Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poetry is always wrong

 __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. Without redirect. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Poetry is always wrong


Not serving any encyclopedic purpose. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 21:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can appreciate the humor, but question the essay's usefulness. — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Project related, single Wikipedian’s opinion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I also support userfication as an alternative to deletion. — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- I don't see much use in userfication since the author hasn't edited in four years and nobody else this is at all valuable. Reyk YO! 14:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * was a good editor. I don’t think it is good for the community to delete their essays just because they are inactive. It is unwelcoming to them when they return, an offence that may prompt them to silently leave again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - IMHO we shouldn't keep crap junk just because X was a good editor - IMHO as humourous as it is it serves no useful purpose and as such should be deleted. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to call it crap. There was an incident of conflict where a party attempted humorous diffusion (I guess) by responding to poetry.  Someone criticised the use of poetry, presumably they belief in strict direct communication.  They saw the poetry of intending insult.  I, like Delicious carbuncle, definitely do not subscribe to that.  Even if it were intended as insult, far better to lapse into poetry that revert to overt insults, surely.  Delicious carbuncle wrote the page as satirical criticism of the criticism of responding with poetry.  It is therefore intellectual commentary of Wikipedia culture, and I oppose its deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Carbuncle's opinion may be junk, but it is still a respectable Wikipedian's opinion on Wikipedian culture. The deciding line for userspace is "project-related", not "junk".  I agree it is not worthy of project space.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the page lacks such context, so how are people supposed to understand the criticism?&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair question. You suggest that the author should be required to explain the motivation and context?  Include diffs to the background?  He did, you can follow them from the history, by they were justifiably removed by someone who didn't want to be named.  Personally, I can't read the current version, either at face value, or having dug into the history, as an "attack", and it normal for poetry to not be expected to explain itself.  I think poetry adds to the live of Wikipedians and that there could be a lot more.  On this poem, I agree with its intent and tone.  Resorting to poetry in a moment of stress is an acceptable behavior.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SJ .... I'm entitled to my opinion and as such I believe it's crap .... you can nit pick over the wording till kingdom come however my opinion is my opinion, You're more than welcome to disagree however constantly nitpicking over the wording isn't the way to go. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, Davey. Do you take my conversation as offensive?  It is not meant that way.  You think this poetry is crap?  I think that is unfair.  Unfair from my perspective.  You are allowed to have opinions that I think are unfair.  I could expound on why "crap" is a tad hyperbolic, but it doesn't matter.  If you really think it is crap, and I really do not think it is crap, I'm sure we can get over it.  :>  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy, bordering on delete since if you look at the context, this is little more than an attack page (albeit one with humour behind it). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 01:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy per above. It makes the most sense to me. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  02:30, 6 January 2018 (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.