Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear (2nd nomination)


 * 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. T'Shael,  Lord of the Vulcans  06:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

Don't poke the bear
Pointless mini-essay. Everything discussed in it (that isn't chatter about meanings of the word "bear") is already covered at established policies and guidelines. The wording and logic of this piece are confused, and it mostly describes behaviors that would be dealt with rapidly and without hesitation at WP:ANI and WP:AIV. It is a clear case of WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Xeno, one of the page's frequent editors and defenders, removed the MfD tag from it just a few minutes ago (it was an incorrect tag, mfd rather than mfdx, but should have been fixed, not deleted). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's an essay and I don't share (or even understand, really) the nominators' concerns. Many essays synthesize what is said in policies and guidelines to speak to a particularly refined issue. –xenotalk 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Regarding the P.S.: I would've fixed it had you actually created the requisite MFD page, which you've now (obviously) done.
 * Keep: The irony of you saying "the wording and logic of this piece are confused," while simultaneously presenting no clear case for deleting the essay, does not escape me. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the very essence of what a Wikipedia essay is, a simplified (or metaphorical) explanation of more complicated policies, guidelines and procedures. I see no reason for deletion. Vicenarian  (T · C) 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per being sensible. Friday (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There are numerous existing policies (mostly based on being bold, being civil, and being honest) which are duplicated here for no good reason. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. (1) Too ambiguous—if it means "don't intentionally piss off other editors" then it should just say so. (2) Offensive in that it predicts another editor will be over-sensitive—Logical Premise's interpretation (in the original MFD nomination) was "don't poke valuable team members who are likely to react poorly".  (3) Won't be missed anyway—e.g. has only been used three times on user talk pages: on Sceptre's (talking about the original MFD nomination), on East718's (joking about a Cub Scout camping trip) and on TTN's (talking about nominating articles for AfD).-Pointillist (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - No compelling reason for deletion. Harmless essay. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Pointless? Nope. Best essay ever? Nope. Valid in projectspace? Yep.  No new reasoning for deletion is given, hence prior result should stand -- as (snow) keep.   Collect (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent essay.  More MfD participants should read it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep More people should read previous xFD's before nominating. Agathoclea (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The standards for essays in project space are deliberately quite low, and the nominator has not offered any reason why this essay violates those standards. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gavia immer's sentence, better constructed than I could have come up with.  Keeper  |  76  03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my understanding of Wikipedia essays. I believe that this essay contains valuable advice, so even if WP:IAR were to be required, I'd still !vote to keep. — Ched :  ?  10:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Let sleeping bears lie. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd like to suggest the invocation of WP:SNOW.
 * Tricenarian (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) **Vicenarian logged in from a public computer.**
 * Seconded :-\ Pointillist (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Its only an essay and it isn't mauling anyone.  MBisanz  talk 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The essay was referred in the incident related "Giano's departure", and I don't see why the "essay" should be deleted.--Caspian blue 22:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where was that incident, btw? - Pointillist (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Check xeno's block log. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean this then I'm none the wiser! - Pointillist (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a harmless essay. No need to delete it. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Help protect bear rights. Stop the onslaught of metaphors, let's keep this article. The previous MfD nomination (ending in Keep) was 22 May 2009, has there been a lot of change since then? EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the deletion of an essay is perhaps the most non-beneficial act one could perform on Wikipedia short of deleting a featured article. Let's not prod this ursa any further.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There is certainly no need for this essay on wikipedia. And I worry about pointless essay writing as a way of putting unreferenced content on wikipedia. Even the non-namespace pages shouldn't become a forum for preachy self-publishing. That said, this essay's presence or non-presence is not a big deal. xschm (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xeno and all the other keep arguments here and in the first MfD (only a few weeks ago). It's an essay per WP:ESSAYS. — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 25 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.