Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TNTTNT

 __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:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TNTTNT


This essay violates WP:AGF and misrepresents the actual purpose and use of WP:TNT. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Withdraw this proposal, the AGF problem has been removed annd other editors have come on board to moderate some of the extreme views initially expressed in the essay. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "TNT" is an essay which is often used in AFD discussions to call for deletion of articles. "TNTTNT" is an essay which points out downsides of that.  If there are imperfections in the argument, those could be discussed and addressed.  Accusations about AGF are dangerous;  the usage of "TNT" in calling for deletion of articles is often caught up in the opposite of assuming good faith about contributors. -- do  ncr  am  15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT doesn't mention or even hint at bad faith at all, unlike your original draft of WP:TNTTNT. If anything, WP:TNT assumes that the good-faith reader is the one who has made the mistake that needs to be TNT'ed.  Your essay accuses anyone who cites WP:TNT except in areas where you agree of deliberate disruptive editing, a pre-emptive personal attack.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * delete This "essay" is purely the opinion of one editor and does not even reflect the views of several editors. We don't create essays for one person opinions. That's what userspace is for. LibStar (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Libstar's claim is obviously false as I endorse Doncram's opinion on this matter. This is obviously an inclusionist/deletionist//immediatist/eventualist split and there are plenty of editors on both sides of such divides. Andrew D. (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy - Individual editors can, do and should be allowed to write personal essays to share their views on our various policies and guidelines. However,  the place to keep such personal essays is in userspace.  So move this to userspace, rather than deleting. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only place I see in WP:ESSAY indicating when an essay should be moved to userspace is when it violates WP policies (Essays). Contra Blueboar and Libstar there is no basis I can see for otherwise excluding essays from WP space even if it is just the view of one person; quite the contrary as WP:ESSAY and every essay template say it may contain "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" (emphasis added). So there is no requirement that it "reflect the views of several editors." The only possible basis instead that I see so far in this discussion for userfying it is the nom's claim that it violates AGF, if consensus here supports that conclusion. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking more closely Essays does propose that essays can be userfied if "problematic". But merely being the view of one editor shouldn't be enough to make it problematic. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The essay is more valid than WP:TNT which is contrary to explicit policy and so requires rebuttal and refutation. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy- This essay does violate WP:AGF, when it calls the deletion of an irredeemably bad article "deliberately provocative and insensitive". Furthermore, the rather silly point about deleting an article being a "violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract" is misleading. No such "fundamental contract" exists, and the whole concept is against policy, ie. WP:OWN. So this essay both misrepresents policy and the intentions of other editors, and should not be in the mainspace. Reyk  YO!  21:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I furthermore think that an essay written in response to another actually get the nature of the first one right. TNTTNT just attacks a strawman version of TNT. I think readers can expect better than that. Reyk  YO!  21:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If you don't like an essay, write a differing one and link to it, or put it in a counterproposal in the same essay itself. It's Wikipedia--that's how this works: We listen to all ideas, and then rebut them rather than suppress them. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So those who see flaws in doncram's TNTTNT should go and write yet another essay to point them out?... WP:TNTTNTTNT anyone? When does it stop? I have an alternative idea... since TNTTNT is now in publicly editable WP space, those who dislike what it says can freely edit it... and simply remove the misrepresentations and other bits you object to.  If Doncram dislikes those edits, too bad... he does not OWN the essay. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The essay attracted just one comment at its Talk page in January, which led to it being modified.  I am not against it being modified by a reasonable process of discussion.  So far here I see most objection to one of its 8 statements, namely that "It is deliberately provocative and insensitive to all of the contributors who added anything to the article."  Sure, that involves a bit of generalization for effect, which I happen to think is appropriate in essays.  It could be modified to something more obviously true, e.g. that "Sometimes, to some editors, a call for deletion on TNT grounds seems needlessly provocative and insensitive to the contributors of the article."  Certainly you would have to agree that is true, because sometimes I and other editors do think that.  I am not sure if it is an improvement to water down the assertion that far.  There is some balance to be had between avoiding undue offense vs. being sensibly provocative.  That's what the Talk page of the essay is for. -- do  ncr  am  00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is no policy basis for deletion here. I do not agree with all of this essay, but I agree with far more of it than I do of WP:TNT, so the argument that this is only the view of one editor falls to the ground. Not that that is a valid reason for deletion in any case. It is said that "problematic" essays might be userfied or even deleted. But problematic does not mean "some people disagree". Many of the problems with WP:TNT described here are real, and at least some uses of it are really no more than glorified IDONTLIKEIT. For the matter of thst, the call to delete this essay is no more than IDISAGREE. I could write a small essay myself on where i agree and where I disagree with TNTNTT, but this isn't the place. Keep this. DES (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment Oh, and, when the essay speaks of the "violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract" it means not the right to have one's text retained in an article (As per WP:OWN there is no such right) but the right to have ones contributions retained in the history and thus properly attributed. That is required by the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses we use. Strictly speaking, in the case of deletion those licenses are not violated, but when there is very little difference between a deletion followed by a recreation (which is what WP:TNT is supposedly all about) and a simple but total rewrite that retains history, the TNT version does at least violate the spirit of the licenses, or so it seem so me. DES (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very skeptical of GDFL-based wikilawyering. After seeing inclusionists perform spurious "merges" at the eleventh hour to confound AfDs heading for a clear delete consensus, I've lost all sympathy for that avenue of obstructionism. Sorry, but that argument holds absolutely no weight for me. Reyk  YO!  02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing a legalistic rule -- as I said above "Strictly speaking, in the case of deletion those licenses are not violated". But if you do not like the conditions that our licenses put on you, you shouldn't edit here. I am pointing out that you misinterpreted the essay under discussion here in your comment, or at least appeared to do so. WP:OWN is not relevant to the point the essay is making, and by saying: "No such 'fundamental contract' exists, and the whole concept is against policy, ie. WP:OWN." you make it clear that you are reading the essay to say something that it does not. It is still possible to disagree with what it does say, but your argument that it violates policy fails when examined. Pointing this out is essential to the overall discussion addressed to the community, whether it persuades you or not, although I would hope it makes you reconsider your comment above. DES (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's kind of the exact opposite of what I said. I am OK with not owning my edits. But the idea that deletion of an irreparably bad article should be hindered just so editors can own part of the credit for a completely rewritten one is completely backwards. As for your suggestion that I shouldn't edit here, you're welcome to go to ANI and ask for me to be blocked (not that you'd have any hope of success), but that kind of daft contemptible nonsense is unlikely to make me reconsider anything except whether or not to continue assuming good faith. Reyk  YO!  05:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firstly, it's an essay that clearly states it is the "opinion(s) of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the deletion policy." Secondly, I have seen similar opinion many times in AfD discussions when WP:TNT has been cited (including when I have suggested TNT), and it seems to have traction with numerous editors. It is worthwhile for editors to consider this line of reasoning. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I, too, see the application (and especially the calls for) WP:TNT as problematic for many of the reasons noted in this essay, so it makes a valid point. If a topic is notable, then replacing the whole (problematic) article with a short NPOV stub is almost always possible. As for this deletion discussion, essays exist in two categories: Personal opinions that belong in userspace and should not be edited by others and opinions held by multiple editors that belong in Wikipedia-space and can be edited by others. Per WP:ESSAYPAGES there is no requirement that a majority of users support an essay's viewpoint. As for those arguing deletion, pointing out flaws in a page's writing and calling for its deletion is basically what this essay strives to point out as the problem with WP:TNT. Regards  So Why  06:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Userify As I said at Village_pump_(policy), it reeks of the sort of extremism that it doesn't matter what the actual point is anymore. It is was in the original draft effectively a pre-emptive personal attack on anyone who ever cites WP:TNT for reasons besides BLP or COPYVIO and if fixed would be completely redundant with WP:BATHWATER (which addresses the issue without insulting anyone).  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC) 08:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Bathwater" link would be ineffectual. In the AFDs which prompted me to respond with some or all of the eight arguments, I saw rude rejection of all value, disregard for others' feelings and for the principles of Wikipedia, even delight in being mean and insulting.  Sorry, that's what I saw.  I was offended at what editors were saying, many times over.  Mild suggestion that oh something of value might be lost would be just laughable.  "Bathwater" does not make any of the same points. -- do  ncr  am  23:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep it is fair enough to have a differing opinion to what is expressed in another essay. I do not oppose userfication, but it is not needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think an essay criticizing use of TNT is reasonable, but there are some things here that do seem problematic. I've posted an alternative on the essay's talk page that I think should address people's main concerns while maintaining the spirit of the essay. (Wikipedia_talk:TNTTNT). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit: There is no problem with disagreeing with the TNT essay, or criticising it, or the way it has been used at AfD.  However, there is a problem with a WP space essay making generalised criticisms about all editors who mention the TNT essay.  I asked Doncram about his goals and note his reply: he wants the essay kept in WP space and accepts that means other editors are free to edit it.  Doncram has stated that "[s]ome degree of suggestion or accusation of bad faith is _needed_", a view that is potentially defensible (if worded carefully) in user space but which could only be acceptable in WP space with consensus.  I am !voting keep rather than userfy respecting Doncram's preference, but also in the belief that community editing can and should follow, which will likely remove or modify material that Doncram seeks to preserve.  If the TNT essay is misused, that is a reasonable point to make.  If the TNT essay is misunderstood / misinterpreted, that too is a fair basis for criticism and comment... and likely a reason for redrafting the WP:TNT essay itself.  However, assuming bad faith and assigning motives of deliberately or gleefully harming the editors who have written articles is not acceptable content in a WP space essay.  In WP space, the essay must be edited or it risks deletion for problems with AGF and personal attacks.  EdChem (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy - As I said above, an essay criticizing use of TNT is a reasonable essay to have. However, the responses by Doncram on the talk page convince me that there is no hope for this in projectspace (at least, not on its current trajectory). Doncram's motivation seems to be that there's a critical mass of people arguing to delete per TNT who exhibit glee about being mean to new contributors and emphasizing that their contributions are shitty and trash-worthy. He characterized the idea of toning it down as politically correct and said I don't feel sorry for them as a group and I am not sure how much kow-towing to the potentially hurt feelings of some possibly rare conscientious ones is needed, given how negative and bad faith is the TNT essay itself or its usage in practice. Absolutely none of this is indicative of the sort of thing that should be in projectspace. Doncram has said that other people can edit it, but if the driving force behind the page is disinclined to change it to be "politically correct" (i.e. in line with basic policy), it seems like the first step should be moving it back to userspace until which time as it can be reconstructed into something that doesn't run contrary to established principles. Again, I think there's a decent idea here, but it should be written from some perspective that does not have, at its root, that people who argue to TNT are monsters with nothing but hate in their hearts. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat surprised to see this "!Vote". Rhododendrites proposed alternative wording for the essay at its Talk page, and that is being discussed.  There has been no edit warring or anything like that.  For example, the alternative includes inserting three words "or indifferent to" at one point in the essay, and I explain why I think that is not necessary.  No one has directly responded whether they agree or disagree about including the three words.  Other changes implicit in the alternative haven't received comments yet from anyone.  Quotes from discussion there seem out of context here, to me; no one is arguing for language like that to be in the essay.  I appreciate that Rhododendrites agrees here that "there's a decent idea here" with the essay.  I am glad that they took the trouble to participate at the Talk page with a full alternative that they prefer, and I hope they will continue to discuss there and see through changes to the essay. -- do  ncr  am  17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the parallel comments seem to conflict with each other or mislead. My decision to !vote to userfy was based on your response to my proposed changes -- not the substantive comments on what I said, but that it seemed like all of your comments (and the essay), come from a place of anger and bad faith (place of anger is not to say your comments are angry or to imply any sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND, which clearly is not the case). I say userfy here because while these threads have attracted some attention, I don't know that if it's kept that other people will be diligent about editing it -- that it won't remain (or eventually return to) something problematic. This is the work of one person, and essays that are the work of one person tend to remain largely influenced by that person, if for no other reason than they're the only one interested to maintain it. I do appreciate that you want other people to edit it, but the page as it stands now is solely a reflection of your perspective, and despite all of the objections people have raised, you still haven't changed anything. If this were an article, you could say SOFIXIT, but it's not -- it's an essay, and it's not other people's responsibility to turn what you wrote into something that more closely reflects community norms because you want it to stay in projectspace rather than userspace. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or Userfy - A reasonable essay (i.e. " a [page], containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. "). If anyone has a problem with specific part(s) of the essay, that can be addressed on its talk page. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or TNT this Mfd (unbearable pun) But essays don't have to necessarily be 100% accurate, but instead serve to be a quick link that someone can link to that explains a concept, on why X or Y is a bad or a good thing to do on Wikipedia. A widely used one is WP:BRD (Or it was recently upgraded, but it started as an essay.) But nonetheless, this isn't an offensive essay, and isn't problematic, so it shouldn't be userfied. So keep. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and strongly agree with the point of the essay. Deleting things just to recreate them is not only extra work for no gain, it violates our license by failing to credit past contributors to an article. The bits which assume bad faith are already being edited out. This should probably also be moved somewhere that is not a shortcut, like Don't delete just to recreate or something, to which WP:TNTTNT could redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keep in ProjectSpace.  A fair opinion, related to Wikipedia.  I personally don't agree with it, but others do, and it is fair.  Ideally, the best written essays adhere to WP:NPOV, essays and counter-essays work, but are not ideal.  The nebulous WP:The Truth is hiding somewhere in between.  This does not mean clumsily merge the two together.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2017 (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.