Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Complete list

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Complete list

 * – (View MfD)

This was seemingly created just before a. At its current location, I would lean to the side of deletion (it is being cited in a way that lends it undue prominence). Ways to reasonably prevent that: probably the best option, given its contentiousness, would be userfication to User:Elliot321/Complete list. A second option, farther-away, would be to gain consensus at WT:COSTLY for a merge of some form of the sentiment there. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is pretty standard that people think linking to a project space essay lends undue prominence, but that is the way it has always been.  Essays are often contentious, that is a poor reason to seek deletion.  I do not find this essay problematic.  I see there is a talk page post that could be used to improve the essay.  Reserved MfD for forcing a userfication until there is actual evidence of a dispute, and it can be agree that this is a single author's opinion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this essay and I don't really see the issue here? Linking to an essay just indicates reasoning, not policy. You could make the same argument about WP:COSTLY, too, or any other essay arguing something. This is essentially a split-off from WP:COSTLY explaining a specific phenomenon, so I don't see why it should be treated separately. We don't need to aggressively delete or merge project-space essays. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia essays don't need to be unanimously agreed upon and don't need to be uncontroversial. I certainly agree with some of the contents of the essay and there were a number of complete list type redirects nominated that are inappropriate or misleading (e.g. Complete list of extinct species). The issue was the batch nomination of every redirect with "complete list" in the title without considering whether it was sensible or possible to actually create a complete list. I think if the essay were reworked to cover redirects for which creating a complete list is either impossible or impractical then it could be a sensible argument to use in RfD discussions. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This is a useful project space essay page, so I don't see a valid reason for deletion., where is the proof of deleting or userfying this page?  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I mostly agree with this essay anyway, but disagreement would not be a reason to delete, even from project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Userfy. In it's present form this essay is simultaneously actively misleading, has been rejected as a rationale in nearly all discussions (including those resulting in delete) and is utterly useless. My comment on the talk page explaining just why it is problematic has been completely ignored. It's clearly the product of a single editor, who apparently believes (contrary to the evidence) that it is of value - all these are attributes of userspace essays rather than project-space ones. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started a draft of an essay covering the same topic, but from the perspective of years of dealing with redirects, at User:Thryduulf/Complete lists. Comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That essay seems reasonable enough. I don't really care too much for the original essay, I wrote it somewhat quickly, if you'd like to replace it with something you find more comprehensive, feel free. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems to in general be good advice though maybe it should be merged back to WP:PANDORA.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Rename - the title is misleading. It's not about complete lists, what to do with complete lists, whether Wikipedia should have complete lists, etc. ... it's not even an essay about what to do with articles that include the name "complete list" (presumably we don't have any), but rather a specific argument about what to do with redirects that contain the phrase. I think it's fine in projectspace if titled appropriately, even though, as one person's opinion that seems to run contrary to consensus it should probably just be userfied. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, and mostly agree. No reason to delete.  Being right is a reason to keep.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2021 (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.