Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nobody cares

 __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The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn nomination. Neutralitytalk 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares


High potential for abuse, does not further the project in any way. Neutralitytalk 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. What apparent history of abuse?  Lots of links.  Does not have much depth, does not further the project much, does not hurt much.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essays are windows into the minds of Wikipedians and therefore beneficial to the project by providing insight into people's thought processes.  Additionally, I don't see how this non-policy essay has potential for abuse.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has potential for abuse for abuse in that editors could link to it in talk sections more or less purely to make personal comments about other users. Civility provides that editors all have an obligation to "help maintain a pleasant editing environment...behave politely." I can think of no case in which referring to this essay in a policy or Wikipedia namespace context does not conflict with policy. Neutralitytalk 19:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case we remind those people of the tag at the top of the page that says it's an essay, and that it is neither policy nor guideline. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Essays are still generally not permitted to directly undermine or countermand policy, and Civility and No personal attacks are policy. See Wikipedia essays: Essays which "overtly contradict policy or other pages with established consensus" are typically deleted, or at the very least transferred to userspace. Neutralitytalk 00:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Essays are still generally not permitted to directly undermine or countermand policy" And yet there is no policy that says everyone cares about an issue. The essay doesn't say "go be a dick to people" or "engage in personal attacks".  It just makes the point that an opinion on an issue isn't necessarily shared by the community and gives some hints as to when that might be the case. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This isn't "The Buddy Bears" with their "if you ever disagree, it means that you are wrong" mantra.  Not everyone is interested in the same things.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep—seems to be making a perfectly legitimate point. The "potential for abuse" seems to be identical to the potential for somebody to say, "Nobody cares," without a link. Strange nomination. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Counsellor of State  ─╢ 21:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a page in the Wikipedia namespace gives the appearance that those kinds of statements are acceptable within the community, even if there is a tag at the top. It lends encouragement to editors writing things to other users such as "Nobody cares!" which is detrimental to community here. Certainly editors can behave badly regardless of policy, but this does not mean the project must keep pages which undermine policy. See Wikipedia essays: Essays which "overtly contradict policy or other pages with established consensus" are typically deleted, or at the very least transferred to userspace. Neutralitytalk 00:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen Wikipedia essays before. I don't know which policy you are suggesting that this violates. Perhaps the same one as WP:DICK? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 08:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete. Undeveloped. Hardly useful in its present form, so it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia namespace. -- Klein zach  01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is an essay. It could be expanded, but it is not deletion-worthy. Racepacket (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy (if not delete) as obnoxious and trite. Its effect is somewhere on the range of unhelpful to trolling. Users are entitled to write about their beliefs on Wikipedia process but I believe that the user space is the place for personal rants. Even if dressed up and glossed over. jorgenev 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not substantially different the WP:DEADHORSE. -- ۩ M ask  08:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks to me like a reasonable essay. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's true and it's an essay. If you must, userfy it, but it seems fine to me. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable essay, also has a large number of links in from other places in the Wikipedia name space, so removing it would be disruptive. Monty  845  19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable essay, not terribly inflammatory. Claims about potential abuse seem to be completely unfounded. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - a useful and succinct statement along the lines of "There is a mark at every poker table. If you can't see him, it's you." → ROUX   ₪  20:42, 31 May 2011 (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.