Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia


 * 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. In theory, any essay could be used in a personal attack - that doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem with the essay. –xenotalk 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A new essay which has already started to be used as a angry tool to attack other editors. In fact, thus far, this essay's only use has been as a tool to attack other editors:


 * 19:30, 17 August 2009 Why are you here?
 * 22:25, 10 August 2009 This is not a battleground for political ends...Behaviorally, you play a thin line of disruption to the way Wikipedia operates.
 * 00:21, 10 August 2009, appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia
 * 18:27, 2 August 2009, Do we need him on our team? Absolutely not. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, at all.
 * 08:37, 13 August 2009, Username suggests the creator is not here to build an encyclopedia.
 * 08:11, 3 August 2009, Not here to build an encyclopedia (used in heated argument)
 * 08:58, 3 August 2009  Note: Not here to build an encyclopedia also refers In arbcom.
 * 16:17, 11 August 2009 Like I said, you need to learn to avoid using Wikipedia as a battleground and instead work on building an encyclopedia. This is no place for grudges and sniping.
 * 05:09, 7 August 2009 I am helping to expose what this particular user is doing, to a larger audience than WT:RFA. I do not find that such behavior is consistent with building an encyclopedia, therefore the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should consequently be banned, or at least blocked.

To illustrate the underlying intention of this page, the original name was Not here to build an encyclopedia and the creator had a lists of editors who don't belong on wikipedia at one point, before another editor deleted the section. Ikip (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page itself looks fine in its current state. It's an interpretation and analysis of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines, pretty much a standard essay. If it is being used to attack other editors, I might suggest it is those who are attacking who should be held to account. This essay is not an attack in of itself, anymore than WP:SPADE is an attack. Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For good or ill, it's trying to discuss behavioral expectations. When such conventions are ignored, is it an attack to point to a page describing such expectations to explain their contravention?  Note that much other content, such as examples of diffs, have been removed already. If anything, this essay serves a valuable purpose to explain "the ropes" to newbies, and if it's deleted under this name, either it will be recreated elsewhere or there will simply be fewer guidelines to explain the term to newbies. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Every use of this essay thus far have been to attack other users. Are new users going to appreciate comments like Why are you here?, appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia, the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, how do such statments help new users? What evidence do you have that this essay will help new users? The only examples thus far is that this page is being used to attack others. Ikip (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, back up a little bit: do the uw- series of templates attack users? No, they describe a difference between expected behavior and what the user is currently doing.  As such, I find the assertion that the only usage of this essay is an attack problematic.  Certainly, I could tell another user "Your mother smelt of elderberries, and you're not here to build an encyclopedia!", but not every usage pointing to this essay in an attempt to get another user to correct his or her behavior is an attack. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you can find that argument summarized at WP:MONTYPYTHON. ;) Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 00:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep You can use a fork to attack people, that does not mean you delete the fork. The essay itself is not an attack in its current form. If someone is not here to write an encyclopedia then that should be pointed out. It looks like in some of your examples the users were making a valid point about the purpose of Wikipedia, not engaging in attack. Pointing out a trait in someone's contribution history such as not being here to build an encyclopedia is not itself a personal attack. This seems like a fine essay and I see no policy based reason to delete it. Chillum  23:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given how frequently this phrase is used around the 'pedia, I was surprised to learn just now that this essay is only a few weeks old. To my view, providing a descriptive link with what some might view as helpful advice (as befits an essay) is better than not doing so. In the spirit of WP:BITE we should of course personalize most communications, but there is plenty of room to include also a link to a longer essay as well. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if this essay is being misused, the issue is with the user, not the essay. pablo hablo. 11:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate subject for an essay, which expresses an opinion on internal matters; per 2/0, this is a frequently used phrase on which some elaboration may be useful and I think the page currently captures well some of the symptoms of editors who alternatively are, and are not, here to build an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will save the supporters of this article the trouble of poiting out that this article will be kept. This article will inevitabley kept, as I feared it would. Even though this article will be kept, it doesn't justify its past nor future abuse.  I think everyone knows how this article will be used, per the evidence above, even if they won't acknowledge this essays use here. As I wrote on the talk page, If a less established editor would have written this essay, it would have been put up immediately for deletion. Imagine if I wrote Not Here to build an encyclopedia and placing some of the established editors who wrote this article and support its existence on the attack list, it would be angerly speedily deleted within 24 hours. Ikip (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off it is not an article, it is an essay in project space. Huge difference. Secondly I don't really agree with the basis of your nomination, what you think everyone knows, what you consider a personal attack, and what you consider evidence. Nothing personal, but I just don't follow your reasoning. We are here to build an encyclopedia and those who are not here to build an encyclopedia should not be using our servers. The only purpose of Wikipedia is to produce a free($ and copyright) encyclopedia. Pointing this out to someone is not a personal attack. Chillum  14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Misuse" (whoever defines it) does not justify the deletion of this essay. This reminds me of the concerns that some editors had over the use of the rescue template. Consensus there was that misuse should be taken up with individual editors, not dealt with by deleting the template. (And if I recall right, that consensus included Ikip!)
 * What is the "attack list" to which you refer? pablo hablo. 14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, would you consider the above reference to rescue a personal attack? If so, I think you really ought to reconsider what WP:NPA means in context. Jclemens (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Users wanting information about this near-definitional expression should be able to find a page describing the phrase and its usage. Informational project pages (even policy pages) aim to describe community norms, more than assert them. Misuse/gaming, or use for unwarranted attack, is always unacceptable, every bit as much as calling someone an edit warrior or vandal inappropriately would be. The remedy is to be careful in describing the term and correct users who misapply it. For that reason the original version included several clear examples of how the term has been historically used. I think the community got it right, it's better without the examples and with the rename. FT2 (Talk 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. By the nominator's reasoning, most policies and guidelines (probably all behavior guidelines and user warnings, WP:NPA included) can be deleted as angry attack pages. I don't see any reason for objecting to this page as it is currently written. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would be in favor of promoting this to policy, in fact (with adequate discussion). --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I wish people would follow it instead of being subscribers to nasty pov contentions of belief and opinion, and that is especially bad when they gang up together. skip sievert (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like an excellent essay. That it's been linked to maliciously is not a good enough reason to delete it. Robofish (talk) 15:30, 25 August 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.