Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No naming editors

 __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:  Userfy to. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No naming editors


Marked as an essay that is proposed to become a policy, but written as a set of binding instructions that do not comport with established community norms. Created wholesale in one edit four years ago, zero edits since, no talk page at all, creating user is inactive. As far as I can tell, this was never under discussion by anyone and was abandonded by its now-departed creator. In short, unused junk in project space that does not reflect consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WP:OUTING. Fine essay, but redundant. Current activity of the author is irrelevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification (because I agree things being equal, you are of course correct that the creator's recent activity is not relevant) I only mentioned that in case it was suggested that it be userfied. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the history should be deleted. If you didn't like the title remaining in projectspace as a redirect, I suggest userfying without redirect before redirecting to OUTING. I remember the editor positively, and am surprised that he would write this essay, redundant as it is to policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, pointless and created out of process. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the "process" for writing a project essay? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete - I do not think that a redirect is necessary, as virtually nothing points here, and it has no existing shortcut. —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 00:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's with the notion that pages need shortcuts as a measure of worth? Shortcuts are jargon and barriers for newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. redundant to policy. no need for a redirect. Dloh cierekim  16:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is I think a major misconception in some of the discussion above--this has nothing to do with OUTING. Rather, it is a proposal that in discussion we try to avoid using the WP names of the people we are opposing.   It is not redundant to policy, or contradictory to policy. It's a proposed extension to  the policy of NPA. While I am not sure I would make it policy, I consider it excellent advice. I follow something very close to it myself, and I recommend it to those who need it. If it isn't wanted in mainspace, please userify it to me, for I would like to adapt it as a user essay & I want ot give proper attribution-- and to clarify its purpose. I urge those who think it has to do with outing to read it--not just guess at its meaning. To double check, I just re-read it again--and see the third sentence in the first paragraph, which should make it unmistakably clear.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't believe it has anything to do with outing. I think my nomination statement was pretty clear about my reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood. I agree, it is excellent advice. I have seen similar advice before, and often try to follow it. Word your opposition against a notion or argument, not against the other speaker. The essay could be clearer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , do you therefore intend to change your !vote ?  DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, for improvement. Possibly retitle, to "In debate, address the arguments, not the people".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2017 (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.