Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge

 __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:  Keep but not indexed. I see that it has not been re-indexed since the protection expired. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge


Declined WP:U5. Please discuss the appropriate course of action for this possible project-space draft, or whatever it is. Please also see this discussion at ANI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This 300,000-byte monstrosity violates violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FAKEARTICLE, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Moreover, the creator keeps forcing Google to index it by edit-warring to keep an "INDEX" magic word a the bottom and edit-warring to remove the "noindex" and "userpage" codes. He will continue to do this surreptiously, and we cannot babysit the page or the editor. There are plenty of MediaWiki sites he can move this over to if he wants such a page to exist. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly Wikipedia-related research by an established contributor, not violating either of WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:FAKEARTICLE. The question whether it is allowed (and whether it should be possible) to INDEX a userspace page does not belong at MfD. —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Kusma, please actually read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really see don't see this as pretending to be an article. Reading it, it clearly states that it is a project and invites people to collaborate. I could do without some of the quotes and the grandeur, but I can accept that in other people's userspace. Again, the issue of whether or not this should be indexed by Google should not be debated at MFD. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I would support or oppose an editing restriction that states that this page must not be INDEXed, but this is not the question we are debating here. —Kusma (t·c) 09:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (ec) It doesn't violate Webhost or NOPROMO. The article/essay is clearly related to wikipedia. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be a reasonably interesting and valid user essay. It is clearly about Wikipedia and the estimates and projections seem quite useful in planning its development.  WP:U5 was obviously inappropriate and there doesn't otherwise seem to be a case to answer. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Very useful user list. It's still probably not at the point where it should be published as an essay in the Wikipedia namespace and may never be but it's a helpful and tentative look at how much data we need from a very skilled and helpful user. I'm not seeing the problem with indexing but if there's a consensus about that, then stop the edit-warring. The page definitely is too large and need to be broken up. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - can it be moved somewhere more public? I agree it's far too large. And I don't think userpages should be indexed, but that's not a matter for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He has a shortcut for it, so I suppose it could be mvoed directly to the WP-space as an essay. Is there a policy somewhere decreeing that essays shouldn't be of a certain size, and detailing exceptions? L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , there is no policy on essays at all. WP:ESSAY is an information page, and WP:WPESSAY is... an essay. Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful, interesting, and does not appear to be a violation of webhost. Per Justin, it may be a good idea to break into more manageable, smaller pages. It also may be necessary to separatley decide whether it should be indexed. Essays are typically indexed (cf WP:BRD), I believe, but user subpages which are not essays are typically not.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there are two separable issues:
 * Fakearticle? No. Is it possible that readers will mistake this for an article? I didn't, but I accept that some readers might make that error, so cure it by the addition of user page
 * Indexed? No. Some contributors are calling this an essay. Some essays, particularly those in WP space are indexed while other essays particularly those that are use a sub-pages are not. This is a user sub page essay and should not be indexed. (Maybe someday later if materially improved but not now.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Should be obvious to most people. KMF (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet "most people" have !voted keep. Did you even read it? L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So i don't violate bludgeon, this will be the last proactive rebuttal I give here. Let's see what WEBHOST sayeth:
 * …but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia… This essay clearly does that.
 * …The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. The essay doesn't violate this tenet either.
 * …Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace.… Essay is clear on this point as well.
 * In short, NOTWEBHOST doesn't apply, as has been explained on ANI and above. Not a personal attack on you, Andy Dingley, but it appears that this MfD has begun to collect drive-by !voting and parroting. If the supporters of the MfD (the delete crowd) are not going to address the other points brought up by the Keepers, I request some admin close this as SNOW keep and dish out some fish. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  17:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To restate my earlier post at ANI, because seemingly if I don't do this, my views are to be discounted as "parroting", This is neither an encyclopedia article, nor a draft for producing them. It is outside the scope of WP, and the scope of WP user pages. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is a long essay - and not even a good essay. It makes no real narrative structure and it relies instead for its bulk on massive factoid tables. If the author wants to host it, then web hosting is cheap.
 * And yes, I do very much see that accusation as a personal attack. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep But move into a project space for missing articles. Very interesting read, BTW.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a point where INTERESTINGESSAY becomes a violation of NOTWEBHOST. At 300k+, that point has been crossed. L3X1 can explain how NOTWEBHOST doesn't apply all they like, but reasonable people can disagree whether it violates that or not (I typically prefer agreeing with User:Sphilbrick, for instance); bludgeoning them, asking for people to be slapped, and calling for a SNOW close are thus inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Have people really examined the page closely? It's a highly random amateurish magpie hodgepodge masquerading as something important, a vanity effort that he has made clear is for him to come up on Google when someone searches for "all human knowledge". It has nothing to do with Wikipedia or work on Wikipedia or for working on Wikipedia. If the user was interested in improving or building Wikipedia, he would be improving or building Wikipedia, not making a random idiosyncratic and fairly useless vastly incomplete scrapbook that Diderot would be ashamed of. This is just way too out-there and way too non-usable for any reasonable purpose. Lastly, it is entirely clear that even to make this into something even remotely worthwhile would necessitate adding millions of bytes to it. Even then, it would just be random cherry-picked stuff. At the end of the day, the size and the randomness make it untenable to host on Wikipedia, especially if he is going to add "index" codes to it at every available opportunity. Softlavender (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this could not be a possibly useful part of WP:MISSING, which is also a collection of data from various sources. Instead of just writing about random cherry-picked topics, this type of lists could make people focus on random cherry-picked topic areas. Why is that bad? —Kusma (t·c) 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems rather a useful and approptiate user page to me. If there is a guideline hidden away somewhere saying this sort of page should not be hosted then the guideline is wrong and it should be corrected. As it happens User pages seems to allow and not to disallow this content and WP:WEBHOST does not apply either. A WP:CSD deletion would have been abusive. I don't think any user pages should be indexed but I thought (seemingly wrongly) that the default noindex couldn't be over-ridden anyway. Finally, in reply to Softlavender, yes, I have really examined the page closely. Thincat (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not in the habit of referring to guideline pages I have not read. In referring to User pages I was necessarily including WP:FAKEARTICLE. We simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not this page looks like an article. Please do not assume that those disagreeing with you are simply ill-informed. Your remark that we do not allow indexing of user pages seems to be factually incorrect. As you will have now seen, Noyster has referred us to Wikipedia talk:User pages. The fact that you and I do not approve of the situation does not overturn the guideline. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I like Softlavendar's response here. This user space page clearly fails the guidance of WP:FAKEARTICLE, which refers to our policy of WP:NOTWEBHOST. This would have zero chance of survival in the main space, I see no reason to keep it in the user space per the applicable policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:FAKEARTICLE does this violate? It seems clear to me that it is not trying to be a Wikipedia article, but a collection of information about the completeness of Wikipedia. You say it "clearly fails" the guidance, so perhaps you could elaborate? The opposite seems fairly clear to me. —Kusma (t·c) 19:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for WP:NOTWEBHOST, this page does not fail any of the five criteria there. —Kusma (t·c) 19:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It violates Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, this is designed to look like an encyclopedia article but is clearly unacceptable for main space as it is little more than a soapbox. Re: NOTWEBHOST: its a personal opinion essay that should be hosted on a blog or personal website or other publishing platform like Medium. It fails point 1. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a long collection of lists with an essay-ish introduction. It does not have the usual structure of a Wikipedia article, and does not look like one to me. Can you point me to a Wikipedia article that looks similar? —Kusma (t·c) 20:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom general election, 2017, United States presidential election, 2016 and pretty much any election article or any data intensive subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we will have to agree to disagree then. It is obvious to me that those are intended to be encyclopaedia articles, and the page we are debating here is not an encyclopaedia article. —Kusma (t·c) 09:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering that this is hidden away in userspace, it does not seem to pose any problems. Someone is writing an essay here. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the user keeps adding indexing codes to the article, which is a clear violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. If we could prevent him from surreptitiously adding the indexing, that would be one thing, but we can't babysit the page, and he shows zero indication of complying. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * keep. Though not a plausible article draft contains material that might be suitable for articles, or that is related to articles and content or WP, which others might find interesting or useful, and as such is a valid userpage. Our bar for keeping userpages is very low, and certainly this clears it: I can see no reasons to delete it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add, I mean keep as a user page. Which means it should not be indexed by Google, and an appropriate header indicating its a user page should be added. No-one familiar with WP would confuse it with an article, but being able to find it from a web search might confuse some people, and we should stop that happening.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this serves no useful purpose, custom and practice has always been to cut a lot of slack to established Wikipedia editors with what they keep in their userspace, even if it doesn't have any obvious benefit to Wikipedia, provided it isn't actively offensive or spammy and doesn't purport to be a genuine Wikipedia article. (User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon is an obvious example that springs to mind.) If Emijrp starts creating cross-namespace redirects to it or linking to it from articles, delete those on sight. The attempt to add the INDEX magic word is a separate matter, and should be dealt with as any other kind of disruption, with escalating blocks if it continues to be readded. &#8209; Iridescent 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delete will never be an article as we already have Encyclopedia. it is a giant work of WP:OR kind of manually indexing WP. It would be harmless if the user were not abusing their editing privileges by trying to have this page indexed like it was an article.   So just kill it.  And salt it. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The beginning portion -- everything up until the topic by topic lists, might well be an article. It is all documentable, and I don't think OR, but an appropriate assembly of material. At worst, it can be draftified.  The listings  wil not likely be an article, but it should be marked as a user essay. It might even do in WP space, as a measure of our progress. If there is any question,  am perfectly willing to adopt it., and move it to my space as a user essay,and consider moving it to WP space later on.  DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons aboveApollo The Logician (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lapsed Pacifist (talk • contribs).


 * Weak Keep - I haven't seen a compelling argument for NOTWEBHOST/NOTPROMO/FAKEARTICLE. It's seems somewhat relevant to Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community, and much less webhosty than several other pages I've seen kept. The main difference seems to be the indexing. I'm not sure how firm the rules about indexing are, but my understanding is that userpages simply shouldn't be indexed, and that every proposal to change that has failed overwhelmingly. That is the only thing I see that's promotional/webhosty, but a straightforward warning that continuing to index will result in a block seems like it should suffice (i.e. doesn't seem relevant to deletion). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is currently no policy or guideline governing indexing of pages in user space, and any attempt to formulate one will need to attract more support than this effort Noyster (talk),  23:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Based off the discussion above the RfC, it appears that it is OK to index a UP if you are not a new editor (per the creep/beauracracy comments in the rfc, 1000+ edist and 1 year tenure should definetly count as constructive). However, that discussion mostly was about UP, and less about essays/fake-essays in the userspace. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  23:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Local consensus on a low-attendance not-RfC talk page discussion? That's certainly not an argument to keep something at an XfD even if XfD was the correct forum to have that conversation. The point I think was trying to make by linking to it was that the only recent conversation about it has essentially no policy value. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using it as a Keep argument, I was referring to it for the INDEX/noINDEX part, which is separate from this XfD. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  01:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I would be less suspicious of this if the user didn't insist on INDEXing it, but the aggressive insistence on having it indexed skeeves me out. Why does it so badly need to be indexed? I feel like that in itself indicates an intent to use WP as a webhost. If it were merely an attempt to catalogue what we're missing and improve WP, then why is the user fighting so hard to have it indexed? Surely it wouldn't need to be seen from outside if that were its main purpose? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Ship it off to Wikia or Wordpress, whatever this drek is has no hope of ever being moved into a real article. No hope of an articled equals no reason to remain a user draft, especially given the creator's attempts to index it. This is just an attempt to gin up google his for his "sum of all knowledge" blog. TheValeyard (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, ideally with a requirement that it not be indexed. That may require debate in a different forum. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Question: Who is going to babysit the page and prevent the user from adding the "index" code and/or removing the "userpage" and "noindex" codes? The page is already at over 300,000 bytes; he can sneak those edits in anytime and anywhere and no one would notice them unless they actually constantly do Control+F on the page. During the last edit-war (before administrative lockdown) to clear his indexing codes out, his response was "Stop disrupting my userpages. Your edits are not welcome." He has exhibited zero intention to stop his indexing efforts or to abide by Wikipedia policies. (See his talkpage.) -- Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - At this point the content is no longer relevant. This fake article has been poisoned by the insistence on manipulating search engines to find it.  We don't need it, and we don't need to worry about how to deal with this abuse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. After reading the comments here, I was surprised by the actual content I found when I clicked. I can't wrap my head around how someone would argue it's a fake article - it's clearly a missing-articles project with some introductory essay material. Is it useful? I don't think so, but I have a useless subpage or two myself. I don't see the issue with the size, either; we have active editors whose talk pages are larger. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any requirement that userspace pages must not be indexed; if you want that to be a rule, go propose it instead of running test cases. Much ado about not much. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:FAKEARTICLE. The fact that the user is edit-warring to have his page come up in Google results is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMOTION. That is precisely why we do not allow indexing of userpages: If something does not qualify to be a Wikipedia article, it must not come up as an article on search engines. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indexing of userpages is allowed. Do not misrepresent our policy like that. See Wikipedia talk:User pages for a recent discussion. Only indexing of pages pretending to be Wikipedia articles is not allowed. There seems to be some disagreement whether this page pretends to be a Wikipedia article, with both sides agreeing that their answer is obvious. Be that as it may, "the user wants this page to be indexed" is not a valid reason to delete a page. —Kusma (t·c) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion reminds me of that time a bunch of people started telling me an obviously blue and black dress was white and gold ;), "no indexing in userspace, even by opt-in" is not a rule. It's just an opinion you have. Write it up and start an RfC; it might not be a bad idea. But your opinions are not yet policy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The central issue is that the user wants to use Wikipedia as a search engine launching platform. Blast off somewhere else, please. Anmccaff (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you show some evidence for this please? —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from the article-like layout and the attempts to get it indexed on search engines, you mean? Anmccaff (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - OMG!! I cannot believe all these ridiculous "keep" votes, some of them from editors who really ought to know better, and have lost some of my respect because of their !votes. C'mon people, get it together, this is clearly a FAKEARTICLE and an egregious violation of NOTWEBHOST and doesn't belong here.  Get rid of it, per Softlavender, Drmies and Andy Dingley. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is content that clearly relates to Wikipedia, or at the very least, the Wikimedia movement. I have a fairly liberal view of what should be allowed in userspace, and most good-faith creations with clear connections to the development and maintenance of the encyclopedia pass my test. The search indexing issue ought to be treated as a user conduct issue; some people who seem relatively untroubled with the page's content seem to be advocating for the page, and its content, to be deleted in order to deal with the indexing problems, which doesn't make sense to me. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not what we are here for at all. Well done for getting to the top of a google search though. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the problem. I see this as a very large Portal/Index/Statistics/Essay page, and as long as it indicates this at the top of the page, it seems relevant enough to me. Some of 'the people voting here' really need to start taking a wider view of what useful relevant contributions are (not just to them, but to other authors and re-users). If this is a good form for a person to shape, coordinate and gain insight into his or others' contributions to the wiki, than so be it. There is more than one way. Some people might want to focus on cleaning up some of those Portals and WikiProjects instead, plenty clutter there. It also shows once again, why the whole 'noindexing' of user pages was a pretty stupid default to begin with, exactly, because these kinds of discussions than follow. Let google fix their algorithm, not us. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is indeed structured as a fake article with table of contents, illustrative images, bibliography, references and external links. That it is a mish mash of stuff does not lessen its appearance as a fake article.  The insistence on indexing this work appears to be an effort to get this essentially "published". -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (as nominator) per Kusma: the conduct of one editor is not a reason to delete the page (excepting WP:G5 which doesn't apply here). That issue is resolved AFAICT: if anyone wants to start a broader discussion about which pages should or should not be indexed they are free to do so, but there's clear consensus that this page should not be indexed. I've removed the indexing code, and if adds it again after protection expires they will be blocked. You absolutely do not get a pass on WP:CONSENSUS or WP:3RR because you put a page in your user space. Regarding the page itself, it seems obvious the creator intends it to be a contribution to the project; whether it's intended to be an article or not I don't know. To me it seems to fit neatly under WP:UPYES, the section titled "notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities". As an article it would be WP:SYNTH (it could be corrected) but as a project it compiles statistics about Wikimedia projects in an enlightening and potentially useful way that AFAIK isn't done elsewhere. It is a lot of information about arbitrarily selected topics and presented kind of awkwardly, but it could be turned into something useful for Wikipedia, even if we don't all see it right at the moment. Some kind of outline of WP:OUTLINEs, I guess. Although we do already have Portal:Contents/Outlines, only without the comparisons to Wikidata and the statistics. I don't know, there's many possible endgames here. I don't see the case for deletion, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment btw. it's interesting to observe how confrontational people get towards an editor with 12 years of high quality contributions under his belt as well as having developed a multitude of related tools, if said person doesn't fall in line with certain dogma's about this website. When people wonder why we have trouble attracting new editors this, exactly this, is why. There has to be space to experiment, and a (failed/or not) experiment shouldn't lead to an atmosphere that feels so aggressive that I wouldn't blame the editor for leaving. That's not a working environment, that's a cult. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I suspect the majority of people who are outraged that it's a "fake article" didn't even know it was here 24hrs ago.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Being familiar with what cults are and how they affect victim's lives, I disagree about this label in this case. — Paleo  Neonate  - 14:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the better word is cabal. Joking essays aside, I have seen multiple editors express concern that the cabal metality exists on Wikipedia. The Noticeboards are not "toxic" by decree of God, they are "toxic" because of the behavior of the regular editors who make up the rest of Wikipedia. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(
 * Yeah, you're right, it's always them who are a toxic cabal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Softlavender, thank you for your contribution. Instead of copying and pasting the same response to seemingly every editor that disagrees with your stance (which can be slightly offensive considering some of these editors are similarly experienced), I think it might be better to step away from this discussion for now. You have made your point very clear, and we will just have to wait for more opinions on the interpretation of the guideline to formulate an consensus. Alex ShihTalk 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but don't index. Capitals00 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete  Agree with   this is straight up WP:NOTWEBHOST, this entry has been set up to look like an article, yet it remains in his user space,  the user has repeatedly reverted removal of his __INDEX__ so that his page would be visible from Google, thus failing  notwebhost,  he also fails WP:FAKEARTICLE   as this page looks exactly  like a Wikipedia article, this fakearticle is a valid claim to be made here. WP:NOTPROMOTION is also violated.   He's again, edit warring to have his article listed in google, thus promoting himself.    This needs to be deleted.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  Speak  17:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * but we can easily deal with that by moving the part that can be a genuine article (the comparisons) to article space, and moving the table of potentially missing articles to WP space,where it is useful information for those interested in filling in gaps. Useful to the encyclopedia  is a valid argument for WP space.  DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Geez, DGG, it's not only a fake article, it's a total piece of shit. There's no there there, and it's certainly not the core of an actual encyclopedic article.  An essay perhaps, (a sophomoric essay), but not an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - although it's a worthwhile project, it doesn't belong in personal userspace. Perhaps it could be moved elsewhere and become a more public project. Doug Weller  talk 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think what you have said amounts to "split and move", not "delete".  DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to give the reasons I've given before. I still think that this is what we call a "fake article" and that we should not be acting as a webhost for what is at the moment a personal project that, as has been suggested above, few editors know anything about. Insisting on indexing it certainly looks promotional given the publicity he's received before for it. Moving it would solve these problems, but if that's not possible, and unless I've missed something no one has come up with a feasible move, delete., it's still a delete from userspace vote. Doug Weller  talk 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Insisting on indexing it certainly looks promotional given the publicity he's received before for it." This really depends on your point of view. As a vehement opposer of the "noindex by default of userspace", I suspect I would have done the same thing here. Your logic only makes sense if you consider index userspace a bad thing. If you consider breaking google a bad thing (like I do), then the insistence by external parties to noindex something in my userspace would seem like disruption to me. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably we need to revisit the decision about INDEXING for further discussion, as the comments here have given various incompatible views. But the easiest way of getting it uncontroversially indexed is to move what could be an article to mainspace. Many here are proud of their work, and if the overall contribution is positive, why should  they not be?   DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and encourage the editor to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace or maybe Portal: namespace. While I disagree with some minor details in the lead (e.g., the "Wikipedia Singularity" speculation, which takes up less than 0.1% of the page), in some respects, it's more appealing than Portal:Contents/Overviews, and the basic concept is similar. Looking at some of the delete comments, I do find myself wondering how many of those voters looked at the contents that appear after the Table of Contents.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak delete
 * The essay must not be indexed on any search enginge as long as it is in user-space.
 * All the sections after "Summary" (starting with "arts") are not necessary. It can be trimmed down heavily, something like ~90%. I say we do that. The editor has already given explicit permission to edit the essay. — usernamekiran (talk)  00:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The only real violation here is the attempt at indexing for search engines. That should be stopped. Gatemansgc (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete My first thought when I saw this article was that it was a paean to Wikipedia. It looks like a webpage, not an encyclopedia article. Perhaps if he didn't keep trying to get it indexed it would be okay to leave it be, but if he wants Google to see it, he should find a way to get it hosted, just not here. If there was a way to stop the editor from adding the index template, it would be okay, but it wouldn't pass muster as an article for mainspace. I'm not going to quote all the relevant policies because that has been done to a sufficiency already. It really goes back to the editor's willingness to violate policy, and his unwillingness to accede to the requirements. If he really wanted it to become official, he would have offered it up for consideration (AfC). — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 02:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace and let it sink or swim there, or keep it in user-space but labeled as an essay without indexing. The user's machinations to keep the page indexed as a userpage is somewhat disturbing. Loopy30 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Softlavender. Having seen WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FAKEARTICLE, and WP:NOTPROMOTION, I'm quite confident there's no violation. As Gatemansgc has noted, the indexing for search engines should be stopped. Simple! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is "Keep per Softlavender" sarcasm? Softlavender !voted to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * She voted to delete, but her arguments make a solid case in favor of "keep", hence "keep per Softlavender". Irony, for sure, but not sarcasm. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And that has nothing whatsoever to do with her proposal on AN/I that you be indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuck no. Well, tangentially, perhaps; there's a degree of parallel to be found in the off-base logic. The instant and overwhelming rebuke of that proposal was its own reward, and it's beyond MY ken how you could think I would dare tamper with such delicious perfection by "coming after" Softlavender. You're reading waaaaaay too much into this. She badgered almost every dissenter with her copy-paste, and I'm simply pointing out (as have others) that there is no violation to be found in any of her suggested reading, and she's actually making a strong case for "keep". Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "You're reading waaaaaay too much into this." Well, that's good to hear. I trust then that it would be highly unlikely for anyone to find you !voting or commenting on other matters in opposition to Softlavender's position by using her arguments as the reason behind yours, or in any other way sailing close to the line of WP:HARASSMENT? That's good, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not falling for it, sorry. Softlavender has a history of making up policy (examples will be provided upon request at my talk page; we're off-topic enough here), and multiple users, including the first-person singular, have pointed this out before her pathetic attempt to have me shown the door. If you're thinking you're going to turn her attempt to get me blocked into a prophylactic against me calling out BS in the future, you're egregiously mistaken. Ditto for using the blue link to WP:HARASS as a smokescreen to freely harass me. Although I've long found you to be a pain in the ass, I've also respected your ability to make a cogent argument, and I've come to expect more from you than cheap projection. Come on, [redacted by BMK]. You're better than this. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please continue this (or preferably not) outside of this discussion. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. If user is so insistent that this should be picked up by Google, they can find an off-wiki location to post it. By the way, definitely not fit to be a real article (not as a whole, nor any part of it). Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for now per Sphilbrick. There are useful elements to this page that a wholesale deletion might risk losing (and if appropriately no-indexed it does little harm in user space). It does need a lot of work done on it, though, and some elements should be in project space and collaboratively edited. It is not suitable for article space (even the best bits are mostly original research), though some of the references may be useful for some articles. A clear distinction needs to be drawn between writing about Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, and summarising scholarly writing on knowledge and knowledge projects (a small bit of which will refer to Wikimedia projects). See also (for similar concepts and articles that need actual improvement): Knowledge, Outline of knowledge and List of lists of lists. The latter 'article' is the closest thing in spirit to what this page is. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does not violate any provisions of FAKEARTICLE or NOTWEBHOST or NOTPROMOTION. Even if it did, any guideline or policy that demanded the removal of this page should be ignored, because it's existence is a benefit to creating an encyclopedia; this is like a textbook example of Pillar #5.  I don't really care if it's indexed. It could probably use a userpage template, and splitting into smaller pages, so more people could actually access it, but that's for Emijrp to decide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What possible value do you see to this as a "benefit to creating an encyclopedia?" Frankly, like many of the lists and outline projects, it seems to rather suggest an unneeded exception to WP:NOTTHERAPY.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There sure are a lot of people around here who think it's fine to insult others, as long as they don't use the word "fuck". Bonus points for using a blue link to do it. Recently I've noticed there's apparently a triple bonus for linking to WP:CIR, so you just missed out on that. Reword this without the gratuitous snark and I'll consider answering. Otherwise I'm ignoring it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to project space: a very suitable subject for improvement by collaborative editing, and with some improvement could provide a useful link for all the debates about "How complete is Wikipedia?" Noyster (talk),  10:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: A meaningless, and utterly unencyclopaedic, compilation of statistics made by someone who obviously doesn't know what "human knowledge" is. "Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning", to quote the lead of that article, not long lists of how many articles Wikipedia has in random categories, compared to rough estimates made by someone somewhere of the number of monuments, football stadia etc etc there are in the world. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 12:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an attempt to estimate how complete Wikipedia is in its own terms. No-one sensible would expect even the most comprehensive encyclopedia to cover literally all human knowledge. I mean, I know how many buttons are on my shirt, and I'm human, so... More seriously, as you suggest, "how to" do things is a vitally important component of knowledge, but is explicitly excluded here. But these are issues with the title, issues addressed by changing the title to something more specific, not by deleting the whole thing Noyster (talk),  17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing it to just a list of how complete Wikipedia is would require a major rewrite, almost from scratch, and can't be solved by just changing the title of the page. Besides, naming it "All human knowledge" and edit-warring to get it indexed by search engines, just like a real article would be, shows that the author sees it as an article about "all human knowledge", and not just a compilation of statistics for own use. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving completely aside the lack of attribution to a respectable outside source (its WP:ORishness, in Wikitongue; this piece's methodology seems to assume that additional articles reflect a net increase in captured human knowledge. Often, new articles reflect the opposite: content forks and needless mere duplication. Anmccaff (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: It seems clear to me, the fact that the user fights for it to be indexed suggests it is meant to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE, even if it isn't a very good fake article. -- Darth Mike (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. [Note that I came here from WP:ANI]  At worst, it seems like a decent essay that could stand to be moved to projectspace; at best, it might be the ultimate outline of knowledge.  Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems potentially useful, possibly even in article space as an outline. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Close as no consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2017 (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.