Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 snowball keep. A content dispute is not grounds for deletion. Nobody WP:OWNs this essay; people are welcome to edit it, clarify it, make it more accurate, merge it with some other essay, or take it into their user space; none of that requires MFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is failing
I'm putting this up for MFD as it is divisive, not in particularly constructive, makes assumptions that are flawed and is being camped upon by editors who have an axe to grind. Please note that I've also placed Wikipedia is not failing on MFD. Why Wikipedia is not so great, why do we need this essay? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It is very constructive, not at all divisive except to ostriches. —Doug Bell talk 08:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, why wasn't I able to add some material to the article about the fact that FAs might be removed not because of changes to the articles, but due to higher standards? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an edit dispute, not a reason to delete. It is an essay, the point of which is to express a point of view.  Trying to accomodate every point of view is counter to making a clear point.  Adding every reason why an FA might be removed is not necessary for discussing the essay's core premise, but certainly this dispute is no reason to delete. —Doug Bell talk 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, what I just said above is besides the point. The reason is: we already have the other article that does the same thing. However, I should point out that one of the the articles core premises is that FAs are getting removed because they degrade over time. I don't see much evidence of that. Maybe there are other reasons? Anyway, like you say, that is for the article talk page. I still maintain that this article is better off deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that is the only reason for the articles I've seen demoted from FA status—a decline in the article quality. —Doug Bell talk 08:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How many have you demoted? Can you give evidence to back that up? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't demoted any. Java (programming language) is one example I'm familiar with. —Doug Bell talk 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, the essay discusses these two possibilities. Worldtraveller 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Honest discussions about Wikipedia's progress are healthy. Consensus may change over time, and if each iteration of a similar discussion takes place on a new page, there's no harm in it; "Wikipedia is not paper". – Outriggr § 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then again, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" either. That's what these articles are being used for. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are essays. Different standards. —Doug Bell talk 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll put up one called Doug Bell is an idiot. After all, different standards apply to essays. WP:NPA need not apply. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. —Doug Bell talk 08:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not fine by me. Violations of WP:NPA just aren't acceptable. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And that has what? to do with this MfD? —Doug Bell talk 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep good grief, couldn't we have taken the time spent hand-wringing over where this essay belongs and what exactly it should say, and used it for discussing ways of improving - or better yet, actually improving some articles? I suppose it was an informative exercise. I don't know where this idea comes from that an essay has an obligation to cover multiple points of view, contain counterpoints to its own thesis, or nitpick its own underlying data. That's what talk pages and counter-essays are for. Opabinia regalis 08:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I did try to put in material. Keeps getting removed. Funny that. It's basic intellectual dishonesty not to acknowledge that certain assumptions might have other reasons why they might not hold water. And I don't know: a. where the guidelines for essays are, and b. where people have gotten the idea that they can write an essay, own it, use it for their own agendas and never have it changed or modified in ways they don't necessarily like. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's my agenda? Worldtraveller 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's just criticism, and is very interesting (at least to me). It raises a number of valid points, and uses some rather compelling evidence and arguments to support them. And again, as Doug Bell (and Worldtraveller) said, it's just an essay. I don't think it's divisive at all, imo. Perhaps addressing the criticism instead of deleting this would be a better way to respond to it?- K @  ng  i  e meep! 08:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good Lord man! I did address the criticism! It keeps getting reverted! Doug Bell says that I can't add that material because I can't address all points of view! And he doesn't like rebuttals! Exactly how did you want anyone to address the criticism again? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try starting on the talk page rather than simply rewriting so it's a whitewash. Worldtraveller 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered that I'm not whitewashing it? Have you ever considered that your core assumptions are basically flawed? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (2x edit conflict) Instead of writing a rebuttal, pick a topic and write to that. I didn't say I had anything against a rebuttal, just that it didn't make for a very compelling essay. —Doug Bell talk 08:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the discussion this has generated has been extremely useful. Is 'divisive' an accurate way to characterise this, just because some people strongly disagree with what it says? Even if it was divisive, is that an accepted reason to delete something? Worldtraveller 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. You don't allow others to change it, and so therefore it is divisive. One of your core assumptions is that FAs degrade over time, to which I have tried to respond. You keep removing that material. Do you have an objection to that material? If so, then it's divisive. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try reading the essay carefully - you'll see that it discusses this. I'm amazed that you want to see it deleted just because you think it makes a wrong assumption. Your claim that I don't allow others to edit it is nonsense. Worldtraveller 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this sort of censorship should not be tolerated. (Caniago 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep. I don't understand why it was nominated. Don't we believe in free speech? YechielMan 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not on the Wikipedia space, evidently. Those who wanted to add some balance and their own POV to the article got reverted. This essay is divisive. It pitches those who think Wikipedia is failing against those who don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly can an essay called Wikipedia is failing be 'balanced' by the addition of biases against its central point? The opposite view has its own essay but you apparently weren't interested in promoting that view, just in suppressing this one.  Worldtraveller 09:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy back to Worldtraveller's userspace. He has preferred to have this essay reflect his opinions which is fine, but should then be in a different namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's really not true. I and others have simply objected to people who tried to rewrite the essay so it doesn't criticise anything.  Worldtraveller 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That type of objection to an edit would be valid on any essay. Edits to an essay should be to improve its support of its core premise, improve the writing, or correct factual errors.  I wouldn't support edits that try to change the point the essay is making...that's when it's time to create a different essay. —Doug Bell talk 10:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There comes a time when one must decide wherever or not they believe in their own principles. &mdash; Michael Linnear   09:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Wikipedia is not failing to create Is Wikipedia failing? where a neutral assement of performance could be carried out. If worldtravler want to keep a version in his user space then thats fine by me. --Salix alba (talk) 09:53, 19 February 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.