Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace




 * 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—consenus seems to be heading quite strongly in this direction. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace
Pointy essay authored by editor who doesn't like WP:OUTCOMES, was rebuffed at that page, and has been on a campaign to change wikipedia such that it reflects his own personal biases. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointy MfD, nuff said. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep I'm the editor Jclemens is referring to, although the essay has more than one author. I like WP:OUTCOMES just fine, especially now that it actually reflects outcomes (i.e., I wasn't rebuffed at that page, considering all the changes I proposed were actually made). I fail to see how this essay "disrupts Wikipedia" to make a point or in any other way. I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!
 * Actually, the page was improved in spite of your efforts, by editors who saw the value in the points you were edit warring to try and make. You might want to clarify the rationale for your speedy keep !vote, as well--no speedy close criterion actually applies in this case. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand you: editors saw value in my points, and my points were eventually accepted. If that's true, then why did you start out by saying I was "rebuffed" because I didn't get my way at OUTCOMES? I wouldn't bring up edit warring on this issue if I were you. If you look at the record, I'm not the one who had two or three different editors ask me to stop attacking someone and stick to the issues (or comment on same): you are. LET IT GO, MAN. WP:OUTCOMES got changed. Its done. People like it the way it is now, which is why a bunch more edits in the spirit of the ones I started with got made. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, userfy for additional work, and remove from Essays on building Wikipedia.  I don't have a problem with this opinion existing and essay clarifies its status, but having it in the navbox gives it undue weight.  This essay could be developed to provide some good advice on making good arguments through facts rather than vagaries but it needs some work in it's current state.--RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Editors are permitted to express their opinions through essays as long as they don't violate certain norms (such as WP:NPA). I do agree that it needs work before including it in Essays on building Wikipedia, and if it doesn't attract more contributors it should be userfied. But there is no need for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that there are four five editors on this page who are fine with it in project space is enough for it not to be userfied, even if two of those four did not contribute (because the point of asking for multiple contributors is that contribution equals assent). ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, if we apply the "needs more than two contributors" logic to all essays, about 300 of them should be userfied. In that case WP:ESSAY C/C should start an "Essays for Userfication (EfU)" page. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Argument against userfication
This article was co-authored by two editors, and currently is in the top 25% of Wikipedia essays, ranked better than over 700 essays below it. I don't think an essay with that kind of ranking should be userfied. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you've been effectively promoting the essay, through a Wikiproject you started and a template into which it has been included, is hardly compelling evidence of its worth. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that if its being read, that's because I'm a good promoter? I think you're selling your fellow editors short. There are other essays in that template that have more incoming links, yet have fewer pageviews (i.e. are read less) than Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace. I think that's compelling evidence of its worth. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Essays on Building Wikipedia
Unless there are specific inclusion criteria, it isn't equitable to kick one essay out of a template because a few people think it shouldn't go there. This is being discussed at Template_talk:Essays_on_building_Wikipedia and I think it is a good idea to set clear inclusion criteria up so the template a) doesn't get to crowded; and b) represents the best work on the subject. I encourage all present to go over there and comment if they have an opinion. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion there is on the most basic criteria. Regardless of whether or not an essay meets this basic critieria, if there is consensus that an essay does not belong in that navbox, it should be removed.  --RadioFan (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion there is on whatever participants choose to make it. There are no assigned topics. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, I'm referring to the discussion I started. No one is saying that the discussion has been restricted in any way.--RadioFan (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy to the User:Noraft/Nonfactual Facts in Wikipedia Namespace. The essay is non-factual, and is in contradiction.  I think there is meaningful sense in there, but it is not ready for project space.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonfactual in what way? In contradiction with what? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Throughout, there are unsourced assertions of fact. My reading of the essay is that asserted facts don't belong in Project space, that every statements requires a basis in evidence or logic.  Therefore, this essay doesn't belong, in its current form, in project space.  I see that you have retitled.  Good, that goes a long way to making the essay palatable.  Keep in project space if the author is sure.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid use of projectspace for an essay.  Collect (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article states that essays don't need to source themselves, because they are explicitly identified as opinions. However, your comment has inspired me to edit for clarity, and that has spawned a pretty substantial rewrite. So I thank you for that, as I think the essay is better for it. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nonfactual Facts in Wikipedia Namespace was renamed Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace. I renamed this MfD because the MfD template link on the essay to this MfD was broken due to the name change.  My reason got cut short in the move - I also recommended against renaming it again during the MfD, though that would be permissible and possibly desirable at some later point (I still don't think it's as clear as it could be).  I don't know if there remains anything to be done in connection with the move? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't mean to break the link. Thanks for catching that. I will not rename it again during MfD. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it's an essay, not an article. Maybe some folks don't like it.  Heck, maybe I don't even like it--but that doesn't matter.  It's not disruptive, it's not violating any policy that I can see, and it's getting a lot of views from what I understand.  Y'know, if you really don't like it--you can actually edit the essay yourself, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's a step for after the MfD is closed as keep, which it appears it will be. The sentiment expressed here indicates that the consensus lies somewhere between my position (it should be deleted as redundant to RfC and incompatible with BURO) and Noraft's (that it should be included in a Navbox of fundamental Wikipedia essays). Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a distortion of my "position," and I don't think those two things you stated (your position and your attempt at stating "my position") are polarities of one another, nor even on the same continuum. Also, there is the possibility that consensus lies nowhere, because there may be none. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:26, 4 April 2010 (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.