Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delete the junk

 __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 Atmoz (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete the junk
This essay is in contradiction to Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPERFECT.  D r e a m Focus  04:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an essay that expresses the view of many Wikipedians. I won't comment on an inclusionist trying to stifle a deltionist opinion by attempting to delete an essay. AniMate  08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This essay is counter to our core principles such as Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved and "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. Removing imperfect drafts completely so that they cannot be edited is incompatible with the idea of a wiki which anyone can edit.  We only have a few thousand articles of GA/FA quality and even they are junk in the eyes of some perfectionists.  If this idea was ever acted upon, it would destroy Wikipedia as users such as Kww talk of deleting a million articles.  Destruction on this scale is not acceptable and we should not accommodate such views in this way lest editors get the idea that they represent policy.  If editors want to rant about junk, they can do so in their user space, where the status of the sentiment is clearer.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ESSAYS states that Essays "that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." It clearly violates that rule.   D r e a m Focus  10:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, overlooking the irony of "Rescue Squadron" members feverishly attempting to delete something here on Wikipedia, there's no evidence that this personal essay is contradicting "widespread consensus". Certainly against the ethos of the "Rescue Squadron", but nothing controversial. (If only the Rescue Squadron could be so adroit about deletion in the articles they rescue...) WikiuserNI (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't long held policies count as widespread consensus? Why bring the Rescue Squadron into this?   D r e a m Focus  11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The ARS is mainly about rescuing articles and this isn't an article. Editors generally spend too much time on non-article pages and that's contrary to policies such as WP:NOT and WP:NOT.  If people want to remove junk and clutter then we should start with essays like this which are not the purpose of Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A touchy subject? No need to get hot and bothered about it, since you're left to edit as you see fit, why can't others be? WikiuserNI (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when are we left to edit as we see fit? And getting back on topic, this violates policy, and serves no purpose at all except to be used as an excuse for doing something against policy.  People link to essays like this in AFDs all the time to try to justify their positions.   D r e a m Focus  11:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading WikiuserIN's unbridled attack on editors who actually improve wikipedia. What a joyous day he must be having.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an attack, merely a suggestion for an improvement on editing. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, its pathetic, and I'm calling it out as such.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy This essay was written by a single editor with a second section later added by another editor.  There appear to have been no other major contributions to this essay. I find this essay problematic in that no only is it counter to the editing policy (WP:IMPROVE), it also argues counter to the deletion policy and deletion process guidelines such as WP:BEFORE. The second section of this essay "Delete questionable articles and recover them later" is also problematic in that it is not currently possible for non-administrators to view or restore deleted content, and it is difficult for anyone to search deleted content, even those with a toolserver account.  While I don't think deletion of this essay is the answer, I do not think an essay such as this which is largely the opinion of a single individual that makes arguments counter to core policies should exist in the Wikipedia: project space. On the other hand, I do not see a problem with an editor expressing their own views in an essay (or their userpage), so long as it remains in their userspace, so as to make it clear that it does not reflect the view of the larger community. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy'.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * UserifyIt's appropriate for people to be able to express their opinions on-wiki of what should be done here, but when it represents a rather idiosyncratic or small minority view, it should be in user space.   DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree that it is an idiosyncratic or minority view. I happen to agree with it, and I think many other editors do as well.  There are plenty of similar essays that have a related message, e.g. WP:REALPROBLEM, WP:BEEF, WP:LITTLEEFFORT, WP:BUILDER.  This essay is clarifying the widely held opinion that WP:IMPERFECT is not a license to create horribly written articles about notable subjects.  It is not a license to create Barack Obama with the content "Barack Obama is half black."  Such an article does not have WP:Immunity from deletion.  If some of you would pop your heads out from the ARS gopher hole every once in awhile, you might see that there are quite a few editors who believe that "No article is better than a terrible article", and that rather than allowing an atrociously written article to persist for years, they would prefer to delete it and wait for someone else to come around who is sufficiently motivated to create a proper article.  Snotty Wong   babble 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you actually wrote articles maybe I would pay attention to your opinions.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the ARS showed an intent to improve articles and not just turn up to vote keep every which way they can at an AFD, we might take the intent of this pointed deletion a little more seriously. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I improve articles all the time, and I a member of the ARS. Many ARS members act likewise, so I don't appreciate blanket derogatory statements of this type.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd suggest you should start paying attention, Milowent. Yes, the majority of my work here is maintenance-related and new page patrolling, but I have created my fair share of content.  Why don't you AGF and keep your personal attacks to yourself from now on.  Snotty Wong   chat 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead the way and I will follow, Snotty.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Milowent, that was a bullshit cheap shot and you know it. Reyk  YO!  04:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of the sort, dear sir!--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 12:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sums up an anti-inclusionist outlook that I for one heartily agree with. It is certainly not a minority-held point-of-view here, and it expresses something I've seen time and time again in AfDs; the "KEEP THERE'S SOURCES OUT THERE SOEMWHERE OMG OMG DID YUO READ WP:BEFORE!?!?!?!?!?!?" shtick.  People don't get to delete essays just because they disagree with the message, no matter how flashy their sabres are. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it should not be deleted Tarc, I proposed userification, but as I have said in many AfDs, almost no one is going to care if this content remains (because deletion doesn't really help).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... no need to flatly delete, as everyone is entitiled to an opinion and even negative essays are allowed to exist somewhere. However, and in order to not encourage editorial anarchy, let's instead userfy to whomever wants it as a personal essay.  Even if seen as anti-policy, and even if well-intended, it is personal opinion reflective of only a minority opinion. And to those stating that it is "not" a minority viewpoint... come on.  If it were a viewpoint reflective of majority consensus or of policy, it would not be maked "essay" in the first place, and might even have found its own way into guideline.  This essay acts against policy as an opinion which both encourages and supports actions and attitudes contrary to current existing policy.  If and/or when policy is re-written to support this particular point of view, then we may reconsider a return to mainspace.  But for now?  Even if not intentional, this essay feels too much of WP:POINT and WP:NOT to be in mainspace.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the main disagreement is whether or not this essay actually encourages the violation of policy (particularly, WP:IMPERFECT). I submit that it does not.  WP:IMPERFECT does not specifically say that "Any article about a notable subject, no matter how poorly written, must never be deleted under any circumstances."  It does say this: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."  If we define the "junk" to which this essay refers as poor articles which are judged to be unimprovable (without completely starting from scratch), then the essay does not violate policy.  There is no WP policy which instructs us to not delete poorly written articles about notable subjects which would require a complete rewrite to be improved (e.g. when none of the content of an article is salvageable or remotely encyclopedic).  In fact, many of the WP:CSD criteria specifically instruct us to delete articles as fast as possible which, while they might be about notable subjects, are not wanted in the project.  In short, the notion that this essay encourages the violation of policy is a matter of interpretation, specifically it depends on how you define "junk".  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#648113">Snotty Wong   gab 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing a flat deletion, as even an essay that some can see as encouraging the ignoring of policies WP:PRESERVE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP and WP:IMPROVE is allowed, as long as it is not an attack page. However, as this one can be interpreted as a soapbox encouraging deletion above the long-standing and established consensus supporting the policies Preserve, Potential, Imperfect, Work-In-Prgress and Improve, and as these policies have consensus, any essay that can be seen to ignore them makes such essays ones that can be "found to contradict widespread consensus"... and as such belongs in user namespace and not mainspace.  And claims about its application to articles aside, definitions of what comprises "junk" are far too often based upon personal opinion and are far too often and heatedly debated. User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, can be seen as one encouraging the community to find common ground in which to work together, and so creating even the possibility of a battlefield itself runs against policy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: IT's not uncommon, in AfD, to see articles which violate fundamental policies - WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and so on - come up over and over. This essay refers to a subset of these, articles with no or very little merit in themselves which basically share the namespace of a notable topic. the deletion policy allows deletion of "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" - and the articles this essay suggests deleting are of this type: Conspiracy-theory-laden advocacy, unsourced ramblings about an extreme fringe view of the topic, WP:COATRACKs, and the like. Articles in which not a single sentence (or not more than one or two) could even potentially be used in any reasonable, encyclopedic article on the subject. There's no use keeping these, as they actually serve as an obstacle to the creation of good articles on a topic, as, before one can begin to write it, one may even potentially have to deal with several WP:OWNers, all insisting it cannot be changed to anything better - indeed, if these don't exist, the article will most commonly be dealt with using a simple Prod tag.
 * However, arguments against deleting these will usually amount to something like "Google Scholar finds XXX sources, so it's notable. Keep." None of these sources will be checked for whether they're actually useful for building an article - and often won't be. In some cases, the only potentially useful sources will be fiendishly hard to get, costing hundreds of pounds or weeks of research to acquire - only to then discover that they aren't useful at all.
 * AfD is not a process in which people should get to tell the people pointing out basic, fundamental problems which make an article completely unsuitable for Wikipedia that they should spend money and time trying to fix one article - or, in some cases, an entire walled garden - on a barely notable subject, when it violates basic five pillars requirements, and such fixes require rewriting the entire thing from scratch, as not one source or sentence in the original is usable.
 * It gets worse when the article is just this side of hoax, but people still vote for it to be kept, under the fallacious assumption that it'll be improved because they found that if you put the term in google scholar you get some hits (on a different topic). Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't provide any examples of these supposed coincidences of name and this doesn't seem to be what the essay is talking about. What the essay means by junk is "an article on a notable subject ...".  It confirms that it is talking about notable topics when it goes on to say "It is worse to have an article on a notable subject, than not to have it...".  Now I can easily provide an example of this as there's one running at the moment wherein we are bizarrely asked to delete our article about aircraft design.  This proposition should have been laughed out of court immediately but we now have a disruptive discussion in which SnottyWong uses this essay to falsely pretend that there is a sensible argument for deletion.  This nonsense is directly contrary to numerous policies such as WP:AFD, WP:CIV, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:OWN and WP:PRESERVE.  Now you tell me.  Should we be wasting time on discussing deleting articles about aircraft design or should we just be getting on and improving them?  Please let us use real examples like this rather than hypothetical hobgoblins. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Wow, Colonel, way to selectively quote half of the sentence so as to completely misrepresent what it actually says. The full sentence reads, "It is worse to have an article on a notable subject, than not to have it, if it contains information that is misleading, or could be slanted, due to a lack of sources to verify the text is still accurate.", which basically means that it would be better for Wikipedia to remain silent than to lie. You should take note. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point here is that the essay is not talking about crackpot ideas which happen to have the same title as some more notable topic - that's a red herring. The essay is instead talking about poor articles upon notable topics.  Now when you start talking about slant and lies, you are in the domain of ordinary editing not deletion, because editors make these complaints about articles all the time - it is the routine cut and thrust of ordinary editing in which we must strive for NPOV and accuracy.  Doing this is not easy and not assisted by editors demanding that articles be deleted in their entirety so that they must be started again from nothing.  Such propositions seem intended to frustrate opposing editors and so are contrary to our behavioural guidelines.  If someone doesn't like the way an article is written then the onus is on the complainant to write it better.  To demand that it be done away with instead is to play the dog in the manger.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't talking about articles that are badly written and but be improved by regular editing. It's talking about articles that cannot be done properly because the sources necessary for a neutral and verifiable article do not exist. This is an important distinction, and one you should make an effort to properly understand before ascribing petty and spiteful motives to people. And I'm not sure why you would bring up "crackpot ideas which happen to have the same title as some more notable topic"- I wasn't talking about that, neither was anyone else in this MfD, and the essay in question doesn't mention it either. Red herring indeed. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  08:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't change my opinion that an article like Aircraft design shouldn't exist if all it's going to say is "Aircraft design is the design of aircraft. This includes thing like the wings and the landing gear." which is practically what CW reduced it to .  It's been expanded upon since then, but I guess I don't understand why anyone would choose which articles they're going to work on based solely on the list of articles currently at AfD.  If someone were actually interested in aircraft design, they would have created a decent article on it already.  You all should be thanking us.  If it weren't for the editors who nominate articles for deletion, you would have no way of figuring out which articles you'd like to work on.  I hear you say "AfD is not cleanup" over and over, but it seems your whole purpose of being here is cleanup at AfD.  But whatever.  I'm not going to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine.  It looks like the essay will survive, so I guess I'll see you all at whatever next battle you choose to create.    <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#FEF7E3;color=#00AA00">Snotty Wong   converse 15:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- Obviously. Expresses an opinion about what to do with certain types of content that is shared by many Wikipedia editors. Another attempt by hardcore inclusionists to excise or unword concepts and opinions that they personally don't approve of. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SAUCE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The minute I nominate an inclusionist-leaning essay for deletion simply because I don't agree with it, you be sure to let me know. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusionists don't have essays, they have policies. WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPROVE, etc.  D r e a m Focus  13:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Evil Scary Kitten-Eating Deletionist Legion of Doom have WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. What's your point? Is it to glibly assert that the inclusionists have the law on their side, so nergh? I don't think that's particularly helpful. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another attempt? What are you talking about?  First time I ever nominated an essay for deletion.  And I nominated it because it tells people to delete articles outright instead of following the Wikipedia policies of before, improve, preserve, and various others.   D r e a m Focus  13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't AfD MfD the essays you don't like. (cf. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination);) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You link to the AFD of a totally unrelated essay, that took place over two years ago.   D r e a m Focus  13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what Jack is getting at is that that was an MfD aimed at banning a point of view that a certain outspoken inclusionist disagreed with. Just like this one. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- If anything, Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPERFECT indirectly requires that Delete the junk be improved, not deleted. Also, while WP:IMPERFECT is the large majority view, the views of Wikipedia:Delete the junk are held by enought Wikipedians to justify keeping the essay. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Imperfect is about articles, not essays telling people to ignore policy and delete things they consider junk.  D r e a m Focus  13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Telling people to ignore policy is policy. AniMate  20:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though I'm probably the WP:Editing policy's biggest fan, I still think we should keep this essay. I don't think it contradicts anything, it's making a good point that while imperfection is allowed, sometimes we need to get rid of irredeemable garbage, even if it might nominally pass our policies or notability guidelines.  I think this is well within the spirit of our policies, especially the pillar that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Gigs (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonable essay. No immediate opinion on the merits of merging to a similar essay.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an essay, it's not offensive; it's not against the pillars at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Trout Simple trolling (no doubt following from Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process‎ where Snottywong mentioned this essay.) This reflects badly on the nominator's attitude and their ability to work with others who don't share their position. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I found this very seldom seen essay. It violated the rules at WP:ESSAYS by being in mainspace, and going against policy, as I have said.  Assume good faith.  Since the history of this article shows almost no one ever sees it, its not like I felt threatened by the nonsense within.   D r e a m Focus  19:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful information. A poor article does not have to be kept if is is notable and citeable it can easily be recreated, rather than support rubbish, ask to have it moved to your userspace where you can improve it at leisure. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are those saying "keep" doing so only because they agree with what is said? Or do you believe no rule was violated with it?   D r e a m Focus  19:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading what people said, instead of asking rhetorical questions that most people explicitly covered. Or is this rhetoric just you flailing about after your attempt to canvass Jimbo got slapped down? (quoted below)

How do you feel about essays that go against your Wikipedia policies?


 * Since you created the policies concerning anyone can create a page, and it'll be improved upon later, no need to be perfect right away, I'm curious how you feel about people having essays in mainspace which tells people to ignore what that and just delete anything they consider junk? Delete_the_junk Doesn't that go against Wikipedia's founding and still standing principles? Seems to contradict a lot of standing policies.  D r e a m Focus  11:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with that essay completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we can close this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * HAH. And that, my friends, is precisely what "pwnt" means. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha, pwned.
 * This is the same Jimbo who has said every living person could theoretically have an article, and has created "non-notable" stubs, so junk is in the eye of the beholder. "Hector called to all the people / "Come and share my treasure trunk!" / And all the silly sightless people / Came and looked...and called it junk."--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 13:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. What is so wrong with "Sometimes, an article... has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Perhaps its only source is a promotional, questionable website. Perhaps its material seems to be completely made up from thin air. In such cases, just delete it"? However, it's not that well written, and I would like essays in Wikipedia space to be of excellent quality and as concise as possible, so maybe some friendly editors could tighten it up a bit. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and turn into policy. Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, does not contradict imperfect, which is not a license for having badly written, unsourced articles on non-notable subjects any more than it's a license for copyvios and vanispamcruftisement. The essay needs a rewrite, though; eg the sentence


 * "It is worse to have an article on a notable subject, than not to have it, if it contains information that is misleading, or could be slanted, due to a lack of sources to verify the text is still accurate."


 * is somewhat unwieldy and some editors are seemingly having trouble understanding it. pablo 15:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. If nobody else proposes it for guideline status after this AfD is over, I will do it. This is actually relatively mild. The German Wikipedia lists the following as a valid reason for deleting an article: "Der Artikel erfüllt nicht unsere qualitativen Anforderungen". In English: "The article does not satisfy our quality requirements." I wouldn't ask for that approach, although it works very well in practice. But our current approach allows any user who thinks there should be an article about some borderline notable topic to force others to learn about it and write that article. It's as easy as starting a page and dumping crap or a copyvio into it. Because of the inclusionist fundamentalists who oppose even deletion without prejudice in such cases, such abominations can't be deleted, and so someone (typically not the inclusionists) has to bring these articles to a reasonable standard. The only reason why Wikipedia can function without following the common sense approach described in the rule is that we typically just replace the poorest articles by redirects if for sociological reasons they can't be deleted. Hans Adler 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. My point exactly, I couldn't put it together better than Shoemaker's Holiday & Co. Policy? won't make a consensus, get real. East of Borschov 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and enshrine this MfD to prove that even inclusionists can want something deleted, if it doesn't show their point of view (I don't associate myself with one side or the other). This is too precious.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except it proves that we don't. Every "inclusionist" on here recommended the content be kept, except Dream and Colonel, who purposefully baited everyone with their delete votes to prove that deletionists vote to keep what they like and delete what they don't.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit on your disingenuousness here, you and the other comrades "voted" to tuck it down into userspace, out of sight out of mind. And when deletionists "vote" to delete, it is to delete the junk...y'know, the entire point of this essay in the first place.  The essay isn't junk, ergo is should be kept.  See how easy that works? Tarc (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * YOU GOT ME TARC!!! All essays like this not in userspace are so high profile, they are giving me ulcers.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  01:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The back of the bus isn't the same as the front of the bus, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too. Voting in a way to deliberately "Purposely bait" other users is disruptive. How do you know they did that? Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a logical deduction. I believe Dream has drawn the attention of deletionists to essay content like this in order to reduce the attention put on deleting pokemon articles.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  01:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because the 5-10 minutes it takes to comment here will severely hamper someone's ability to participate at AfD... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the time it took you to type that comment, a 2nd tier Bulgarian polo player's article was probably closed no consensus at AfD.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as I primarily do NPP, and my participation at AfD is largely with articles that got by a technicality but really should fall under WP:SNOW (this being a fairly typical example), I probably wouldn't have touched said AfD anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What Fram said, keep in Projectspace (policy contradicts practice, as per longstanding essays like Ageism) and close this per WP:SNOW (oh look, another longstanding essay in Projectspace that doesn't hand widespread consensus). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting query -- does this other MfD deal with a particular category of junk --Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hardcore images.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and frame above the mantel. With that quote from Jimbo right under it... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2010 (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.