Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion

 __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  Keep (non-admin closure). Anupmehra - Let's talk!  17:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion


I realize there is enormous irony in nominating a page for deletion that is about overzealous deletion. Nevertheless, I am stepping forward to nominate this one. Although it takes a stab at conveying some valid points about the deletion process and the sometimes-dubious motives behind those who nominate to delete, it also contains a number of unsupported and often misleading blanket statements and is a less-articulate version of the page on Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions. The tone of it seems sufficiently inconsistent with what I understand to be actual policy with regard to deletion that its presence, even as just an essay, is problematic. I have never nominated an essay for deletion before, and am not entirely certain of the criteria, but was sufficiently motivated after reading it to feel that the effort needed to be made. My primary concerns are the inaccuracy and redundancy of its content and the fundamental presumption of either bad faith or ignorance on the part of those who nominate to delete. KDS 4444 Talk  12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Because too many deletions I've seen have been on spurious grounds because the partisan nominator and compatriots friends like the topic or person and would vote together on a range of articles. So I was glad when I found this essay. Articles that really need deletion usually attract a variety of editors whose main bias may be for or against deletion. I do support my comments below, however, in that Does deletion help could be merged and Deletionist vs. inclusionist arguments might be a helpful essay. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions only mentions "philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism."  Does deletion help definitely should be considered for deletion. What's needed is a merge, perhaps into something like Deletionist vs. inclusionist arguments which would be based on the above meta discussions and include some relevant material from these other two essays. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Kudos to the nominator for being WP:BOLD but I disagree. This is an essay and therefore is likely to contain opinions of one or more editors.  If any part is incorrect due to undisputed factual information, then it should be edited to reflect the facts.  Otherwise, anyone is welcome to write a counter-essay taking an opposing viewpoint (I would support such a move as well as a link in the "see also" section at the bottom of this essay provided one was also on the new essay).  Additionally, we see that this essay is referenced over 500 times simply by a quick count in the "what links to here" utility.  One of the benefits of essays is for editors to express their opinions in a single place so that other editors can read them and come to their own conclusions--and clearly that is happening.  I see no violation of policy here, so I see no reason to delete and many reasons to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just from a personal perspective, I found it informative and well linked to relevant Wiki articles and policies. Regardless of what the author intended, I learned from it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. To delete an old, many authored project related essay, an extremely good reason is needed, and one has not been given. Find a less destructive way to tidy the large number of overlapping Projectspace pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - good advice, especially in an era of declining participation driven by (among other things) overzealous deletion. Wily D 10:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Could use some extensive editing, and I support the comments of SmokeyJoe -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:27, 27 March 2014 (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.