Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive

 __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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This essay itself, ironically, is disruptive, as people have been quoting it in assorted arguments around Wikipedia as though it's some sort of policy. Time for it to go away. Jtrainor (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, and TBAN filer from XfD. A cursory review of their recent nominations shows that the vast majority of what they nominate is kept, indicating a clear ignorance of things like BEFORE. Nominations seem to be solely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and this is another example. Exactly zero evidence has been provided to support the nom's vague assertions it's "disruptive". How would you even know, Jtrainor, considering your last edit before this was in January? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You should probably read WP:AGF, as it's clear you have forgotten all about it. Jtrainor (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen your AfD nominations in the past. You'll find my analysis entirely correct. This should be procedurally closed as you haven't even provided a valid reason to delete. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Breast physics: near unanimous keep.
 * Articles for deletion/Laundry room: clear keep.
 * Articles for deletion/Decoloniality (2nd nomination): keep.
 * Articles for deletion/Steven Donziger unanimous keep.
 * Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination): SNOW keep.
 * Articles for deletion/Barbie's careers: near unanimous keep.
 * Your participation at AfD is a net negative. Time for you to go away from the topic area, to quote your favorite phrase in your AfDs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and you have a long history of POINTY and nonsensical nominations. It is not an AGF violation for me to point this out. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trainsandotherthings: If you want to propose a T-ban go to AN or ANI. Trying to make the case here is disruptive to this MfD. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 20:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. If an essay is mistakenly quoted as policy, that's not the essay's fault. It clearly indicates at the top that it is an essay. Not a valid reason for deletion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this AfD was obviously made in error given the untenable rationale. This AfD should probably be speedy closed. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 20:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Pawnking says, misuse of an essay is not the fault of the essay. In any case, "Hate is disruptive" is a pretty anodyne sentiment to want to argue against. It's right in line with civility, the fourth pillar. If the nom really disagrees with the idea, they are free to write up a response essay in line with their own attitudes. I would personally be very interested in seeing what the title is. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as completely valid essay. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - invalid reason for deleting a perfectly fine essay clearly marked as such. Funcrunch (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2022 (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.