Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn / keep. This was based on an incorrect assumption on my part, and I apologize for the inconvenience.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists in Wikipedia
Try to finish incomplete MfD

Two editors have proposed this as a variant of established guideline List guideline. Since it is, in essence, a POV fork, this proposal was rejected by consensus, as should be obvious from its archived talk page. Normally we simply put rejected on such and move on. However, in an attempt to still claim some faux legitimacy for this POV fork, the two creators are vehemently defending its status as an 'essay', even though both WP:POL and the page history make clear that it is not.

Simply put, if you propose something and it is rejected, you cannot hide it behind an essay tag; that is misleading to the community. The obvious solutions would be to (1) mark as 'rejected', (2) redirect to the actual guideline List guideline, or (3) delete it. Since the two creators are reverting attempts to the first two, I hereby propose the third.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tx, I think you explained that very well and concise. I'd still prefer (2), but I think your reasoning correct that (3) has become unavoidable. --Francis Schonken 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. For some indiscernable reason, User:Radiant! has started trying to declare this essay to be a rejected guideline.  It was initially contemplated as a guideline, but never voted on or anything like that.  The main authors of the essay (I'm one) decided it would work better as an essay.  This taggings seems like palpable bad faith to me (what on earth it might be a "POV fork" of is mysterious).  LotLE × talk  18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ... moreover, Radiant! seems to have skipped listing it at Miscellany_for_deletion to avoid outside discovery of the nomination!


 * Keep. This is an excellent essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's very useful as an essay, and I'm not sure it got a fair hearing as a guideline anyway. But regardless, it would be a pity to delete it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Amerindianarts 22:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The contents of Lists in Wikipedia seems to me to be almost orthogonal to that in List guideline. It doesn't seem to me to be a POV fork at all. List guideline deals mostly with style and format issues; Lists in Wikipedia deals mostly with content issues. It seems to me that lists are somewhat different from articles, and I'm very open to the idea that it could be useful to have guidelines that are specific to lists. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's see where it goes from here, especially since it is now considered to be an essay...maybe we'll learn something worthwhile.--MONGO 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a good essay. Nominator seems to be misreading things, in that this (1) doesn't appear to be a fork of any other page, (2) doesn't appear to have been "rejected by consensus" on the talk page that is linked. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2006 (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.