Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't Destroy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Userfied by creator, which was the obvious answer and also the likely outcome of this debate, delete is probably not going to gain consensus but more than enough input to show that it's not wanted in project space. User is under ArbCom sanction not to disrupt project space. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Destroy
(now User:Fresheneesz/Don't_Destroy) This page seems to be bordering on an attack on deletionists, is seemingly a WP:POINT violation, and is therefore inappropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. I argue for its deletion. Yuser31415 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: view its discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. Yuser31415 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional userfy. I think it's a fair enough essay, userfy it provided that anything that could be construed as an attack is reworded. Failing which, kill with fire - not really something we need in the WP space, and is probably just trying to make a disruptive point. – Chacor 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Divisive, attempts to vilify users of a certain philosophical bent. --InShaneee 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Chacor's comments. Risker 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, strong delete WP:NOT a soapbox, and this is a soapbox essay. No reason to userfy, as the same rules still apply. Whether you're a "creationist" or a "deletionist"- or you're like me and reject all titles, instead wanting to be treated as an individual editor- you should encourage everyone to do what they can to improve Wikipedia, even if your version of "improvement" isn't necessarily the same as theirs. This essay is just an attack, and it should not be housed on this encyclopedic website. -- Kicking222 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and failing that userfy - not remotely helpful.--Docg 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy - it's at one extreme of an ongoing and important debate. It would be tasteful for the creator to modify some wording of the content, but I don't see any harm to allowing it to remain in userspace. Creating this reasonably coherent essay summarizing the creator's wiki-philosophy is certainly a more productive means of his articulating that philosophy than other methods used in the past. Readers should also bear in mind that what the creator means by "deletionism" is not necessarily identical to what some other editors might mean. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment note that following a recent arbcomm ruling, the author of this essay "may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages". Pete.Hurd 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy, primarily per Brad, though I would not oppose deletion. —bbatsell ¿?  02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt : This sort of thing is completely and absolutely ridiculous. Clue: improving Wikipedia involves finding a way to make things better, not bitch about what other people do and hurl insults at them. Someone needs to consider reminding the author of his tap on the shoulder from ArbCom about this sort of thing. Userfying this is pointless, since this editor has a HISTORY of personal attacks, disruptive editing, and ignoring policy in favor of his own opinion. Lots of us have somewhat pointy essays in our userspace, but this editor decided to spam a dozen or so other editors about it. This stunt was tried once with non-notability. --  Elar  a  girl  Talk 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as per InShaneee, Pete.Hurd 02:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um. Shouldn't I have been notified of this? I made that thing *today*. The wording is off the top of my head. I encourage all of you to reword it yourselves, if you think the tone is inappropriate. I also would not disagree with userfying it. But its an essay.. and one that is very new - not refined. Deleting it so soon is.. unreasonable. Do any of you think it would be fine if the page was kept up for perhaps a week or so (in order to gain comment, consensus, and edits) before it is deleted? Fresheneesz 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You were still online when the template was posted. Personally, I would feel lucky it wasn't speedied by one of those "hard working admins."Circeus 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Deleting it so soon is not unreasonable. Wikipedia is not a place to host attack pages or pages that libel a group of people. And with all due respect, the page is gaining comments, consensus, and edits here. Thank you. Yuser31415 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, libel? Isn't that a little bit strong? ATren 04:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Terrible. We can't keep every random article someone feels like putting up just because deletionists should spend more time doing other things. -Amarkov blahedits 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, thats not the point at all - which is why it needs to be refined. The point is to not focus on deletion, but to focus on improvement and verifiability. Fresheneesz 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy. I think the essay makes a reasonable point. But it's needs to be edited to talk more about specific activities and less about the people. I doubt this was made just to prove a point. C'mon, assume some good faith here. Rdore 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at he called "mediation" at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. As mentioned above, Freshe has a background of policy-related disruption.Circeus 02:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Yuser31415 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment supplemental to my "userfy" !vote above. I am familiar with this user's prior history on policy pages and the arbitration case. The ArbCom ruled that he was disruptive in failing to accept that his viewpoint lacked consensus support to be a policy or guideline and in misusing the device of polling. The present essay is self-contained, is labelled as an essay and nothing else, is not contended to have or even be seeking consensus support as a policy or guideline, and the creator has agreed above he would be okay with userfying it which would be the ultimate confirmation that it does not have any official sanction. I see this as a significant improvement in user conduct, even though I agree the tone of the essay could be more polite, and not as a significant continuation of the prior problems. Having said that, I trust that these comments will not be used as an excuse for any backsliding. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy. It's an essay, not an article, so as long as it's about Wikipedia, it's ok if it's in user space. Just H 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, do you believe attack and biased pages should be kept in userspace, especially when they are a possible violation of our 'do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point policy? I don't think that argument will be held to very high regards by the closing admin/'crat. Yuser31415 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe not Assuming Good Faith is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If someone wants to have an opinion, that's great, as long as it's not in article space. I consider your comment that my opinion doesn't have much value as a personal attack, but like I just said: you're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine. Just H 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not create the essay to disrupt anything. I believe that WP:POINT is talking about blanking pages, or deliberately going against policy to demsonstrate something. What evidence do you have exactly that I'm sincerely trying to aggrivate anyone? Fresheneesz 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter with what intention you created the page for. What matters more are the other two policies I brought forward, WP:ATTACK and WP:NPOV. Yuser31415 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To assume this is WP:POINT is to assume bad faith. There's no evidence that this is anything but an expression of his opinion that deletionism is destructive. As for WP:ATTACK, there is nothing personal about writing an essay that opposes a philosophy. No individual editor was mentioned here, therefore charges of WP:ATTACK are unwarranted. ATren 04:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant WP:ATK. Yuser31415 04:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant WP:POINT rather than WP:NPOV. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:OMG! Grand  master  ka  09:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Not to distract the point (or be annoying) but this is exactly the sort of thing the page is written about. All you guys are using up your time talking about whether or not to delete it - when its not even that big a thing. Its an essy for one, it has no bearing on policy, it is very new, and it doesn't affect anyone really. The point of the essay is that some people on wikipedia could much better spend their time improving articles, rather than deleting them. If you guys spent this much time improving articles in the main namespace, wikipedia would be well on its way to being a trusted source. Of course, making that essay was not in any was supposed to evoke this sort of time being taken from you guys.. I expected to come back next week and find a comment or two on its talk page... Fresheneesz 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, please do not use the argument your essay presents as a reason to keep this page. Instead, please find firm policy supporting its existence. That is much appreciated. Yuser31415 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, Yuser - you're not in a position to make demands in this discussion. Just H 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, what a sweet personal attack, Just H. A perfect attempt at making me uncivil, but an unsuccessful one. And please state exactly what policy forbids me from making a "demand"? Yuser31415 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that prevents you from doing so, nor is there one that gives you the power to do so. Asking works better than demanding, and I ask you to calm down -- your words in this mfd are very counterproductive to the discussion that is supposed to happen at deletion discussions. Just H 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Userfy: I fail to see how stating an inclusionist position in an essay is "disruptive". What happened to assuming good faith? Are we to discount any inclusionist opinion from Fresheneesz just because he was involved in an arbitration case relating to the notability debate? Is it disruptive to disagree? I think everyone needs to lighten up a bit. ATren 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The essay has been significantly toned down in response to the MFD,which might explain part of your puzzlement.Circeus 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A total of 5 words was removed in that edit; the only one that might be considered disruptive is "stupid". I still don't see disruption - at worst, just a poor choice of words that he himself toned down. ATren 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy for now. I probably could be turned into a useful Wikipedia essay, but not in its current form. I suggest that Fresheneesz work on toning down some of the rhetoric and making it more balanced. After it has been edited, they can then ask if there is a consensus to move it from the User workspace to the Wikipedia workspace. Blank Verse 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a Catch-22...suggest deletion and you're a deletionist acting against the message.  If you support the view of this essay, then you're an inclusionist and it's hugs and kisses to the author.  A lot of people can spend a long time and hard work dedicated to forcing a hoax, pushing a point of view, or generation of original research into Wikipedia article space.  If the information in Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, it will take the deletion of hard work sometimes to keep everything above the board for verifiability, neutral PoV, and well-sourced content.  Suggesting that the deletion of others' hard work is wrong is, itself, wrong.  ju66l3r 03:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The essay is not meant to support articles that fail WP:V NPOV or OR. It is meant as a comment against focusing on deletion vs improvement or integration. Fresheneesz 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons the nominations state. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy Though I strongly disagree with its contents, Fresheneesz (did I spell it right?) is surely entitled to his/her opinion, and hence should be kept in his userspace. Yuser31415, you are in no position to demand that Fresheneesz be unable to voice his sentiments, disagreeable though it may be. And Freshe, please do tone down (and reword at bit) your essay, as a first read did sound pretty insulting. --210 physicq  ( c ) 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to belittle your important and calm opinion, Physicq, I must disagree with you on one point: "Yuser31415, you are in no position to demand that Fresheneesz be unable to voice his own sentiments ..." - actually, I do happen to be in a position to demand that Wikipedia stays unbiased and does not favor one group of editors (inclusionists, in this example). Attack pages are forbidden by Wikipedia policy, even though I admit this is a mild case of attacking. Whether the user meant it as a good faith essay or not is irrelevant in this discussion; instead, what is more important is the fact the article happens to be biased and represents an opinion that a sizable amount of Wikipedians would disagree with. Yuser31415 05:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not the content that makes the essay disagreeable, but the tone. Perhaps I should have been clear, you are not in the position to demand (no one is), but you are in the position to request which anyone can do. Perhaps the reason why Fresheneesz is reacting in such a manner is because of your hard sledgehammering of what could have be a benign codification of one's philosophy. In short, it is semantics, not meaning, that is the problem here. --210 physicq  ( c ) 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or if you have to, send to Meta. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an esay critical of people. 66.82.9.81 06:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, WP:NOT is for the mainspace. 66.82.9.81 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I suspect this user is a newbie impersonating User:Chris is me. For a user who has just recieved AWB (see Chris' talk page) there seems to be a considerable inexperience to say WP:NOT only applies to mainspace. Any ideas? Yuser31415 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am actually Chris is me. I'm also very stupid. I thought NOT was at least mostly for the mainspace. Ah well, I learned something. Please assume good faith. -- Chris is  me 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy Personal opinions, but not bad enough to deserve deletion. Tintin (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If those that wrote useless, divisive screeds instead worked to improve content on wikipedia, we might get featured quality articles twice as often than we do now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course if it were an exam paper I'd have to give it a C+, but I can't see the problem with an Inclusionist Manifesto in WP space. Maybe some inclusionists with a better grasp of the realities of Wikipedia can edit it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - divisive and inflammatory. MER-C 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at most userfy. The arguments for deletion do not seem especially strong.  Let's review:
 * 1. Nom suggests a WP:POINT violation, but it is not clear what this is disrupting.  Making a point is not the same thing as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
 * 2. WP:NPOV has been mentioned above, but that policy applies only to "encyclopedic content" (otherwise I'm fairly sure it could be accused of violating itself).
 * 3. WP:NOT a soapbox applies to article space (although other parts of WP:NOT are more wide-ranging), and in fact many essays in project space do argue in favor of one position or another.  This one does not seem especially different.
 * 4. WP:ATK is not relevant to the current wording of this page; I haven't checked the history, maybe it was more relevant in the past.  I would have to say this isn't the first time that I've found those supporting deletion treating any principled opposition as a (personal) attack.   This tendency is disturbing, far more so than the rather harmless essay under discussion here, but this probably isn't the place to discuss it.
 * Side point, in closing: many participants in both sides here could use a refresher course in WP:CIV and WP:NPA.  -- Visviva 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Decent essay. There is nothing in it that can be construed as an attack. Like all Wikipedia essays, it starts as one person's rambling opinion, and like all essays in the Wikipedia namespace, many people won't agree with it. However, until we reach the point where we userfy every essay that hasn't gone through some sort of approval process, this should stay. --- RockMFR 07:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy per whoever. Essay is poorly written and divisive. - Merzbow 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy divisive and, IMO, wrong so it doesn't belong in project space but the version I saw wasn't an attack so I don't see a compelling reason to delete. Eluchil404 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep should be a policy. - Lapinmies 08:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. In general I have the opinion that rubbish should be deleted and that work that has merit, however small, should be kept.  This work has the merit of causing thought.  It is clearly stated to be an essay.  It is by no means complete, but that is also fine.  It simply suggests that we should keep more than we destroy.  We should.  There is no point in userfying it.  It belongs in plain sight.  Of course it offends the militantant deletionists.  But it is not aimed at pleasing inclusionists either.  It's aim is plain common sense.  Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly it's as far away from common sense as I am from Moscow. ~ trialsanderrors 09:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia essays are mentioned in About as containing a wealth of content about how Wikipedians see themselves and the project. I have no objections to it remaining, either as an essay or as part of the original author's userspace. The version I look at today does not breach the guideline on Attack pages, the guideline about not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is not relevant. Neither are policy, they are both guidelines. --Alf melmac 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep - deletionism is disruptive, if this essay shows them the light and helps bring them from the darkness it can only be good, right? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, divisive and unilateral. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - we do not need this kind of political campaigning taking place in project space. No objection to userfying. Moreschi Deletion! 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kill it. Very very POV and completely inappropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, Strong Keep. What, now people are trying to have essays they don't agree with deleted? This is frightening. jgp TC 13:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy Personal opinions, but not bad enough to deserve deletion. feydey 13:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete. We don't need the personal opinion of one (or a small group of) user(s) as an essay in the Wiki namespace, certainly not when it's as divisive as this essay. Fram 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this it struck me as an obvious delete as it was divisive and attack-y. But it has seen substantial modification and improvement, and I find it a perfectly fine statement of opinion now. It does not attack, merely advocate actions.(See, for example, the words of our chairman: User:Anthere/Values) It's fine as an essay, and Fresheneesz is to be commended for a more constructive approach. The suggestion that it needs to be userified doesn't carry for me. At most it might be redundant, perhaps, but we have redundant essays. Keep, userify if you must but do not delete. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy It's simply expressing the personal opinion (albeit extreme and borderline divisive) of a user. As much as I don't supprt his view, I'd suggest moving it to his userspace where it belongs. alphachimp.  14:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Alphachimp - or delete. Deleting weak articles is not "destroying".  It's cleaning and making the overall encyclopedia experience not suck.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to drift too far off topic, but deletion is destroying information, more or less permanently, although whether that is good or bad obviously depends on the information in question. (Similarly, programmed cell death is death, although it is also essential to healthy organ development.)  We shouldn't lose sight of this basic fact, although we shouldn't allow it to blind us either.  -- Visviva 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Promote it to guideline and give the authors barnstars. WAS 4.250 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy; not the right sort of thing for a mainspace essay. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A heaven for POV forks? Indeed, we can't shut up deletionists' mouths this way!
 * wikipedia is more useful with more content - Yes, which content?
 * focusing on deletion is the huge amount of wasted hours - Yes, more hours would be wasted on heated discussions re content and edit warring especially for POV forks.
 * Of course, all this is not meant to say that we should keep all articles. - Yes, we would be having tons of interpretations of this would-be policy/guideline. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy Deletionist/Inclusionist essays should stay out of the project namespace. Moving to meta seems reasonable as well. Intention of essay seems to be only to make a point. There are many deletionist/inclusionist essays on user subpages. This one belongs there as well.—Dylan Lake 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy until it has improved - the nutshell bit is reasonable - "Focus on article improvement, not deletion." Can the deletionists please address that bit? The rest of the essay has some mistakes and excesses that need correcting and toning down before it is ready. I speak as someone who shudders at the amount of rescuable content that is deleted because no-one (including me) has time to bring it up to standard. That is a problem, and one that needs to be addressed. Deletion should, in my opinion, be reserved for the worst of the worst. Stuff that we don't want people to see because it does not meet our standards should be blanked and put in a "please tidy this up" category. Carcharoth 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Makes a reasonable point. The fact that it is fairly useless means it should fit right in with the rest of the essays in Wikipedia space. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current version is reasonable enough, and it expresses one of the important viewpoints. Additionally, I raise an eyebrow at the instant nomination for deletion, while the author was still working on the text. Zocky | picture popups 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I felt the need to comment here. I doubt the nomination would have occurred as quickly as it did if the essay's author didn't have a history of... shall we say, negative contributions, to policy pages.  Additionally, the first draft was really just the author standing on a soapbox attacking those who delete material in line with Wikipedia's policies, WP:NOTE in particular.  If that's the standpoint from which the author is coming, then I'm not sure that any incarnation of the essay would be a helpful addition to the Wikipedia namespace.  Warmest regards, —bbatsell  ¿?  19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would who the author is have anything to do with whether an essay should be deleted? Zocky | picture popups 20:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the editor was warned by arbcom not to "disrupt policy pages" and then wrote this essay attacking policy... Pete.Hurd 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I totally agree that there's other ways to fix articles besides deleting them, but this particular text does nothing but inflame people. - Mgm|(talk) 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy, we all deserve a chance to rant sometime. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Delete without prejudice against creator - This page has blown up in its author's face, and is now useless for its intended purpose, which was to make a constructive comment about how one might approach Wikipedia. It clearly has come across to many editors as an attack, and any constructive point it had will now be better served by walking away from the flames and starting over fresh, after thinking very carefully about diplomacy, and how to better communicate the good idea that was the genesis of this page.  Just chalk this one up as a "party foul", and move on. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy harmless nonsense Buck  ets  ofg  21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete. Essaycruft is bad enough, but it's just incoherent ranting.  Ral315 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Close, Userfy, and Delete mainspace version This discussion isn't getting anywhere otherwise. Just H 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Newyorkbrad and Dylan Lake. The creator of the essay is entitled to his opinion. --Metropolitan90 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved the page to my userspace, because of the enormous controversy.. I can't believe such a small thing caused such a big ruckus. Those that are interested in developing the essay are welcome to discuss it on its talk page (especially a name change, and tone-down), and perhaps it can be moved the the main namespace if more users than me express significant amounts of their views. Fresheneesz 22:01, 30 December 2006 (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.