Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DSWADR

 __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  delete. Wizardman 20:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DSWADR


Rather random essay by a user with no other contributions, without enough of a nugget of truth or humour to be worth a separate page IMO. It is an outgrowth of WikiSpeak. Another copy by same user at Template:Essay-like/testcases‎. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not a useful essay. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay was apparently written in reply to WP:WADR. But I'm not sure that is enough for it to be in project space. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, nothing worth keeping here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No community backing, and totally misguided. Template:Essay-like/testcases should be deleted as well. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is correct counterpoint to WP:WADR, the deleted essay the shortcut replaced, and the entry for respect in the Wikispeak essay, which remains in the namespace (and should), and that contrast makes it useful. It is fundamentally and generally true and need not be humorous. Any lack of community backing is doubtful, in that this essay conforms reasonably closely to dictionaries and the others do not. For the same reason, how it is "misguided" is mystifying and should be clarified. The editor writing it having no other contributions does not matter. The Template namespace essay appears to be misplaced and deletable but this one does not. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would provide demystification if it were possible, but someone either understands current colloquial English or they don't. I'm sure "with all due respect" in certain places and at certain times meant something at least partially compatible with the wording in WP:DSWADR, but for ordinary people using ordinary Englsh, WP:DSWADR is so incorrect that it is indistinguishable from minor trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, while dictionaries include colloquial meanings when established, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3ADo_not_say_%22With_all_due_respect%22&diff=566739952&oldid=566599833 no dictionary includes this one]. Editor Nikkimaria probably found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WADR&diff=592135539&oldid=592125045 some sources on the meaning], but still [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WADR&diff=next&oldid=592398589 not a dictionary entry], not even in Wiktionary, which we could edit ourselves if sources are adequate. The principal meaning of with all due respect is still the positive meaning, even if it is weakened by having become a cliche, that positive meaning being what dictionaries report if they report anything. The closest to what you suggest is in the Oxford English Dictionary as "used parenthetically, or to preface a remark; originally as a simple expression of deference, later (now chiefly) to introduce an expression of disagreement or a dissenting view. Freq. more fully as with all (due, great, etc.) respect; also with to" (boldfacing omitted). (OED, entry respect, noun, phrase with respect, sense P5e (online, as accessed today)). While it "introduce[s]" a point of dissent or disagreement, it is not dissent or disagreement itself, and the introduction remains a positive one. Thus, DSWADR conforms to what is established usage in dictionaries, and that usage is what we may expect readers to know. Even the WikiSpeak entry is primarily about how the term is used by select Wikipedians, not general English readers who edit Wikipedia. WP:DSWADR is not a case of trolling. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC) (Corrected link formats: 19:48, 1 February 2014 (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.