Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy in space

 __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, multiple comments below suggest ways to improve - which can be solved editorally. — xaosflux  Talk 16:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Randy in space


Not even trying to be an article Maproom (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as incomprehensible and hence of questionable utility. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Er...Maproom, it's an essay in Wikipedia-space, it's not supposed to be an article. That's not in itself a reason to delete it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, my mistake. It's a particularly uninstructive essay. I still favor deletion. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Of very poor quality as an essay. Not meant to be an article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment as author. At the time of writing, there was a controversy on Wikipedia about the modern geocentric view. The argument broadly goes that space must be anisotropic, as evidenced by the Axis of Evil - a pattern in the cosmic background radiation. Therefore not all points in the universe are equivalent. Therefore the Geocentric model is just as likely as any other model and should be given equal prominence with other theories. The result of that line of argument was a classic piece of civil POV-pushing. It occurred to me that it was quite analogous to the "Randy in Boise" essay, where the modern NPOV view of the universe is personified by Galileo and the geocentric POV view by Urban VIII, his antagonist. It's clear that if I have to go to such lengths to explain the background and meaning, then the essay does not serve its purpose. --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – incomprehensible and a pointless rehash of Randy in Boise.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Firstly, no valid grounds for deletion is included in this nomination, as the essay in WP space is not an article and so article criteria do not apply. Secondly, I do not see how any of the 14 deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy apply, and without such a policy-grounded argument, there is no basis for deletion.  Thirdly, speaking as a scientist, I find the argument both clear and relevant.  The problem of false equivalence, where accepted factual arguments are treated as equivalent to pseudoscience or other unsupported belief, is significant on Wikipedia.  There was recently a block and argument over where the age of the Earth should be presented as determined by science or presented as just a possibility with the religious view of 6000 years as an equally valid alternative.  This essay is drawing on a similar science v. religion argument over the model of the solar system.  That some editors don't follow the argument is understandable but also illustrative of the problem, because outsiders helping to resolve such debates have good intentions but insufficient knowledge to be aware what is and is not fact.  Scientists (in this case, but any experts in different circumstances) get annoyed having to discuss what they (we) know to be ridiculous and can get drawn into incivility and "lose" the game according to Wikipedia rules.  Many years ago, I remember a discussion of the use of a known carcinogen in homeopathy, a preparation that would be extremely dangerous were it not diluted so that a typical dose contained none of the carcinogen.  Including this "use" in the chemical's article went on for a while and wasted valuable editing time and frustrated a lot of knowledge editors fighting against advocates with an agenda, which has consequences for article quality and editor retention.  This essay may not be sufficiently clear to a non-expert, but that is an argument for editing not deletion.  I view the sword-wielding skeletons as a wonderfully clear illustration of the RANDY problem but sadly in the science areas the arguments may be just as obvious to experts but much less so to outsiders, and that is the important point that I see this essay making.  RexxS, thank you for writing it, I think it has a useful place.  EdChem (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your explanation very much: it truly does make it a lot clearer what the essay was trying to say. In fact, maybe it would be more comprehensible if examples like this were included. (If so, I'd definitely switch to keep.) Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I found the analogy easy to understand and rather appropriate. The essay should probably be tagged as humor due to its tongue-in-cheek presentation, but no policy-based reasons to delete have been provided.  Arguments that various people don't understand what it's getting at are (a) arguments for editing and clarifying the essay, not arguments for deletion, and (b) a classic example of I don't like it reasoning. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are no criteria for deleting essays, so how can we met them? The fact that editors don't like an essay is relevant. All the comments on the essay's talk page are negative. It's not providing anything useful to editors. Bizarrely enough, I was just going to propose deletion before Maproom did.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 1 July 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.