Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions


 * 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 debate was Userfy. The consensus across the discussion is that the material at Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions is, by and large, not appropriate for a project space page. In that the page comprises a single editor's views (a type of essay most appropriate for the user space), and in that a variant of the page already exists in EricDiesel's user space, the final decision is (further to the discussion below) to move the page to Eric's userspace (User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Deletions), and hence delete the Wikipedia page. Anthøny  ✉  18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack Deletions
This page is a content fork of Coatrack created by a user who is unhappy that their articles and edits keep getting removed as POV content forks. It appears to be an attempt to get around the Wikipedia:Coatrack essay. -- Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - just another soapbox. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Soapbox, content fork. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The user has also created CoatrackDeletions, though it lacks content at the moment.  Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapboxing. I'm fine with moving it to userspace....I guess.  As long as the last paragraph is removed.  It's a legitimate way too feel about WP:COATRACK, even if I don't agree with it.  However, the tone, presentation and content don't belong outside of userpace. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Soapbox, POV fork. I'd accept moving it to userspace, as well, per Protonk. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote this article and I am new. How do I create a user page "to move it to" userspace", as is suggested above.  I thought this was called a user page where i created it. I modeled it off of the WP:Coatrack article page to create it.  Where should I create things, and how do I get there to create them?  I have no problem moving it wherever you want. EricDiesel (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You would create it with your own username as the prefix: User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Deletions. Although I would advice you not to do this until this debate is over.  Syn  ergy 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is this subpage, then? User:EricDiesel/Coatrack_Argument_for_Deletions. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my origninal version, which some one moved there for me. I didn't know how to find where they moved it so I rewrote it.  The newer version is better.  EricDiesel (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy or redirect to Coatrack, keeping the full history available. Policy debate, including material to support debate, should not be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per EricDiesel below. He has a valid point.  Coatrack is overused/misused as a deletion rationale.  This is a pertinent issue that belongs in Project Space for continued debate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong userfy -- do not simply delete. Other users' personal essays exist and have been referenced as rationale in some cases.  This user's opinions, whether coherent or not, should not be deleted if the user is trying to have a legitimate policy discussion, or express a good faith opinion.  Obviously, it does not belong in Wikipedia space unless it is a majority-held or significant minority consensus opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Soapbox? - These are the conditions to be a SOAPBOX - Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment, Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, Scandal mongering or gossip columns, Self-promotion, Advertising. I do not understand how it falls into any of these categories to be called a soapbox.  EricDiesel (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Or preferably, keep. This essay doesn't appear to have consensus, judging from the strong negative reactions above, but as far as I can tell it isn't violating any of Wikipedia's policies (WP:SOAP only applies to blatant partisan advocacy with no benefit to the project, which this isn't), so there would be no problem with the author moving it into his userspace. Terraxos (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Edited after reading EricDiesel's reply. There's nothing wrong with this in project space, and essays don't need to have consensus - that's the whole point of them. Terraxos (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy and slap on an essay. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Looks like he is working out his thoughts, but in the wrong Wikipedia space. PerWikipedia essays, "those essays are poor candidates for broadening should be relocated to a subpage of the user that authored them." If the next editor agrees, they should be bold, userfy, and delete the redirect. -- Suntag (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userify there might even be something to some parts of it. DGG (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy Don't want to pile-on, but the essay expresses an opinion of another essay. Both essays directly relate to the encyclopedia. WP:USER allows userspace to be used for concise (which this is) essays regarding Wikipedia content. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy per DGG and Suntag. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Userfy?  This essay was NOT put in userspace.  I recently wrote my first Wikipedia article, after reading I should be BOLD, so my first Wikipedia article was on Sarah Palin’s church.  The article was quickly deleted, citing WP:Coatrack, then restored citing abuse of WP:Coatrack, then deleted, then restored… then the article sections were repeatedly deleted and reverted using the same WP:Coatrack as the only argument for deletion. This essay WP:Coatrack Deletions was then written in response to a specific request in the talk page of WP:Coatrack that someone write an essay on this topic, to clarify WP:Coatrack.  Is arguing for placement of this essay down in userspace, rather than where it currently is, an example of being WP:BOLD?  EricDiesel (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All objections above responded to and incorporated into most recent rewrite of essay. Essay responds to request for creation of this essay by others on talk page of WP:COAT. EricDiesel (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2008 (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.