Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent

 __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:  Consensus not to delete. Wording it that way because about half the participants said Keep, and the rest (other than the nom) said a mix of different things that were not Delete. A few offered multiple options. So no strong positive consensus on one thing, but clearly against deletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent


Short, stubby essay that does little more than restate the main points of WP:IAR and WP:BOLD, but in far less detail. Created in 2013 but then never expanded upon. Has very few visitors, with page view statistics showing 0/day average. Doesn't seem to be of any real use. It was nominated for merge with WP:IAR in 2013 but nobody ever showed any interest.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Writing essays is a tradition of the community even if few people read most of them. There is no requisite for essays to be popular, and nothing is gained by deleting it. Diego (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that it is essentially redundant, what purpose is served by keeping it? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Appart that keeping it is the default outcome if no action is taken, keeping essays around is done because it helps build a community, which in turns helps writing the encyclopedia. Diego (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I follow you. How does keeping an essay that is redundant, that was edited once, 3 years ago and then never again, except for adding one link and some like breaks, build a community? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Valid essay.  Essentially asserts the equivalence of "way of doing things" and "rules" in a parody of WP:IAR.  Editors might consider merging essay of similar fine points, but don't delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirect into WP:IAR, since it is designed to be only a single sentence long. A Merge into What "Ignore all rules" means or WP:FATRAT might be best.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is the corollary to Precedents which is also an essay. While I don't agree with it personally, and it may not be widely accepted, that's no reason to delete it. A move to "Ignore all precedents" may be in order. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ironically, this essay mentions WP:IAR and WP:BOLD more than Wikipedia:Precedents. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's rather natural. It wouldn't cite the opposite viewpoint to back up what its arguing. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to the creator's userspace. Projectspace is for essays with wider use, greater significance, greater readership; maybe they have general acceptance, e.g. WP:OUTCOMES, or maybe they express fringe perspectives, e.g. an essay advocating mandatory registration (comparable to User anti-anon), but if they have a decent support basis, they should remain in projectspace regardless of their content.  Something like this, which seems to be an individual perspective, should go in the individual's userspace.  Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Diego and SmokeyJoe. Incidentally, this nomination was clearly only made as an attempt to influence the outcome of this TfD. —  Scott  •  talk  18:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. Please assume good faith and don't make unfounded accusations. The essay was always obscure and was originally nominated for merging into WP:IAR, but nobody showed any interest in the essay for two years. Since nobody seemed interested, it was a natural progression to nominate it for deletion as it seems to serve no purpose and is the opinion of a single editor. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And completely by coincidence rule out a possible new target for a redirect that you're struggling to protect. Life's funny sometimes. —  Scott  •  talk  20:16, 9 September 2016 (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.