Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer truth

 __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: No consensus to delete, therefore userfy. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Prefer truth

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Non-neutral essay which is, at best, unhelpful and, at worst, an encouragement to edit in ways which conflict with our policies and core values. If a naive editor were to stumble over this it could misdirect them into getting themself into unnecessary trouble. The author is blocked and nobody else has made substantial edits. DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Userfy to User:Sennalen/Prefer truth. It’s a fair essay related to the project. Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Userfy per SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 14:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - tendentious essay by a blocked editor. Serves no constructive purpose for the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete with the user having the right, if unblocked, to request refund of this essay to project space. The author has been blocked by Arbitration Enforcement for tendentious editing, and this essay defends the right to edit in ways that some other editors would consider tendentious.  This essay illustrates the attitude that the user is blocked for.  The user is discussing an appeal of the block, and whether to keep or delete the essay should be consistent with whether the user is unblocked.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - this was part of a vanity project by a now-blocked user, attempting to reinterpret Wikipedia's core values in a manner that suited their preferred outcomes. It's not an essay reflecting how Wikipedia approaches WP:V, but just an attempt to convince others to follow their preferred style. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not a sanction for misconduct.—Alalch E. 20:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not applying it as a sanction, and resent the accusation. You've misconstrued my argument. If you have an opinion on the deletion, make your own points. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry. That's what it looked like to me, but I got the wrong impression. My points are the same as those of SmokeyJoe. The long form of the argument, how I see it, is that userfication of a projectspace essay is in the spirit of WP:ATD, that per WP:PRJDEL, Essays, information pages, and other informal pages that are only supported by a small minority of the community may be moved to the primary author's userspace over deletion. The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of Wikipedia related subjects and viewpoints on user pages., and that per WP:UPNOT, this is not one of the pages that editors may not have in their userspace. Nothing special to it. We don't need to know that the user is blocked. We shouldn't need to worry about minority viewpoints of blocked users just like we don't worry about minority viewpoints of non-blocked users. It's overexertion. Nothing is gained by deleting. The editor could have had these same views and not have been blocked. There's no harm in the viewpoints, the harm is in the actions. Unless expressing the viewpoints is a harm in itself, and this is not that. If you don't think this comment moves the discussion forward and prefer that my previous comment not be visible, you have my positive WP:MUTUAL statement to remove comments starting with my 20:35, 24 February 2024 comment and ending with this one. —Alalch E. 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless expressing the viewpoints is a harm in itself, and this is not that.
 * I disagree. The individual in question had a novel interpretation of WP:V, and this essay was part of her agenda to push that viewpoint. Rather than attempt to convince others to change WP:V through normal process, she wrote this essay so she could point to it in arguments and push her unique interpretation, leading to confusion. I don't see any value in retaining it, if the user is eventually unblocked she can request a copy be userfied. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Userfy per SmokeyJoe. - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although I suppose a refund to userspace per Robert McClenon is not out of the question if the user ever becomes unblocked. Wikipedia essay space is not for the musings of every blocked editor, and this is a rather uninspiring and not new complaint about VNT (which is still far closer to matching how Wikipedia actually works).  SnowFire (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Userfy per SmokeyJoe, don't see a "must be removed" content. Tehonk (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Essays do not have to be neutral. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTHERE policy. I agree with the OP that the essay is problematic, especially when you dig into the history of the indeffed author tied to "truth". If on the off chance the user is unblocked they can ask for a refund. Otherwise, userify/draftify would just result in a WP:STALEDRAFT, so userify just feels like a WP:NOTBURO issue at this point. KoA (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTHERE. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 15:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Userfy I don't see how the creator being blocked is relevant. If it is unsuitable for WP space, as it appears to be, then move it to user space. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Userfy. This essay is a work-in-progress, mostly by a single author who can no longer work on it. As such, the choice boils down to deletion or userfication. As someone who has witnessed and is not too pleased with the process that led to the author's ban, to me personally, it would feel like grave dancing to delete when there is a userfy option. XMcan (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak userfy. Calling for the essay to be deleted based on the user being indef-blocked as WP:NOTHERE is not a convincing argument. As an example, we allow plenty of latitudes to allow Wikipedians to go on angry rants in their userspace against the website, even if they have been blocked, so long as there is nothing patently inflammatory or nonsensical about the essay such that it would qualify for a speedy delete. Certainly this is a misleading and inaccurate essay, but that would be reason to remove it from Wiki-space and move it to userspace. I think userfication is the most appropriate here, though I also believe that and  have some sound arguments in favor of deleting. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads exactly like an essay one would expect from a now-blocked user. "I didn't get my way in an argument once so here is a rant presented in essay form." Vanity screed at odds with Wikipedia policy. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Userfy - essay is not suitable for WP space, but no evidence has been presented that this essay contains anything that users may WP:UPNOT have in their user pages.  Tewdar   11:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * moderate userfy/weak delete - Adding to the consensus that it's definitely inappropriate for mainspace, and I agree that it will likely wind up a stale draft and be deleted later, and they could just ask for a refund, but, I do also agree that it's an WIP essay, and there's nothing that screams 'remove this immediately', with the most convincing reason being WP:NOTBURO, however, on the off chance someone might adopt the essay, I'm split between both, but slightly more inclined towards userfy. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2024 (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.