Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a social networking site

 __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:  keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a social networking site

 * – (View MfD)

This page should be deleted, as it conflicts with WP:NOTSOCIAL. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It is permitted to have essays that disagree with each other, and this is not the first such case . An essay should not contradict a guideline or policy, but WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK is an essay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - See Wikipedia is not a social network, which is a section of What Wikipedia Is Not, which is designated as a policy. This essay can probably be reworked so as to provide an opinion that supports limited social network uses of Wikipedia for encyclopedic purposes, if that is what the author intends.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not an essay. The header says“This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.” E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(I maybe should have been excessively clear.) WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK is an essay. It is not a policy. WP:NOTSOCIAL is a section of WP:NOT, which is a policy. Your nomination cites an essay as what is contradicted, which is why I initially said Weak Keep. You may have meant to cite the section of the policy, and, on looking at the policy, you will notice that I changed my post. You have made a good-faith error in confusing two very similar shortcuts, and the similarity of the shortcuts is itself problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Userfy to User:Bluerasberry/Wikipedia is a social networking site or something. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't conflict with WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. That policy is about not posting self-promo and NOTWEBHOST stuff on Wikipedia. This essay is about community building on Wikipedia, and in fact it agrees with WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK when it says: Users are expected to contribute to the encyclopedia, and not treat it like a general purpose forum... Conversations which are not about building an encyclopedia should be moved to another website or platform.
 * The essay quite clearly emphasizes that social activity on Wikipedia should be directed towards improving the encyclopedia: Users of Wikipedia are encouraged to make personal connections with other users for the purpose of developing the encyclopedia... Wikipedia facilitates meeting and conversation only for people who want to develop educational content... Wikipedia is social networking site which unites people who have the goal of making the sum of all human knowledge available... All users of Wikipedia should feel that this is a safe and welcome place for anyone to come and join the project of making an encyclopedia. The title is just a rhetorical device. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is an essay that the nominated essay disagrees with. There also is a policy.  I am continuing to look for the essay.  However, the nominated essay does conflict with policy, and needs reworking.  The above discussion is a useful step in the reworking, but more reworking is needed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essays are for Wikipedian opinions on Wikipedia. This easily fits that. However, the title is over-provocative. Either (1) Userfy for the author, or (2) Rename to, for example, WP:UserSpace is good for Wikipedian networking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Weakly goes against current policy, yes, but how would policy ever change unless people are allowed to offer dissenting views?  Unless you think Wikipedia policies were perfect in 2003 and need never be modified ever.  As long as it's appropriately tagged as an essay, it's fine.  SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy; not fussed either way. It doesn't really contradict policy and even if it did it would stay but userfied. Happy Festivities! //  J 947  (c) 21:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essays are allowed to give unpopular opinions (to a point). — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 22:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeep (strong), per SpicyMilkBoy, this is about the social network within WP, not about WP being Facebook II; and per most other, because essays on opinions, even if minoritary, are generally acceptable and, I add, it is a *must* that opinions contrary to policy may be defended, namely in essays, otherwise we would make any change extremely hard or actually impossible - Nabla (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2019 (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.