Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I just don't like it


 * 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 (non-admin closure). The page that was nominated is vastly different from the page as rewritten by User:Uncle G.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the reasons for seeking its deletion have disappeared with the rewrite, making continuation of this MfD unnecessary.--Father Goose (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't like it
Declined speedy deletion. Speedy rationale was, "essay created by a user currently in a content dispute/disagreement at Barack Obama laden with subjective terms about 'irrational, politically motivated, disorganized, bias (sic), unreasonable' editors." SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the guy who sought speedy, and reiterate that this should be deleted as a fork (of the useful/neutrally written WP:IDONTLIKEIT laden with subjective terms in what appears to me to be an attack on other editors, rather than the quality of their arguments and application of policy.Bali ultimate (talk)


 * Speedy delete per Bali. Sceptre (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - was created solely to make personal attacks on other editors accused of censorship / whitewashing on the Barack Obama page; does not offer any advice that is not already in better form at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the interest of disclosure, I am one of the editors the creator was attacking with the page. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not needed, or redirect to IDONTLIKEIT Lets  drink  Tea  19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All it is is an attempt to blast editors the writer disagrees with. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Expand - So, you what you are all saying is, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? How would it "blast" anyone "the writer" disagrees with, if the concept itself wasn't valid? Can't anyone else reference this concept, in cases where arguments tend toward being irrational? We have numerous essays and  terminologies, some of which even violate CIVIL, which we nevertheless keep because they encapsulate (and link) a common concept found within discussions. Are you going to delete WP:DBAD too? Doesn't that violate WP:NPA? -Stevertigo 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal If the page reads as a screed, it will be deleted regardless of what space it's in. Using Wikipedia space essays to bitch about other users is just as inappropriate as using userspace to bitch about other users. It's a personal attack in the strictest sense unless you have the evidence to back up your accusations. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 19:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - soapboxy, pointy, tirade by a user who isn't getting his way. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not read like a tirade to me. Makes no discernible personal attacks.   A "personal attack" must be on a person -- this seems not to do that, hence that argument fails.  Too short? Yep. But last I checked that was not a cied reason for deletion. The reasons cited do not make a case for deletion. Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a motivated attack per nom y Jeske.  Grsz 11  04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. Is a valid opinion, and is sufficiently veiled to not be an attack page.  This is a proper way to express a considered opinion.  If the opinion is no good, then edit it.  If it is hopelessly no good, then userfy it for the single author.  If it is a POV fork, then merge and redirect.  We do not delete bad ideas.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - having essays in the Wikipedia space gives them undue credibility. They should all be deleted, including this one. Wily D  13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST (THOUGHIMNOTGOINGTOTRYCHANGESITEPOLICY) argument. -Stevertigo 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Wily D 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As originally created it appeared to be an attack and was probably not of any use to anyone other than the user who created it, but now that it has been improved by Uncle G it should stay (and is not redundant to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as that is only a section of a page about deletion discussions. — Snigbrook  15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Snigbrook - now it has been rewritten, it is acceptable. Thanks to Uncle G for doing so. Robofish (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I completely forgot about WP:ATA. This is certainly a subarticle of that. Ive linked this from that. -Stevertigo 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Snigbrook. This improves on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I don't detect any bias or ranting. Fences and windows (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten; users are entitled to their opinions. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 17 March 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.