web-host, the information presented in here is common knowledge (of course a tropical cyclone is not a tsunami, how could anybody even think something like that) and much of the information is redundant to Tropical Cyclone. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 21:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * everyone above attacking this is "not a web host" should be discounted. This isn't a private article it is a Wikipedia advice essay.  If this violates WP:WEBHOST so does WP:NOT... speaking of WP:NOT WP:Not an essay does not apply outside of mainspace where indeed we have many essays.   This is good guidance for writers in the topic area.  It comes off as a little combative, yes, but most of these points seem born out of frustration dealing with people emotionally attached to the topic.  Refocusing the discussion using the properly applicable guidelines, Wikipedia Essays chiefly, how does this violate the proper guidelines? HominidMachinae (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't exactly get to decide what should or should not "be discounted"... StrPby (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand it's not my call but I'm drawing attention to invalid arguments. That's both so that they can give more evidence and by way of explaining my policy-based opinions. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is a Wikipedia policy, not an advice essay. And WP:NOTWEBHOST is a subsection of WP:NOT. So I don't follow how WP:NOT, as a policy, violates itself.  Cjmclark (Contact) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NOESSAY, which states "The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice) and not any unrelated outside causes." I'm not really seeing how an unsourced collection of assertions regarding tropical cyclones aids the development of the encyclopedia. If the user has serious concerns regarding the validity of information being published about the subject, the responsible WikiProject talk page or the talk page of the article in question would be more appropriate places to address these concerns. Also, WP:NOT states "Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki." (emphasis added) I think it's a bit thin to call tropical cyclones a "topic relating to Wikipedia"&mdash;by that logic, we could have user essays about anything that graces a Wikipedia page. Finally, if you feel a strong need to discredit misconceptions about tropical cyclones, then why not do it by making well-sourced edits to the Tropical cyclones article to ensure that such misconceptions don't exist?  Cjmclark (Contact) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Advice about writing pages about tropical cyclones is certainly a valid essay topic, we have other "writing about this" essays such as writing about fiction. This essay seems to be giving advice and guidance to correct common (are they common?) errors in our coverage of tropical cyclones.  That seems to be to be a perfectly valid topic of advice.  I would WELCOME essays such as this in other topic areas, such as writing about albums, or writing about songs, or even writing about political campaigns. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the overwhelming negative reaction from the hurricane wikiproject, including a number of comments noting that these misconceptions simply do not exist because they're sheer stupidity, I think we can safely assume that these are certainly not "common errors in our coverage of tropical cyclones", and I suspect it's probably a great insult to suggest that they are. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, just like with WP:NOT, WP:WAF isn't an essay. In this case it's a guideline that's part of the Manual of Style, which means that it has been extensively reviewed and edited in accordance with the consensus of many editors. This essay has done no such thing.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my earlier assertion that if User:Bowser423 is concerned about improving the quality of cyclone-related articles, the proper venue is either at those articles themselves or in conjunction with WikiProject Tropical cyclones. WikiProjects exist specifically for dealing with the minutiae of very specific topic areas. Just like I abide by the guidelines for creating and editing player pages at WikiProject Ice Hockey, if I were to create or edit an article about tropical cyclones the related WikiProject is the first place I'd go, precisely because the guidelines they have established have been reviewed by multiple editors in the topic area and achieved consensus. By creating what basically amounts to an unauthorized guide to writing tropical cyclone articles, Bowser423 may actually be working at cross purposes with the WikiProject, as this distracts editors from the WikiProject's established guidelines.


 * I don't think Bowser did this out of bad faith; to the contrary he seems to be very passionate about the subject. Nevertheless, if he creates guidelines outside of the WikiProject, he makes it more difficult for the WikiProject to maintain the standardized nature of their articles and therefore threatens the integrity of the encyclopedia. He also wastes the time of the WikiProject editors who would have to go in afterwards to clean up the articles to ensure they conform with the WikiProject guidelines. HM, you even asked if they were common errors. Who would know the answer? The WikiProject editors, who spend the majority of their time creating, editing, and patrolling these articles.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And finally (I promise) WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...), nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept. If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there" (emphasis added). The problem? The project was already well on its way to !voting this into deletion at the original MfD. This is clearly intended to have "functional use similar to a project page" as implied by the page creator's desire for it to be used to improve tropical cyclone-related articles. When it was heading towards imminent deletion as a project page, the user performed an end run around the original MfD by userifying it. The only reason it would be appropriate for it to remain is if Bowser intends to cooperate with the project to improve the page to a point where it would be accepted for inclusion as a project page.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I think I see what the issue is. If I might paraphrase back to make sure I understand it, the concern is actually that this is advice contrary to what the majority of the related wikiproject feels should be the guideline.  In response to that I think there is an interesting conundrum here, just how much power in their topic area do wikiprojects have and should potentially confusing advice be allowed to exist? There, I don't have an absolute answer. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * HM, I don't think it's an issue of a project having "power" in its topic area per se. I believe the policy I cited is intended to ensure that when guidelines for topic areas are created, they are done through a consensus-building process rather than unilaterally. Otherwise (to use an extreme example) I could write up a guideline that says that all hockey players' articles must include their underwear size, or should be written in LOLspeak, or should have a picture of them in drag or some other such nonsense. Or to pick a much more realistic and hot-button topic (at that project anyway) I could write a guideline mandating the use of diacritics in all (or none) of the player article names (as opposed to the existing compromise). Someone happening across my guideline page sees it and goes on an article moving crusade that provides days of work (and talk page bellyaching) for the project regulars (and other helpful WikiGnomes) to deal with. The project (and the encyclopedia) runs on consensus. That's why guideline pages are inappropriate for user pages - because they're unilateral and haven't developed any sort of consensus.  Cjmclark (Contact) 20:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are some pages that are acceptable in user-space, but not in Wikipedia space. In my opinion, this is one of them.  Contrary to Strange Passerby's assertion, there was no consensus in the last MFD that this page would be inappropriate in user space.  We generally give editors pretty wide leeway in what is allowed in user space.  This is not masquerading as an article, it is not attacking anybody or anything, and deleting it won't free up and resources. Buddy432 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason there was no consensus to delete the user page in the previous MFD is that it was closed before that debate could be fully fleshed out, and that is the purpose of this MFD. User pages indicates that "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article" are not admissible in the user space either. This page firmly falls in that category, as it is blatantly useless. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * DeleteIncludes some feeble attempts at humor like telling readers that a tropical storm is not a blizzard. Similarly much of the essay is either similarly weak humor or a misguided effort to correct false impressions that no one has. This does not square with claims the essay is intended to improve the editing of Wikipedia. If reliable sources can be found stating that, for instance some people can't tell the difference between a blizzard and a tropical storm, then that information should be added to the articles on hurricanes and tropical storms, not placed in an inappropriate standalone article full of similar "misconceptions." It is not a viable future article awaiting polishing. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Edison (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is ridiculous guys. This is effectively commentary upon the culture of the project; perhaps it does not directly advise people on how to improve the project, but in any case its an attempt at cultural contribution, which to me is legit and outweighs any weak claims on how this embarrasses the project or whatever. This IMO is a direct intrusion on userspace autonomy which has gone too far. I believe this is a legitimate use of userspace as observation and commentary; it is one with a weak effect yes, but the campaign against userspace material in recent years has swung too far. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the user page was copied from a deleted project page (which was widely agreed to warrant deletion). --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A user subpage is not the same as Wikipedia Review, with absolute license to indulge in "commentary upon the culture of the project." Edison (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure...for one thing, "userspace autonomy" is a nice idea, but more illusory than anything else. Take WP:UP, which says "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." The proper place for this attempt at cultural contribution, as you put it, would be at the WikiProject. Unfortunately it looks like at least several of the WikiProject's editors didn't particularly approve of it (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not), but no consensus was able to be achieved because the page was userified before the MfD was over. Note that userification could have been introduced as an alternative at that MfD and the community may have accepted it, but I believe that a majority of those !voting Delete at the previous MfD saw the early userification as an attempt to nullify the MfD and have returned here to !vote out of outrage at "gaming the system." Is that right? Well, not necessarily, but it would explain why so many folks seem to be passionate about something that really doesn't loom that large in the grand scheme of things.


 * Now, what would ideally happen? A dedicated individual at the WikiProject would take Bowser (who very obviously has a great passion for the subject and a desire to contribute) under their wing and help him make contributions to the project that could pass the community consensus muster. That's something between the project members (a willingness to mentor, which I believe User:Hurricanehink has shown) and Bowser (who must show a willingness to familiarize himself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the consensus-building process).


 * My only objections to the page are those I have stated above: strictly per policy. It doesn't matter to me whether the page is "embarrassing" to the WikiProject. It does, however, violate the letter of the policy regarding userpages. I'd be willing to give it a WP:IAR Keep if the project and Bowser can work together to make this useful and consensus-based (in which case it could return to the project space and this wouldn't be an issue).  Cjmclark (Contact) 22:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I offered Bowser a mentorship, but as of now he hasn't shown any interest. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per User:La goutte de pluie. ★ Auree  talk 22:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone who wants to help the editor would recommend deleting this page. If it is kept, the editor will learn that they can create a series of junk pages with no value for the encyclopedia, and then do as much gaming as possible (moving inappropriate random thoughts from Wikipedia namespace to userspace, with absurd claims about the content), and end up keeping at least some of it. That is likely to send the editor down the wrong track with possible bad consequences. If all the nonsense is simply deleted the editor will understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is to build the encyclopedia, and is likely to flourish if they accept mentorship. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep after deliberating for a while I've decided that I think this should be kept. I think what it ultimately boils down to is a case of WP:OWN with regards to the wikiproject.  Any editor is free to have their own opinions on the matters at hand, with or without being part of the wikiproject.  The advice here is good, none of it contradicts with the core guidelines and policies.  It might not be amazingly useful but it's not worthy of deletion. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2011 (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.