Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The benefits of requiring account creation on Wikipedia and User:Urban Rose/Account creation required


 * 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 debate was keep, and by nominator consent on my talk page.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The benefits of requiring account creation on Wikipedia and User:Urban Rose/Account creation required
I created these pages, but I'd like them to go through a "slow" deletion process to get consensus on whether or not they have encyclopedic value (according to User:Rossami, I'm allowed to do this), so please do not to a G7 speedy delete, as it defeats the purpose. I created these pages before having read Foundation issues, which states essentially that requiring account creation to edit all pages is one of Wikipedia's core principles, and one essentially beyond debate. If this is the case than this essay, userbox, and category do not appear to me to hold an encyclopedic purpose. The userbox, for instance, is similar to one stating that a user disagrees with Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. It seems to be disruptive, a violation of WP:SOAP, and not conductive to building an encyclopedia. I also created an essay, userbox, and category reflecting the opposite view (that account creation should not be required to edit all pages), but you'll notice that I haven't nominated them for deletion, as they reflect a view that is in harmony with the project. For the above reasons, I suggest that they be deleted (see also my nom of the category). If I'm overreacting (as I tend to do lately) please let me know.-- Urban  Rose  15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomthor (or is that authinator?) Non controversial, author requested delete? Refreshing!  Keeping in mind that if sometime in the future you would like to see the contents again, (I'm assuming your not admin, forgive me if I'm mistaken), simply keep the titles handy and request undeletion at a later date.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that I don't want them to be deleted because I'm the author. I want this nomination to pan out the same as it would if I wasn't the author so that consensus can be reached on whether or not these pages are inappropriate. If I'm not allowed to do this then please just cancel the nom.-- Urban  Rose  15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you are doing is fine. I just happen to agree that they should be deleted, that's all, and left a note to tell you that if/when they do get deleted, by consensus, there is a way to see them again as a non admin.  Keep in mind though, it's harder to recreate something deleted by consensus (not impossible, just harder).  If you G7 them instead, a simple request would get them back.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I really don't see what purpose deletion will solve here. This isn't an authoritarian state where we suppress anything that isn't perfectly in line with official policy. As long as it isn't trying to misrepresent policy and doesn't encourage people to violate policy, I don't see what the problem is. Also, only mainspace pages need to have actual encyclopedic value. I see no disruption or WP:SOAP violation either. Mr.  Z- man  19:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it and I've decided that you're right. Speedy close . If someone else wants to nom them for deletion, that's their choice (except for the category, as a user has commented that concensus is that categories like it are discouraged).-- Urban  Rose  20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close isn't valid here as the nomination was in good faith and there are others that support the deletion, so we're going to have to wait it out. The DominatorTalkEdits 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think we are entitled to hold this debate. Even fundamental principles are not written in stone. --Zvika (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say keep, but if the author wants to delete them, so be it. -- Phoenix -  wiki  11:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC) In that case, strong keep. IMO all well reasoned essays should be kept. They give loads of info and advice, and these definitly aren't unacceptable, they're great pieces of writing, so I don't really see the point of this MFD.-- Phoenix  -  wiki  19:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I only want them deleted if the community thinks they're unacceptable. If you're only voting delete because I'm the one who nominated them, then please change your vote to keep.-- Urban  Rose  14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment All you've done is write an essay; even though it runs somewhat contrary to a idea held by a number of Wikipedians and endorsed by the Wikimedia leadership, there is no need for you to remove it. An even more fundamental principle of Wikipedia's philosophy is the welcoming of open, honest debate on anything—even something which might be considered a core principle of Wikipedia. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with official policy, and just as entitled to express your opinion in an essay. That's what essays are for. All the foundation issues page is saying that you probably won't be supported and that the policy you are talking about probably will never change; what the page means, I think, by saying "People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project" is that if you can't reconcile yourself to working on a project where this is a central issue, then you probably won't be able to reconcile yourself to staying here. It doesn't mean that you can't consider different ideas. If you really want to delete your essay, then so be it. Just know that you are by no means required to agree and that there isn't, or at least shouldn't be, any stigma attached with honest, constructive disagreement. Hilosoph  ( Talk ) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Legitimate point of view. Disagreement with official policy, even fundamental official policy, should be encouraged IMO; discussion and criticism are healthy in a community of this size. WaltonOne 16:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wouldn't really want the page to be deleted if I had to chose, so my vote is keep.-- Urban  Rose  16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've crossed out your "speedy close" if you don't mind. The DominatorTalkEdits 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - entirely acceptable essay, puts forward a fairly widely-held point of view on a long-running Wikipedia debate. As Walton says above, just because that POV is in opposition to foundation policy, doesn't mean the essay should be deleted. We should be free to criticise Wikipedia however we feel, including its foundation policies; even if they are never going to change (which is not beyond doubt), pages like this are useful as a way of demonstrating that not all editors actually agree with them. Terraxos (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. LukeTheSpook (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's time to start the War on Vandalism. Anthony Gao (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not a lot of point to this, because of the foundation issues. I don't believe it would be reasonable to force such a page to be deleted, per the others, because even though this is a foundation issue it doesn't mean that speaking against that is bad.  So I'd say, Urban Rose, you should keep the page if you still want to express yourself in this way, but if you do I recommend you link to meta:Foundation issues just so that others reading it can also learn about that.  And if you feel there's no point any more, request G7 deletion.  Ultimately, this is your own decision, regardless of the result of this debate.  Mango juice talk 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While I couldn't disagree more strongly with the material on this page, nominator has every right to have this in his userspace, however misguided it may be.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:31, 14 April 2008 (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.