Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Take responsibility


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep and close the discussion early. Basically, there is no reason to delete this page. Two reasons were given: (1) Problem: The title was offensive. Response: change the name. That's resolved. (2) Problem: The essay is redundant to WP:BOLD. Response: Maybe it is, maybe it's not, and it doesn't really matter. There is no consensus to redirect and merge. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * endorsed as page has been updated since discussion began. — xaosflux  Talk  04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Take responsibility

 * Note: the original title of this essay was Don't be a chickenshit; the author has since moved the essay.  Melsaran  (talk)
 * See log:

All it says is "when something needs doing, do it. See WP:BOLD." So why do we need this? Redirect to WP:BOLD. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, harmless essay. MfD is not a substitute for talk page discussion, nor an excuse to be a time-waster.  Milto LOL pia 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:BOLD refers to editing article space, not dealing with emergent situations for which one might take responsibility, as this does. Fred Bauder 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is harmless. Fred, I'm curious, do you plan on fleshing it out more, or leaving it like it is?  I think I grasp your meaning (but not by reading the essay, by reading here), but it does seem rather synonymous with the bold essay.   Into The Fray   T / C  02:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Be bold in updating pages because this is essentially a duplicate of that. MessedRocker (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although probably need a rename. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a Wikipedian in good standing wants to create an essay, let him.  I question whether an essay  of this title is wise though-- seems like a recipe for having editors attack each other with accusations of being chickenshits. --Alecmconroy 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A rousing and simple rebuttal to WP:DGAF .--WaltCip 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That being said, there could be some troll-feeding going on with essays having abbreviations of WP:FUCK, WP:SHIT, WP:DICK, WP:WTF and WP:HELL.--WaltCip 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article seems wimpy without the old title.--WaltCip 10:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or (second choice) redirect to WP:BOLD - this page serves no purpose other than to be annoying. Optionally, we could redirect to clown per another of the page creator's suggestions. -- B  03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot seriously think that Fred Bauder created this page with "no purpose other than to be annoying". What reason is there to believe that?  Milto LOL pia 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, a recent action lead him to that conclusion? Not that I believe he created this to annoy, mind you, just that I see how that conclusion could be drawn.   daveh4h 05:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No objection to the new title. -- B 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary and inappropriate. Everyking 06:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Everyking. *  Ail lema  13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Change title Merge or Userfy, I always respect Wikipedians in good standing who want to create an essay, however, that in and of itself is not a reason to keep the essay, it must be evaluated by the community. The essay is good, it provides short and direct insight on making Wikipedia better. Note: The following comments were based on the page's former name: Don't be a chickenshit: My main concern is that the title is simply uncivil. If an editor nags about a certain issue in an article, the civil thing to do is encourage them to be bold, or tell them so fix it. But calling them a chickenshit? No, definitely not appropriate. Particularly, new users might find this offensive, due to their lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's spirit in creating and editing pages. If the title of this essay is used by others to inform users (especially new ones) on updating pages during normal discussions, the least thing you're bound to receive is a constructive reply. I also fear that it may be abused. That said, I also respect a user's right to opine and provide useful commentary, so change the title. If for some reason it's considered redundant to WP:BB, then userfy to the creator's userspace. - Mtmelendez (Talk 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Take responsibility? Fred Bauder 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent alternative. - Mtmelendez (Talk 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? Keep.  --Iamunknown 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why?  Melsaran  (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. I didn't realise the title was originally "Don't be a chickenshit".  Kind of disappointing, coming from an arbitrator.  As to why: Why not?  I'm fine with a proliferation of essays.  This is just another essay.  --Iamunknown 16:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WP:BOLD, just the same page with a slightly different (more firm) wording.  Melsaran  (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - deletionism in project space is like wearing a bullet proof vest to an orgy. You're worrying about the wrong thing. &larr;Ben B4 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it's been renamed and refined -- the original title and wording was quite provocative, but it seems pretty reasonable in its current state. -- krimpet ⟲  02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the previous title cracked me up (almost) to the point of requesting a revert back to it... Dihydrogen Monoxide' (H2O) 07:53, 25 September 2007 (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.