Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature

 __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) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature


Per Avoid writing redundant essays, it is generally considered beneficial to avoid writing redundant essays that do not add a new point of view to the project space. Per The value of essays, the objective value of an essay cannot be determined, but the volume of interaction surrounding an essay can indicate how important it is. Neither page is a policy or guideline, but I take them to represent a rough consensus around essays and their purpose.

This page has had just 76 page views between 1 July 2015 and 17 March 2019, with a majority of those page views being before July 2016. While I find the point of view presented in the essay sensible, and Floquenbeam (the primary author) is still active, the essay is orphaned and has received very few recent edits and page views. As such, I think it would be appropriate to move the essay into Floquenbeam's user space, or to add the page to Template:Wikipedia essays (which appears to be an informal and actively curated collection of essays considered important) and see what happens. Presently, there are (surprisingly) no essays concerning signatures linked from that template. Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So which "don't send contradicting messages" essay is this one redundant with? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't know if it's actually redundant, hence my suggestion to include it in Wikipedia essays to determine roughly how significant essay readers think it is. Since the navbox forms a link farm and is transcluded on 500 pages, most essays linked from that navbox should have more page views than other essays by virtue of being included. If the essay becomes relatively more significant than other essays in the navbox (e.g. by not being the essay with the fewest page views, or by being referenced in users' comments), then that would in a way demonstrate that the essay should remain in the project namespace. Jc86035 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Userfy - nothing wrong with the essay as far as I can tell, but lately it's come to be recognized that essays hosted in project space represent a common view of a large subset of the community, while those in userspace reflect the advice or minority opinions of a few. I agree with this essay, but I also think it's more the second thing than the first. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If the project space is getting full and it's important to make room for more popular things than my little essay, then by all means userfy. If desired, I can also rename to "Wjwefjoiwejf" just to make sure it's seen by even fewer people. Cheers! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. It obviously would be renamed to "Dmasvpoyds". Friendliest wishes, Natureium (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Sowiejgiowejgoiwjeogjw is taken, just for the record and all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Userfy Author is still active. CoolSkittle  (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't remove useful information on the basis that no one has yet put appropriate links to allow readers to find the page. The essay contains good advice which should be endorsed by the community. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. If the decision is not to keep it in Wikipedia space, then userfy. I'm of the (apparently ancient) school of thought that most user essays belong in userspace until such time as other people from the community decide it belongs in Wikipedia space, and someone else moves it there; that seems to have worked out pretty well for my essays, one of which someone else moved, and the rest of which are happily ensconced in my userspace.  Having said that, there are so many essays in Wikipedia space that this shouldn't even raise an eyebrow; it's better than a lot of other ones I've seen, and it does at least have a point.  Risker (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination for deletion was a good-faith mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful, just not publizised well, it seems --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, can't see anything wrong with this. Having gazillions of essays in project space is one of the things that make the English Wikipedia great, and sometimes even a fun place to be. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: That an essay tells us to remove essays is not a particularly cogent argument. ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This essay is useful advice for those who lack the basic social skills to know that one shouldn't serve open-face shit sandwiches at a garden party.- MrX 🖋 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multi-authored project-related essay.  Also note that the essay is "vitally important".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ironically, I found out about this essay through stalking 's talk page and seeing the MFD notice.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the pageview argument very weak. Also ironically this MfD now publicized the essay freely, it has more than 500 views and counting, and that's certainly more than many articles. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2019 (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.