Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV

 __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: delete. I don't see anyone making a strong push to keep, but I'm willing to restore if someone wants to transform this along SmokeyJoe's suggestions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV


Inappropriate project-endorsed accusations of biased editing. –dlthewave ☎ 06:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep . NPOV project space resources can be fixed, balanced.  Do that, don’t destroy resources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Systemic_bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Question - How do you fix or balance a polemic? Holding off !voting Delete until I get an answer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Easily, using the same principles of applying WP:NPOV and WP:V, and in short, but adding to it. I read this page as a an attempt to address a fundamental concept in the minds of what I would expect from members of a WikiProject named “Conservatism”. Attempting to document their perception of what is more currently labelled “left wing bias” is much better than leaving it nebulous. Contrary to Legacypac’s opinion below, the concept of left wing bias is necessarily and inherently part of this WikiProject. The nominator is plain wrong in the majority of his too-few words.  It is appropriate. It is not project-endorsed. It does not personally accuse any editor. All editing is biased, and things that address that should not be suppressed.  Add a “disputed” section if you have good reasons to label disputed.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete you can't fix that because the whole concept of LPOV should not be part of the project. Legacypac (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Provisional Delete unless a neutral editor such as User:SmokeyJoe can provide a neutrally rewritten version within the next six days. I am inclined to agree with User:Legacypac that it can't be fixed, because the viewpoint of an essay cannot be changed without making it a different essay.  If User:SmokeyJoe can prove that this can be done, more power to them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I went to do it. Maybe not so easy, especially for someone who doesn't identify with conservatism.  I can try.  First think I want to do is rename to page, from WikiProject Conservatism/LPOV to WikiProject Conservatism/Left-wing bias.  the page is unconnected to WP:LPOV.  From there, I think I can convert it to something meaningful.  A number of lines will probably need straight cutting, but some of the intent, to identify and respond to opponents who are not mindful of their personal biases, is OK.  I then note that no one edited the page for six years, and virtually no one viewed it in the last 90 days.  Maybe it should be archived with prejudice, but I am not supporting outright deletion.  I notified Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's rather polemic, but there's a strong recent precedent that politically polemic essays are not deleted: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics & Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources. --Pudeo (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. If one considers the concept of a much better project-space page about avoiding all political POV, whether from the left or right or any other direction, one can see the inherent problem of something that is designed to go in only one political direction. I would not have a problem with having this in user-space, like the two examples cited in the comment just above mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Having considered fixing the page, I am now leaning to "Redirect to Systemic bias". Discussing biases, left-wing included, is very important, undoubtedly a valid thing to do, but, it is probably unwise to do it from within an overtly POV WikiProject.  I don't think the content is so offensive as to warrant deletion,  so I am preferring "Redirect to" over "Delete in favour of" Systemic bias.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fine as a userspace essay, not as a Wikipedia essay. WikiProjects should not be used to push a POV or implicitly endorse doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Who cares? - How did anyone even find this essay?  G M G  talk  02:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I went digging. –dlthewave ☎ 02:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Go write an article instead of digging for orphaned trash that hasn't been edited in six years on a wikiproject you don't like, so we can waste the time of a dozen editors on a discussion about it. Problem solved.  G M G  talk  02:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, that was an unhelpful and incivil comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: not a usable essay. I don't see a point in redirecting as there's no such thing as "LPOV"; nobody is going to search for it. No need to preserve article history either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No need, but what harm? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there may be some value in preserving this essay due to its nature, which is both conspiratorial and unintentionally hilarious. As in: Reliance on left-wing sources. For example, a quick check of the Barack Obama article on June 3, 2012 showed 52 references to the New York Times, but only 2 cites to Fox News. The author seems to think that any source left of Fox News is a communist publication. But I don't think it would be appropriate; the author is long gone from the project, and there's no point in keeping the essay for ironic reasons. It's best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I suppose that’s right. I just enjoy attempts to explore issues using satire, but even ridicule and sarcasm. I don’t believe that the writer believed what he wrote, or intended it to be read at face value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * *cough* *cough*  w umbolo   ^^^  12:50, 10 November 2018 (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.