Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is not required

 __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:  userfied; the creator moved it back to their userspace. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Competence is not required


The advice / guidance in this essay is in direct contradiction of the consensus established at WP:CIR. GoldenRing (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to userspace - This is neither a policy nor a guideline. If WP:GUIDES (or WP:POLICIES) say that the essay is contrast to consensus, how about userspace instead? Well, let's wait for others to say. George Ho (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, we can wait for a minority to support this essay. Grounds of contradicting the consensus is not adequate rationale for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I do disagree with the message of this essay, it is an essay, where a user has the right to give their own opinions, regardless of whether it contradicts another essay. The essay tag itself reads: "some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". This, I suppose, would be the minority viewpoint, but still a viewpoint, and still a valid essay. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 18:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Essays in Wikipedia space should express views supported by several editors in good standing. Without hearing from those supporters, an essay like this should be userfied. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy It is not reasonable for an essay in Wikipedia space to contradict the widely supported view that competence is required (WP:CIR). Sometimes CIR is misinterpreted, as done in the essay under consideration. For example, there is no problem if someone does not want to format references or tables—just plonk the information in an article and wikignomes will fix it. Occasional mistakes are not a problem. CIR means editors have to learn to follow policies such as WP:NOR or WP:NPOV, and their contributions should have sufficient benefit to outweigh any problems—from WP:CIR: A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, Wikipedia is not a safe space for everyone to join in—contributions must help build the encyclopedia and should not detract from the efforts of those who are positively contributing. Per WP:ATD-I, an essay that only reflects a particular editor's viewpoint may be userfied. Competence is not required contains no insights or helpful advice; its only apparent role is to voice one person's complaint about WP:CIR. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy It's both poorly-composed and wrong. Essays in WP space are expected to be widely accepted. Personal minority views can exist in userspace. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy The essay's core idea is already expressed by WP:BITE well enough. If that's not the point of the essay, if the author meant to suggest that (for example) someone can continually make unsourced additions to BLPs in a pidgen of 1337 and lolspeak because they're here in good faith and that's the only way they know how to write in English, then they're contradicting WP:DE.  I'm not saying that's what it is, but it can be read that way especially in light of it's apparent no-punches-pulled opposition to WP:CIR (even when site policies and guidelines like WP:V and WP:DE).  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy with a note that this is obviously contrary to our blocking policy. Our blocking policy allows for blocks for disruptive editing whether or not the editor is here in good faith. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've userfied the essay, so there. I can't find a way to give helpful or insight advice. But I'll leave the discussion open unless... there's no need? George Ho (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An admin needs to delete the redirect Competence is not required. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect is already deleted. George Ho (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This was deleted shortly after this closure per author request. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I've moved this comment above the closing markup so it doesn't display on the main MFD page. Graham 87 10:13, 1 October 2016 (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.