Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy's enablers

 __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:  merge to Randy in Boise. (non-admin closure) —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Randy's enablers


Attack page on editors who take time and effort to assist newbies to adjust to Wikipedia's policies and culture, assuming the worst about their motives. If in article space, "POV fork" would apply. No evidence this essay has widespread consensus, either. See also reader's comment on talk as to how this makes us look. Delete or usefy. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to WP:RANDY. This is not an attack on "editors who take time and effort to assist newbies", only those editors (a group that might overlap) who enable Randy, on the basis that AGF and welcoming new editors can trump basic accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In April 2011‎ and 27 January 2014‎ merged and unmerged these pages.  I can't see why.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and a minor rewrite. I've never encountered these enablers, usually staying away from controversies, but I don't see why this couple of paragraphs should have their own page. And I suggest a rewrite because it seems a tad whiny. CamelCase (Talk &#124; Contribs) 05:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep and unaltered at that, due to the dishonesty and misleading statements in the nomination. The editor proposing deletion misrepresents the essay to the point of essentially lying about what it says. Likewise, the "reader's comments" on the talk page are a single, arguably trolling, over-a-year-old post from an IP. As for Randy's Enablers, anyone with even a passing familiarity of ANI knows that this essay is so accurate it hurts. 184.13.13.56 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Nobody's saying there isn't some validity to the overall point the essay is trying to make, but (a) it's doing so in an attacking way rather than a neutral one, and (b) it would be far better addressed in the base RANDY page than as a separate standalone essay. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2016 (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.