Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury


 * 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. Moving the page to user space is indeed an option. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 00:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't moon the jury
The page, which is supposedly an essay, gives absolutely no meaning of the phrase ane and appears to have little place as an essay. The page was created in April and hasn't been expanded upon in nearly three months, besides the nomination for deletion. -- Looneyman (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It serves no useful purposeDrew Smith What I've done 06:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked in June for this to be expanded ; it wasn't, so I would said userfy (without redirect from WP space) until it is. –xenotalk 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy per xeno. '''Javért |Talk 13:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Less is more. Editors frequently violate the principle, and it is useful to have a semi-humorous, semi-serious page to remind them. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just tell them "Don't moon the jury?" What's the point of pointing them to a page that simply says the exact same thing (and nothing more) and (erroneously) says it's an essay (when its a single sentence)?  –xenotalk  14:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a similar thought, xeno, so I explained the phrase, and even more might be said. --Abd (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep based on Abd's expansion. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When more text is needed, Abd is the man to call! Jehochman Talk 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Some editor is a bag of lemons, make lemonade, just add your own sugar. If the editor builds walls of text, chop them up and use bits here and there. One editor took a wall of mine, otherwise useless to anyone but the two editors who were communicating, filled in the cracks by eliminating paragraphs, and decorated his user page. With a little ingenuity, you can work wonders!
 * Userfy. Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, humorless deletionist censors, you're all alike  would be an example of mooning the jury. I've added an explanation so that the link will indeed provide more. This could be expanded, I've read plenty of RfArs, for example, where editors complain about Wikipedia or arbitrator comments, and not constructively. Or, perhaps more to the point, rant and rave about a party to the case, thus displaying their own nether regions for all to see, in a place where it isn't easily covered up. Brilliant! Perhaps there should be an essay, WP:Pull your pants back up, about what to do when you realize you've mooned the jury. "Oops! damn button broke when I dropped my glasses and reached down to pick them up! Never mind that redacted post, I ran out of bupropion for a few days, I've filled the prescription now and I should be fine, I'm sorry for any confusion, please forgive me, I'll be more careful next time." It can be difficult to recover, but it's possible. --Abd (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Don't be a dick (which I would support deleting by the way... It seems dickish to point people to an essay on not being a dick. But I do enjoy irony now and again, so that's my rationale.) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to point people to that essay, because that is a violation of the rule itself. People are supposed to find it themselves (the page is well-documented) and learn from it. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 21:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is among the more tame of our "meta argument" pages. --B (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing salvageable. Raul654 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy. A dumb essay.  Move to project if it can be appropriately linked, otherwise don't.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't state your case without being rude, your opinion will carry less weight. Jehochman Talk 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rudeness to the author not intended. The author writes good essays.  This one is not the most sophisticated.  My level of respect for the essay and this debate is in balance with my comment.  Wikipedians have the right to right essays, and we shouldn't normally delete them.  This debate will decide the earthshatteringly important question of the essay's location.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. The essay needs further development.  I put it in project space so that others would feel comfortable editing it.  Normally people don't edit others' user space essays. I am confused about this whole "don't put essays in Wikipedia space without some sort of community blessing" thing.  Essays carry a disclaimer saying they are not official in any way. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine to put something in project space if you think it could belong there. If people object, and the page has almost no support, and it has not been cited by others, then userfy it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure I support userfication of essays that the original author intended other people to edit, on the sole basis that it's single author and disputed. That seems to be closing the door on any new essay that anyone anywhere might object to. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, simple essay that falls under Wikipedia essays. Seems especially relevant in some of the places I've seen it used.  Dreadstar  †  02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or delete with existing WP:BUTT (either way), as that states much the same thing.
 * Keep this is actually a good and thought-provoking essay in my opinion, that it's been sitting for three months untouched isn't really a valid reason for deletion. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:09, 19 July 2009 (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.