Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why do you care?


 * 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 continue to have tagged as. — xaosflux  Talk  01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you care?
Same message as Editors matter, only not worded as well. Don't see how this adds anything. Seems to just be someone's way of agreeing with the aforementioned essay.  Equazcion •✗/C • 07:07, 12/25/2007
 * Userfy - It isn't totally out of line with policy, no reason to completely get rid of it. Mr.  Z- man  07:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can agree with that.  Equazcion •✗/C • 07:13, 12/25/2007
 * Keep Why do you care? :P GlassCobra 08:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for that. I care because when I click a link I assume, to an extent, that what I'll be seeing has some degree of usefulness and professionalism. Many would say that Wikipedia already lacks these things, particularly the latter. Amateurish pages in the Wikipedia name space don't help matters, and it's our responsibility to curb them when we come across them. Also when I see a link that seems intriguing and I click it, it's very irritating when I'm taken to something like this. I say to the screen, "Why the hell did I bother, and why the hell is this person bothering me with this?" Even though I made the choice to click, the existence of these pages makes that choice possible. If we do what we can to eliminate the bad then a higher percentage of links point to the good, and that lowers everyones' chances of being irritated while using Wikipedia. Nevertheless -- userspace pages don't carry with them the same expectation of quality, so I would not be opposed to userfying this page. Generally anyone who finds a userspace page was looking for a userpsace page and should know to not necessarily expect much.  Equazcion •✗/C • 10:06, 12/25/2007
 * Keep If you userfy, that puts it in a domain where edits by the public are discouraged, actually harming its prospects for improvement. Also, the link is a userful rejoinder in deletion debates. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want others to edit it, just put a message at the top inviting it. If you want to link as a rejoinder, you can still link to it as a user page without giving the impression this is something in-line with policy.  &mdash;dgies tc 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have a long tradition of hosting essays in Wikipedia-space. This is clearly an essay.  --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one disputes it being an essay. It's just not a good essay. A better version expressing the same ideals already exists. Merely being an essay isn't an indisputable reason to keep a page in Wikipedia namespace.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:30, 12/25/2007
 * Whether it's "good" or not matters less that it's an essay directly contradicting policy currently located in project space Project pages should not be contradicting the project.  If you want to dissent, do it in your user space.  &mdash;dgies tc 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a good essay, and makes a good, single point.  WP:EM includes this point, but makes several other good points as well.  The continued existence of both these good essays is good for the project.  David in DC (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Equazcion, you seem to be one of those that needs to take heed to this essay :-P. But in all seriousness, there is obviously a few of us that agree with some of the points raised. Having a sub-par essay on a useful, often pondered topic is better than having an excellent, detailed essay on a stupid or remote topic - you can pick which one this is. In my personal experience I've had a multitude of *ahem* editors ask me "why I care".  Pump me  up  02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as heeding the essay, read my response above. As far as the rest: This is a sub-par essay on a useful, often-pondered topic that's already covered in another excellent, detailed essay. You let me know how your reasoning applies here.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:22, 12/26/2007
 * Keep as per above. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per David in DC. --Bduke (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Keep (maybe Userfy) - Article makes a good standard. It helps in what wikipedia is to a commoner. I would userfy it, its awfully short to be policy.Mitch32contribs 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Directly contradicts What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. An essay contradicting policy should not necessarily be deleted, as it can serve as constructive criticism of that policy, but it should exist in userspace or else it gives the impression that this is a generally-accepted viewpoint.  Project-space pages should not be used for things contradicting project policy.  Do it in your user space.   &mdash;dgies tc 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment belies a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of "policy" as it is used on Wikipedia. Policy is not prescriptive.  Policy is not proscriptive.  Policy is not imperative at all.  Policy only describes what has generally happened in the past, and has no "official weight" whatsoever.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been so many times when I've tried to push that point in the past year or so. Here's reality: There's the here and now, which in practice and according to Jimbo means that policy does have lots and lots of weight, and there's the original ideal by which Wikipedia was created, which is pretty much your interpretation. As for the here and now: I don't really agree with this but it is the present way things work, because Jimbo is sick of Wikipedia being a running joke and wants to enforce its quality and reliability more than the freedom/creative aspects. How much control Jimbo has directly is a gray area but people here listen to him regardless. If policy is not followed here for this AfD due to the interpretation you've just given, and results in a Keep, I'm going to be referring to this as precedent so much in the future it's gonna sicken everyone. That's not a threat. I almost hope it does happen. In my opinion we could all use something of a return to the original motivations for this project.  Equazcion •✗/C • 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Um, WP:IAR David in DC (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with what Kurt said above, barring a flood of people supporting deletion after this comment, why would this not result in a keep? Are you suggesting that your opinion is the only one here that is valid? Since when is closing a MFD as something other than "delete" where only the nominator supports deletion against policy? Mr.  Z- man  00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)I meant if it gets kept in the Wikipedia namespace, sorry if I was unclear about that. Let me try and explain again: I'm not suggesting that my opinion is the only valid one. I am suggesting that there are a lot of Keep votes here whose reasoning seems to depend largely on the premise that Wikipedia policies are not quite "policies" in the usual definition of the word, that we can IAR with no additional reasoning necessary, and that policies are the result of practice and not the other way around. As for where I stand, I definitely don't agree with simply saying IAR as a an argument in itself. As for the rest, I don't know where I stand. I used to be one of the only ones arguing against policy being steadfast, but lately (the past month if that) I've been trying to accept the opposite. Now everyone (in this AfD at least) seems to be taking the stance I would've taken a long time ago. I can't keep up. I stopped trying to make Wikipedia work the way I wanted to and now I can't figure out how it worked without me, or if there was any consistency in its workings at all. So. Back to the point. The winning side here seems to be against steadfast rules and for the whole "why do you care" philosophy. If this stance results in a Keep, in Wikipedia namespace, then I will, to some extent, understand how things work here, and can begin to uphold it. In short I have no more opinion until the rules have been more clearly explained to me. This will be my explanation.  Equazcion •✗/C • 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, if you have to invoke IAR by name, and write out your reason for doing it, you're doing it all wrong. Mr.  Z- man  04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally yes, and we agree there somewhat, but in reality there are times when no matter how good your argument is regarding what's best in a particular situation, the people you're talking to just keep throwing across-the-board policies back in your face. So it helps to have IAR as nameable policy too, so that you can force those kinds of people to come up with an actual argument, apart from policy, for the case at hand.  Equazcion •✗/C • 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Perhaps it isn't well-written, but if that's the only complaint? The What Wikipedia is Not is designed to guide articles. This essay refers mostly to userspace and non-article pages. The point, as I understand it, is "if a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userpage looks", basically. Well, I tend to agree. Are userboxes constructive to building an encyclopedia? Some will say yes, absolutely, pointing to userboxes such as "this user is a methematician" and "this user is a native speaker of English". That's all well and good, but what's the encyclopedia-building value of "this user pities the fool!", "this user has way too many userboxes" and "this user is a kid at heart"? This essay is in the same vein. Does it direcly build the encyclopedia? Maybe not. Does it bring the 'pedia down? Absolutely not. No reason to delete, and the potential for this article is more than enough to keep. (Even without major improvement, the presumption is to keep, and thus this is keepable as-is.) VigilancePrime (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to correct something there, What Wikipedia is Not certainly doesn't just cover articles. The parts that talk about soapbox, links, images, and especially blog, webspace, social networking, etc etc, all cover user and Wikipedia namespace -- and sometimes are especially meant to "guard" those areas from "misuse".  Equazcion •✗/C • 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - So much trouble on wikipedia could be reduced if overly "hyper" editors asked themselves, "Why do I care?" more often. Introspection is a good thing! (Minor suggestion - not as part of this deletion discussion - consider moving this to, Why do I care?.) (sdsds - talk) 01:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep First it state on the page "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it".-- Second opinions are NOT "fact", and say them(or typing them) do not make them so. IF I said in my opinions "the world is going to end today"...will it end ...NO!....I do not have that Power....That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The essay template at the top of the article sums it all up; if people want to follow this, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. No reason for the essay itself to be deleted. Master of Puppets Care to share?  23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per others.  Yamakiri  →ГC←  12-28-2007 • 03:28:39
 * Keep per above.-- Kerotan Leave Me a Message  Have  a nice day :) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have been longing for an opportunity to agree with Tony Sidaway, and have finally found one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hmmmmm..... seems too close to call at this point.  Equazcion •✗/C • 08:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Does no harm and might be useful.--Habashia (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A merge of essays might be possible, but right now I rather like the focus. Although I think one should have more than "why do you care" as a response to many concerns, I see where the author is going, and the point they are trying to make. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominating admin says that the essay is badly worded and doesn't add anything.  But this is an editorial judgement.  Administrators are not permitted to make editorial deletion decisions.  Adminship is a janitorial position. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not an admin. Second of all, I didn't make a deletion decision, I made a nomination. Finally: Anyone can nominate a page for deletion for any reason -- it doesn't matter whether or not you're an admin.  Equazcion •✗/C • 14:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops -- sorry about that. Still, these kinds of essay pages are fairly common, and I don't see any reason this one should be deleted if it says something useful.  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Why do you care?. :P Wily D 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy per all of the above. Dreamafter  ⇔ 19:23, 29 December 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.