Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia


 * 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 move to userspace and delete the redirects (that includes the talk page). Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia
No content save for essay. Article creator states on talk page, "You are correct; the page is blank. That's the point. If you can find one virtue which has not been subordinated, corrupted, or debased, feel free to put it on. But if I can produce a counterexample, I'll remove the spurious claim." This page is not benefiting Wikipedia, and not worth redirecting to anything or even userfying. ~EdGl  &#9733;  17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy The author is clearly trying to make a point, and he is surely entitled to do so in userspace. Collect (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add a little explanatory comment. I can make this make sense. ViperSnake151 Talk  19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Collect, makes sense. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You can count this as a keep but considering the subject, I'm not going to dignify this by voting. I only say that if you think the correct response to criticism is to sweep it away, under the rug, out of sight, then you justify the most bitter essay I could possibly write. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind you criticizing Wikipedia, in fact I'd rather it be an essay that criticizes Wikipedia than not saying anything at all...
 * To those who say userfy, I was going to respond, how can you userfy nothing? But then you would probably say, how can you delete nothing? :P (Userfying would be fine with me if the redirect is deleted.) ~EdGl   &#9733;  23:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (and userfy it if desired). No content = no purpose. Prodego  talk  01:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth &mdash;harej 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? ~EdGl   &#9733;  01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * --Xavexgoem (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Delete
 * Delete per Prodego. One (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pie Xiong unless he can provide some content for the hypothetical page The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of humans. Nobody's perfect. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 02:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, but we can't do that, it would be a literal personal attack! ~EdGl   &#9733;  02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean it primarily in the sense of punishing hubris, and I'd be gentle with a nice soft and tasty cream pie. It's not really that bad considering the damage someone can do with a big fish. :) More seriously, I think we ought to tag the page with . { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Challenged essay of a single author.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple editors have contributed.  No reason to delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you not get the point? I challenged you all to provide some content. I continue the challenge. If you can show that there is any virtue or principle which is uniformly and invariably upheld by this project, do so. Otherwise, the lack of content is sufficient comment on a noble purpose gone astray. Shove the page out of sight and you simply admit failure and disgrace. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 18:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about points. If you have something to say, say it plainly.  You are making a statement, and you seem to have no collaborative support for making that statement, so that statement is not entitled to a project space title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've counterchallenged you to provide evidence of a "supreme, inviolate, pure virtue" in humans. We're all human (or at least I assume so) and humans are inconsistent, selfish, and untrustworthy little animals that haven't yet gone a hundred years without killing each other en masse. Your idea was amusing, but it's not really useful in the larger context. You're either saying "OK, we suck sometimes", which is useless, or "We suck most of the time", which begs the question. What would be useful would be things that address those weaknesses. If someone attacks an essay with a potentially useful idea, I might defend it, because it's at least trying to be useful. This is not useful, and I personally think it's a little arrogant as well. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I must have missed that counterchallenge. Where did you post it? (Later: Ah! I misread. Done.)


 * I shall be delighted in any case to answer. The single untarnished virtue of humanity as a whole is simple survival -- we exist. I do not dare claim that we have any higher purpose, as a species, than to perpetuate ourselves. However, we have done that very well. Genocide is no spot on this; rather, it is part of the process of refinement. (Some of us might prefer a kindler, gentler method but that's beside the point.) Despite all challenges, humanity lumbers forward. I confidently expect Us People to expand and fill our Galaxy and to whip all comers who dare stand in our way.


 * However, this is comparing the part to the whole. What's the point?


 * I wrote this essay to stimulate discussion on the question: Why is Wikipedia? Or, to put it another way, What does this project stand for above all things and in the face of all considerations? In front of what pillar do we make our stand? For what principle are we willing to suffer dissolution before we abandon it? Do we even have a purpose for which we will go to the wall?


 * I say, WP does not have any core principle -- nothing more focused or directed than humanity's general drive to survive. In this, WP is like a blob of cold cooked oatmeal, unlikely to be destroyed by fire, rain, neglect, or excessive interest -- but with little virture or practical use.


 * I'm not happy with this state of affairs; I believe that if WP were to establish one or more principles absolutely as a foundation, it could accomplish much. As it is, it simply attracts notoriety, as the World's Largest Ball of String.


 * I had hoped to engender some discussion of the issue and, I suppose, here it is. But if the sole discussion of what this project is to stand for takes place here, in the context of how to shove the issue right out of sight, then I think this community abandons all claim to serious merit.


 * There is a reason why so many scoff at WP, why some professors simply ban its use. This is it. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The links in the template Wikipedia principles are good enough for me... ~EdGl   &#9733;  04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Cage, contrary to the quaint modernist shortsightedness above.  Skomorokh   17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * see Keep Delete, but add a help link to the talk page for the laterally challenged, like me. Paradoctor (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not a good move. Literally. I might have supported you if had bothered to copy the content over there. Your own words: "if you think the correct response to criticism is to sweep it away, under the rug, out of sight". I'm disappointed. Paradoctor (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not good move? Paradoctor, I respect your opinions. Please tell me how I failed. (I'm sure you don't mean for me to "copy" the empty page; I did copy the recent edits, including yours.) Should I copy this MfD discussion over to the 5P talk page? I did link from there back to here. As I wrote yesterday, this discussion has swayed me in the direction of the redirect -- 5P talk appears to be a more correct place for the discussion and I agree that my "Cage-y" lack of context failed. So, I've spelled out my criticism and hope to see some discussion there. You especially are invited to make countercriticism (or copy up anything from this page that you feel belongs there. Xiong &#29066; talk * 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I do respect your opinion, otherwise we wouldn't be talking. First off, I owe you an apology. Between your move, the redlinks in your and Onmyounomichi's edit summaries, and my own incompetence, I managed to convince myself that you had beamed the page into limbo. Sorry about that. That you didn't copy the relevant talk page arguments I consider an oversight, I'll put them where they belong. Cage-y? Now that's a bad 'un. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest this MfD has become moot; I really don't care much whether the #rd stands or not. It might be better to leave it, to avoid confusion in the mind of anyone joining the discussion at Talk:5P. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: With an edit like this, the page will go nowhere, as I expected. The page would actually make a stronger "point" if it were deleted, when you think about it... ~EdGl   &#9733;  03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll endorse deletion of the essay page itself provided the associated talk page remains. I feel that this discussion is a long time overdue and I'd like to see those who comment here, comment there, and substantially. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 05:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. You want to incite debate, ok. The context-free form of your challenge has lead to this deletion debate. Provide some context for the readers, and your chances of reaching your goal increase dramatically. Have the page removed, and you're back to square one. Do you want to make an art statement, like Skomolokh seems to think, or do you want a discussion? Paradoctor (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * EdGl, you're complaining that the page is used as intended. Please see the talk page for more. Paradoctor (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted a discussion and up to this point, I felt my effort had failed. (I don't see art statement and discussion-provoker as a dichotomy, though.) Now, I've thought seriously about the issue and I feel that it is covered, as well as it ever will be, by Five pillars. I'm going to be bold and #rd this stillborn babe to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars, and see where this takes us. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-move discussion

 * Since this MfD started, User:Xiong moved the page to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars, so we now have to decide what to do with the redirect, if anything. We also have to determine the fate of the related The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of humans. (We can include that in this MfD, can't we? If so my "!vote" is delete.) Xiong added content to WP:5 pillars talk page, enough to warrant a page in userspace or even in Wikipedia space, as an essay. So my opinion has essentially reversed; since there is now actual content, I believe Xiong's writings should have a page of its own. This doesn't mean I'm withdrawing the nomination; discussion about the content's final resting place still needs to continue. ~EdGl   &#9733;  22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Adjourn/Delete User has abandoned virtue page, usefulness of redirect depends on fate of content at 5P talk / humans is obsolete now. Damn, even for a dyed-in-the-wool singularitarian like myself that sounds crass. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Truly, I suggest that the discussion itself has overtaken the metadiscussion of whether my blank-essay had or has any merit or reason to exist. Will someone kindly nail the lid onto this coffin? &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 21:48, 22 May 2009 (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.