Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SPUI/SFD


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux  Talk  15:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SPUI/SFD
Textbook example of WP:POINT. If you disagree with the policy regarding stub types, then try to engage in a polite discussion to get a consensus to change that policy, don't start divisive petitions. Also nominating User:SPUI/stub for the same reason (see for the contents).  Melsaran  (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Insta-Nuke per WP:USER. Wikipedia does not give out free soapboxes for orators. - Jéské  ( v^_^v Kacheek! ) 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, am I missing something? This is a long-forgotten page that is two years old... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was reading through some archives when I saw this linked from SPUI's signature. He appears to have left Wikipedia, but this page needs to go anyway, since it is blatantly disruptive to make a point.  Melsaran  (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Considering that this was a particularly poignant issue at its time, as I can remember, I don't see how deleting this page would be appropriate; it would be akin to deleting an archived talk page. Ergo, keep. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Userspace is given to contributors for personal pages related to the project. On this page SPUI and those who agreed with them expressed their views to a particular section of Wikipedia policy. WP:POINT doesn't apply here because it was in userspace and did not disrupt work elsewhere. —Scott5114↗ 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but WP:USER does, and similar userspace pages like this have been deleted for being overly divisive. - Jéské  ( v^_^v Kacheek! ) 03:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the specific section of WP:USER that applies here? Thank you. —Scott5114↗ 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USER says: [WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. This page is clearly divisive soapboxing. If you disagree with a certain process, then advocate a change to that process. That's the proper way to achieve a consensus. Divisive petitions are counterproductive and WP:POINTish.  Melsaran  (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but WP:SOAP (as I interpret it, anyway) applies more to soapboxing about non-Wikipedia issues, like political and religious views. I maintain that this doesn't really fall under WP:POINT because it didn't disrupt process to prove a point any more than simply causing more unsorted stubs (which could be considered disruptive, but I don't believe this to be the case, as many people don't sort their stubs anyway). I suppose it could be considered divisive, but that seems a bit of an exaggeration to me. I can understand where you're coming from, but I think that calling this disruptive and divisive is a little bit extreme, which is why I voted to keep. —Scott5114↗ 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Those familiar with this issue will realize that this is soapboxing with the intent to disrupt an accepted process, just because that process made a few decisions that this user happened to disagree with. Note that SPUI has a long history of disrupting things to make a point, or as a cry for attention, as evidenced in his excessive block log.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (and no !vote). For the record, albeit hardly the most unbiased one as one of the more prominent members of WP:WSS, when naming conventions were put in place for the naming of stub templates (in order to reduce duplication of stub types and make stub sorting easier), SPUI went out of his way to disrupt the process of having such conventions by creating a large number of parallel stub types with non-convention names as ones he personally found to be more intuitive, despite being either more ambiguous or at odds with the uniformity of the rest of the system. When these stub types were either deleted or turned into redirects via WP:SFD, rather than engaging in dialogue over the problem he started an "anti-stub" campaign, the results of which can be seen here. Grutness...wha?  23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Save the trivia for precedent regarding divisive petitions.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As there have no been edits in 15 months, and the stub policy is well understood, I don't see how this is harmful. DGG (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy/Strong Keep, misinformed nomination, and per Scott5114 (above). Userspace pages aren't held to the same standards as article space pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehm, have you read the page and the nomination? This isn't being "held to the same standards as article space pages", it is a page in user space intended to make a point. It doesn't even remotely resemble an article, it is a divisive petition.  Melsaran  (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this page, but delete SPUI/stub. Regardless of whatever disruptive personal conduct that SPUI may have been engaging in at the time, his comments are not the only ones on the page, and overall I see a lot that can be taken as constructive criticism. Rather than dismissing and deleting these comments, perhaps it might be better to ask if maybe some of these points have some merit. For instance, if stub-sorting is so great, why not apply it to other improvement categories? Wouldn't {US-rail-unref} help railroad experts find artcles in their area of expertise to add references to? When one user suggested that category intersection could make stub-sorting obsolete, should his remark be brushed aside, or should it spur the development of a MediaWiki feature that would be helpful in many contexts? When another editor complains of "countless stub templates," shouldn't comments like that be kept in mind when discussing new stub proposals? For that matter, SPUI was not the only one to think that the WSS policy of discouraging stub redirects was wrong. I myself don't always agree with the decisions that come out of WSS. On the other hand, I don't think the /stub page serves any purpose. -- Groggy Dice T | C 13:18, 22 September 2007 (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.