Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Salami tactics

 __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 to User:James500/Salami tactics. I'm closing this early because the discussion is starting to generate more heat than light, and a complaint has come in on WP:AN. Essentially, as pointed out by Beeblebrox, there is consensus that the page complies with WP:USERESSAY and enough people on both the "keep" and "delete" side of the argument accept that userfication can be an appropriate second choice. I don't see a consensus for deleting the redirect WP:SALAMI as redirects to user essays are considered acceptable (eg: WP:HNST, WP:KUDPUNG, WP:HITANDRUN); if anyone would like to challenge this, I suggest opening a discussion at WP:RFD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Salami tactics


This essay appears to be an oblique attack on the concept that notability is not inherited and a direct attack on the integrity of AfD commentators. It hinges on a fundamental misinterpretation of the result of certain AfDs and also depends entirely on assuming bad faith of the AfD participants. This is definitely not suitable for the main Wikipedia essay space, and I wouldn't support userfication either because it is a WP:POLEMIC. Reyk YO! 13:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Userfy - Wild, cynical, deletionist bogeyman narrative that runs contrary to and/or misrepresents both policies and guidelines that have broad consensus -- thus it has no place in projectspace. Userfy should be the default here, but with the current language, talking about nominators that are "too stupid" and nominators who "falsely pretend" -- and since the author has recently retired and thus unlikely to edit it -- delete may be the best option. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, if userfied the projectspace redirect should also be deleted. I thought this was obvious but for the discussion below. I see there are some other projectspace shortcuts to userspace, and I'd support ditching the lot of them. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy given the strong assertions (e.g. "too stupid"). I would not oppose changing the language a bit but I do not support deletion just because the author did not frame their ideas in quite the way that is perceived to be correct. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, at worst userfy. Project related essay on an important and contentious project practice, by a respected and experienced Wikipedian who engages around that practice.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this term has been used a few times this year by the author, and at least once by another, and that it corresponds to a mainspace article salami tactics. The essay could use some work for comprehensibility, but it is a fine early version of something real. I think. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning “userfy”. The essay has strong single-author emotion and opinion, and the term has mostly been used by that author. This is not to say that the essay is invalid, but that it is primarily one person’s expression. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Salami tactics plainly do exist, they plainly have been used on this project, they plainly are likely to be used in the future, and they plainly are disruptive. This essay is not an 'attack' on 'not inherited'. It is about the exact opposite of 'not inherited'. There is no way that claiming a single topic is two topics is the same thing as claiming that two topics are a single topic (which is what 'not inherited' is essentially about). This essay complements 'not inherited' perfectly and in no way contradicts it. In any event, 'not inherited' is only an essay (part of WP:ATA), so that is hardly grounds to delete or userfy another essay. There is no failure to apply AGF either. The essay does not assert that erroneous assertion that one topic is two topics is necessarily the result of bad faith, but acknowledges that it might instead be the result of a mistake. In any event, AGF does not require us to assume that all AfD participants always act in good faith, see WP:NOTSUICIDE. It is common knowledge that some editors do sometimes tell lies. AGF does not require us to put on a pair of blinkers and assume that lies never happen, because there have been many proven instances of editors telling lies about all sorts of things. If the present wording is felt to be too ambiguous it can be modified. "Falsely pretend" could, for example, be replaced with "erroneously assert", since those words were never meant to automatically imply deliberate deception (although that does occasionally happen) on the part of any person who erroneously asserts that a single topic is two topics. I am not willing to accept userfication at this time. If the community feel it needs work, it would have to go into the draft space. I might not be able to carry out any improvements myself. Quite frankly, I want to do as little editing as possible at the moment. James500 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I must also protest at this nomination being made during the middle of a severe heatwave. Right now the temperature here is in excess of 29 degrees centigrade and will probably exceed 30 degrees soon. Asking people to edit an MfD under these conditions is beyond the pale. James500 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTINHERITED: notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either.
 * From WP:SALAMI: One particular form of salami tactics consists of attempting to bring about the deletion of a parent topic by falsely pretending that its sub-topics are separate topics that are not part of the parent topic. In fact, coverage of a sub-topic is always coverage of its parent topic...
 * Also, a trout to the nominator for (a) not asking where James lives before nominating, and (b) not even asking about the range of temperatures James feels is comfy enough to unretire from Wikipedia and participate at MfD. Perhaps a change to WP:BEFORE is on order. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) That passage of NOTINHERITED is a manifest violation of ATD-M, which is policy. It certainly has no basis in anything that GNG actually says. If we were to apply that idea, every article on the project would be deleted. You could claim, for example, that every single thing George Washington did in his life was a separate event, he can't inherit notability from any of those events, therefore you cannot have a biography of him or anyone else. That type of reasoning is manifestly wrong. (2) Even if I was wrong about that, the passage of SALAMI you refer to is only a small part of the essay, which could be excised without affecting the core argument. (3) A modification to BEFORE is in order. Processes should not be run at times that are seriously inconvenient (and that is putting it mildly) to editors in a particular country. James500 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC) On second thoughts the two essays are not talking about the same thing. NOTINHERITED is talking about a situation where only one sub-topic has coverage, and no other coverage exists. SALAMI is talking about WP:POKEMON, where there is coverage for each of more than one sub topic. James500 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I'll give some further examples to try to explain this. NOTINHERITED is talking about a BIO1E type situation, whereas SALAMI is talking about a BIO2E (or more than 2E) type situation. We have never accepted 2E as a valid argument against notability, but you find editors advancing that argument anyway at AfD, and that is salami tactics. Likewise WP:CREATIVE allows "multiple periodical reviews" of creative works to contribute to the notability of their creator. But the salami-ists will go around trying to delete the articles on the creative works without merging the reviews to the creators' article, thereby concealing the existence of the reviews and the fact the creator satisfies CREATIVE. And the creator gets wrongly nominated because his reviews have been removed. We have similar problems with people ignoring the h index criteria of PROF. And that's all salami. James500 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 *  Delete or userfy More contentious battleground/conspiriologic polemic from the editor behind this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FTR (since my elaboration got caught in a collapse template further down the page, I give delete as my first choice because I think this page (which is a clear attack on a certain gorup of editors that is apparently small enough that all the referents are no doubt easily identifiable) would still violate WP:POLEMIC even as a userspace essay. I say userfy only because recent experience has taught me that the community has a very high tolerance when it comes to paranoid conspiracies and personal attacks in this particular topic area, as long as they stay within their authors' userspaces. And FTR, I don't consider myself a "deletionist", since to the best of my knowledge true "deletionists" are the ones who do things like this and this and would likely do the same to virtually all of my recently created articles if they were still a thing; so I guess that makes me an "inclusionist" as one who creates, and argues for the inclusion of, articles on "obscure" topics that would be easy targets for "deletionists". As far as I am concerned, though, this is only about the content of the page in question, not any broader disputes to which it might be related. Hijiri 88 ( 聖

やや ) 08:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nice to read such thoughtful and nuanced comments. Not sure though about deletionists being a small, easily identifiable group. At least from some inclusionist perspectives, deletionist mentality has been so successfully forced on the rest, that it's now reflected in the thinking of almost all active editors. I mentioned to you a while back that I sometimes like to raise my wiki morale by reading the contribs of two mutual acquaintances. Even those two ARS members have began to sometimes vote delete when a topic lacks coverage in RS. If my heart wasn't already broken, it would have caused intense anguish to see that. PS, I recently had cause to search for Kensai, and found we don't have an article on that topic! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Your presence here is a violation of WP:HOUND: we all know that you are conducting a vendetta because I criticised the block User:Dream Focus received because of what you provoked him into saying by wikihounding him. I have not been unretired for more than a few hours and you are back again, at the first venue I edit, and yet another XfD that I edited first. There is no point in doing this. Now the closing admin has been informed what you are up to, he is duty bound to accord your vote zero weight. That is how this process works. James500 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC) And the substance of your vote is an ad hominem with zero merit. James500 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually my "vendetta" if I have one is against the clear battleground mentality you have demonstrated in multiple interactions with me going back months before the block to which you prefer, and including your most recent pretending to be retired. As for "hounding": you have been warned multiple times about what happens to editors who make repeated bad-faith hounding accusations: you really need to stop. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The allegations you make are, as ever, entirely false from start to finish and that editor was blocked for socking. I have gone out of my way to avoid you as far as possible. If you are not following me, kindly explain how you got here. I think the chances of you arriving here by random chance are so small that you would have to be the unluckiest person in the history of the world for that to have happened, having regard to all the facts including your previous edits towards myself and others. James500 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to get the diffs, but you told me last year that it wouldn't make a difference if JoshuSasori's user page said he was banned for socking or for harassing me. The above is the second time in one week that someone has denied that the user was banned for harassing me, and this time at least is specifically because of the inaccurate notice on his userpage. What can be done? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake about why that editor was blocked. James500 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The editor engaged in a month-long campaign of making my editing miserable by making bogus hounding accusations (in his case, insisting I was only feigning an interest in Japanese cinema and ignoring evidence to the contrary) and was ultimately blocked, with the immediate impetus for the blocking admin being that he threatened off-wiki harassment, but the constant on-wiki harassment, which mostly centered around calling me a hound and a troll, was the ultimate reason he wound up blocked. That was in January 2013. He then started socking, and his sock was blocked in February 2013 (CU was rejected because the sock confessed, but a few days later a CU happened to do a spontaneous check). After his sock was blocked, he carried out his off-wiki threat, for which he was sitebanned at the beginning of March 2013. He then continued both socking on-wiki and harassing me off-wiki, but the first time CU got involved was in August 2013, five months after his ban . I should not have to explain any of this, and the only reason I didn't argue further (in March 2017, I think) that the sock template on his page should be altered to be less misleading was that I was assured it wouldn't matter, but now I have you engaging in the same behaviour that led to his block, and you denying it because his user page includes a demonstrably false claim that he was blocked "for abusing multiple accounts". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not done anything of the sort, and I will not communicate with you again. James500 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the issue clearly does exist. Egaoblai (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Clearly"? That's a strange new meaning of the word I hadn't previously seen before. Care to provide some obvious examples? --Calton | Talk 02:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the delete rationals presented are superior to other arguments. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The deletion "rationales" are non existent and amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. James500 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * &;;;Jeeo;;;, Wgat ciyjkd oissuvky ve wribg wutg tgus cibtebt>  Essats if tgus sirt are pretty much guaranteed to be oikenuc ti sine extebt,  This is a valid opinion, regardless of who's written it, and what I'm seeing right now is thoroughly inoffensive.  It would indeed be absurd to say "This source covers George Washington's childhood, so it doesn't help with notability for George Washington", but it's not particularly implausible that soomeone would say taht in bad faith, and so an essay warning against that idea is helpful.  Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, now that I'm looking at my screen while typing, let me redo that. Keep.  What could possibly be wrong with this content?  Essays of this sort are pretty much guaranteed to be polemic to some extent...Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In its current form, userfy and delete the shortcut. Claims like "Salami tactics represent an extreme existential threat" are patently false and don't belong in Wikipedia space. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would oppose suppressing the resulting redirect or other shortcuts. Userspace essays commonly have redirects from projectspace regardless of their nature. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If consensus is to force this from ProjectSpace, the PrjectSpace title and any ProjectSpace redirects should be deleted. They mislead where used. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree; they do not mislead in this case more than any other. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an extreme precedent. If it is unacceptable as a project space essay, it is unacceptable to link it as if it is a project space essay, giving it hovertext as if it is a project space essay. It is normal practice here to delete the redirect when userfying disputed essays. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NODRAFT, WP:TENNISNAMES, WP:10CR, WP:STREET, and WP:ILIKEIT (just linking a selection, there are at least a few more; the vast majority that I looked at resulted in such redirects being kept) are all precedents that went the other way. Redirects for discussion would be the best venue for such a debate. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m surprised at your finds, though the arguments there are sometimes a bit funny. I was sure it was normal that a userfied disputed essay gets moved with the redirect suppressed, and I think that’s how it should be. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on that whole affair; obviously preserving a redirect from the article space into someone's user space would be inappropriate, but in this case both spaces are "behind the scenes" so there's no "harm", and redirect is linked to from this archived discussion so not preserving the redirect would unnecessarily conflict with preserving the archived discussion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I have to note the amusing coincidence that the "diacritics wars" were spontaneously referenced twice in this discussion that otherwise has nothing to do with them five-six years on. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply to Headbomb: Actually, the claim is patently true. Excessive erroneous deletion of articles on notable topics brought the project to its knees by causing the editor retention disaster. After a slight improvement, the article creation rate has started falling again, and editor numbers are worryingly low, and if that trend continues indefinitely the project will actually collapse for want of editors. Salami tactics are perfectly capable of delivering the fatal killer blow. James500 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Even if I was wrong about that, the particular claim could simply be removed or reduced in strength without affecting the core argument of the essay. James500 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Having given the matter consideration, I am prepared to convert this essay into a WP:PROPOSAL for a policy or guideline forbidding the use of salami tactics. This would be very easy to effect, as it would require only the addition of "salami tactics, as defined below, are forbidden" and possibly the removal of discussion that goes beyond definition of the forbidden conduct and some minor rewording. Since a proposal cannot be deleted while under discussion, and cannot be accused of violating any policy or guideline, that would terminate any objections that could possibly be raised at an MfD. I still take the view that this is a perfectly valid essay, therefore this step should not be necessary. James500 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you choose to do that, I would suggest keeping the proposal separate from the essay. That aside, I think the passage of such a proposal is highly unlikely. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 02:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that passage would be a virtual certainty. James500 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be widely rejected as both unnecessary and impossible to enforce. I've been on Wikipedia for over 10 years, and I've yet to see any successful application of salami tactics to deletion discussions. I can't even recall the last time I saw anyone use them to start with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this sort of thing happening frequently enough to be a problem, often in the form of violations of ATD-M that seek to avoid merger of relevant sources as well as the content. Enforcement is easy: just tell them to stop. James500 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC) In any event, this is all a bit academic at the moment, since this MfD is heading towards failure anyway because there is too much support for keeping this essay. James500 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It hardly seems to be heading towards failure: there are currently five editors saying it definitely can't stay in the Wikipedia space and three four saying "keep", of whom one (SmokeyJoe) is amenable to userfication (the same as apparently all most of the five), one the page's creator, and one a near-SPA with a weak argument that this phenomenon totally exists and is totally a problem, apparently based on his participation in 111 AFDs in which he overwhelmingly !voted "keep", over the past ten months, collectively accounting for an incredibly large portion of his edit history. Nyttend's argument, which centered on the idea that this might be an actual problem despite the fact that the only example the page could list is absurd and completely unlikely -- a fact he recognized -- was almost as weak an argument as Egaoblai's, IMO. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC) (edited 00:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC) then again 01:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Sorry, just noticed that User:Reyk specifically opposed userfication, but it's possible that at the time he wrote that he was partly motivated to do so by the fact that the page's creator was stated to be "retired", which would have made userfication a meaningless gesture. Pinging him to get his opinion on the matter now that that circumstance has changed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are four editors arguing to keep, not three (myself, SmokeyJoe, Eglobai and Nyttend). And of those arguing for deletion, one is the nominator (who cannot have found his way to this MfD by random chance because he created it) and another is a vendetta conducting wikihounding astro turfing WP:COI meatpuppet advancing a non argument that amounts to a personal attack on me who keeps telling lies (such as pretending he can't count) and who found his way here by watching my user talk page and my contributions. And none of the people arguing for deletion or userfication have advanced arguments that could be called convincing, their arguments chiefly consisting of trifling quibbles over precise wording here and there that can be changed anyway (think WP:SOFIXIT) and things like "per everyone else". I'd say this MfD is clearly heading towards no consensus. James500 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * drop the bad faith WP:NPAs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb: Are you accusing me of bad faith? I never say anything I don't truly believe. What about Hijiri's comments about Eglobai? James500 (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with "True Believers" is that they rarely let facts get in the way of their beliefs. Wikipedia is a collaborative space, and you are required to exhibit good faith. Absolutely zero person has ever agreed with you that Hijiri 88 is hounding/harassing you in any way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave clear evidence supporting everything I said about Egaoblai; your claim that I am a vendetta conducting wikihounding astro turfing WP:COI meatpuppet advancing a non argument that amounts to a personal attack on me who keeps telling lies (such as pretending he can't count) and who found his way here by watching my user talk page and my contributions is completely unsupported by any evidence. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The comments about Eglobai were strictly off topic regardless of any "evidence". I could only supply diffs here if Headbomb withdraws his objection, and I don't think he will. I think it would be better to drop the stick and walk away. So I am going to withdraw from this and shut up. James500 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not off-topic to point out that an editor may not be familiar with the relevant policies, appears to hold a relevant bias, and their argument didn't make sense (had already been discredited). You, on the other hand, made a string of gross personal attacks against me (having been told off for doing so multiple times), and deliberately ignored all nuance in the discussion in favour of a "delete/keep" dichotomy (at the time you wrote that SmokeyJoe was arguing to keep, SJ had already clarified that that was not his opinion).
 * Anyway, I've had enough of the abuse I've suffered here, and will now go back to building the encyclopedia. I'm confident that, lacking any more outside input or any more changing of !votes, the closer will come to the same conclusion regarding the consensus on this page that I have, and userfy.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy Essays that... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." would seem to apply. In particular the final paragraph represents an extreme minority viewpoint. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the final paragraph because you and Headbomb asked for it to be removed. If there are any other changes you would like, please let me know. I want to make this essay acceptable to the widest possible number of editors. James500 (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That was just the worst of it. The whole thing, frankly, reads like a paranoid screed against the deletionist boogeyman. Might play well witht he few diehards at WP:ARS who still think in these kind of terms, but the rest of the community has mostly moved on from the idea that there si some great battle over notability that will make or break Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I would normally say userfy for an essay that does not have any consensus, however people should really read WP:POLEMIC, particularly the first two points - "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." - I cant see how the rant-disguised-as-essay doesnt fit that criteria. Its clear the author has an axe to grind, I'm sure there is a blog-host somewhere that can cater to their needs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This essay is supposed to be about a form of invalid notability argument and possibly a form of disruptive behaviour, not particular editors. I can't understand who you think is being attacked. Please identify the wording you object to and I'll look at it and see if any improvements can be made. I have no axe to grind. James500 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The conspiratorial logic that says "the deletionists" are out to delete our George Washington article is an attack on other editors. It is the same type of attack you were accused of (and promised you would be more careful about making) here, and that allowed you to talk about "vandalism by way of [bad faith / malicious] AfD nomination" here. FTR, I agree with OID in theory, which is why deletion is still my first choice; the only reason userfication is acceptable to me is that I've become accustomed to content that violates WP:POLEMIC being accepted and even lauded in this particular topic area. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) The essay does not mention or refer to "deletionists" (whatever that really means). It does not suggest that "deletionists" are out to do anything. It says nothing about who engages in salami slicing. Nor does it say that anyone is out to delete George Washington. That example is hypothetical and it should be obvious that it is. If anyone particularly objects to the use of Washington's name, it could certainly be replaced with "a notable person" or something to that effect, as the name is not important. Likewise if you want to insert the words "this essay says nothing about deletionists" or something like that to state the obvious, I am not stopping you. Go for it. (2) I asked what OID thinks, and I would like to know what he thinks in his own words. (3) The diffs you cite do not disclose an "attack" on anyone, and I never promised to endorse salami slicing. Nor do they have any relevance to this MfD. James500 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete because it expressly assumes bad faith with things like the repeated use of "by falsely pretending [X]" and by claiming editors are using "a strategy that seeks to bring about the deletion of a topic by falsely pretending..." rather than expressing their genuine opinion on the topic and the proper application of Wikipedia's PaGs. Even citing this essay in a discussion would be, in my opinion, a personal attack against the integrity of the editors it is deployed against. I am expressly against userfication because of this. Jbh  Talk  19:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLEMIC; attributes bad faith to Wiki editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The author's pity-party claim for 29Cgoing to 30 is a conduct issue, probably to confuse Americans who call it 84F going to 86F. Not that hot.  Go to the library and edit.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A ludicrous assertion. While the temperatures may not be especially impressive to those acclimatised to them, or indeed to individuals with affinity with endurance cultures, the heatwave is impacting hundreds of millions of people, especially in the northern hemisphere. 33 people having died from it in Ontario alone. In parts of Norway, it's been over 30 °C even at night, at my firm we've given project workers there extra time to complete deadlines. Just two examples from the top of my head,I'd guess there would be hundreds if one were to Google. (To be clear, I'm not saying I find it a strong AfD argument either, or agree with even mild censure for those starting xfd discussions during the heatwave; just saying James' plea for consideration is by no means a conduct issue.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - The argument to keep in project space is weak, but the author's arguments have finalized the case to:
 * Delete this WP:POLEMIC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete incoherent and angry waffle. --Calton | Talk 02:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Beeblebrox. Very badly written, and very hard to understand the author's points because of it. Still, I see no reason to delete it instead of letting it sit in their userspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy or weak keep. I love the essay. I don't see how it in anyway consitutes a personal attack. The author is clearly a person with great originality of thought, and penetrating insight. If only they'd been more engaged in these matters back when the master strategist Ikip was still here, when we had legends like Benji & Anobody leading dozens of active inclusionists. Maybe the great Inc v Del conflict would have turned out differently, and we'd now enjoy a more tolerant, welcoming and inclusive Wikipeida. But that's in the past, IMO it's in no one's interests to risk re-igniting said long lost war. Also, Beeblebrox seems to have called this correctly on policy grounds. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:33, 9 July 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.