Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is more than just two apes




 * 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 both. Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than just two apes

 * Co-nom: Wikipedia is two monkeys

These indecipherable parables are only linked from each other and are the only contributions from the author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy at very least. Weak delete, due to being unrelated to wikipedia, the work of a non-wikipedian, and generally lacking of context.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems sort of wikipedia-related. Attempt to get some meaning behind behaviours.  Probably should userfy as the work and opinion of a single author of disputed relevance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep longer essay (it is not all that abstruse, and clearly does relate to WP). Userfy shorter one as draft of longer one. Near 100% likelihood that it is legal use of a sock and a regular editor at some point. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this having been posted in userspace rather than, say, blogspot, means that it counts as legimitate commentary which belongs on the project. A grand total of eleven users visited the page last month, so if it was put up by someone's sock to anonymously put the message out then I'd suggest that it didn't work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this relates to Wikipedia. If this is a sockpuppet of an established user, the user is violating policy. Sock puppetry says that undisclosed alternate accounts should not be editing project space. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of this policy is to forbid deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts and to explain where editors may legitimately use a second (alternate) account." The usage here is neither "deceptive" nor "misleading." It is not used to convey an appearance of support from any other user. It is not used for "disruptive edits".  The project space statement specifically does not include essays.  Thus, as far as I can tell, this would be an ideal space for permitted use of an alternative account, and a violation of no policy, Collect (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It violates the "Avoiding scrutiny" part because it "confuse[s] or deceive[s] editors (such as myself) who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing [ 's ] contributions". Cunard (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and then change This article does not need to be deleted, with some help it can be remade into a more appropriate WP essay. As for the "two monkeys", well that can be deleted, since I don't see how it could ever become a WP essay. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can revise this essay to relate directly to Wikipedia, I will support its retention. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, as completely hilarious expositions of elements of thought. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is this related to Wikipedia? Cunard (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Throw the shorter one in userspace, I guess.  I think that's often a good representation of Wikipedia.  It could be modified a bit to better meet good essay standards.  Incidentally, strictly speaking, the man in the ape suit is an ape.  Just sayin'. Buddy431 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is a good representation of Wikipedia. If it is a good representation, I ask you to make it even better by rewriting it to allow users such as myself, SmokeyJoe, and Chris Cunningham (not at work) to understand the meaning of this essay in relation to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both Both Wikipedia is more than just two apes and Wikipedia is two monkeys are written by a single-purpose account. Having read both pages twice, I fail to see how they are related to Wikipedia. As such, this story should be deleted for violating WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a repository for housing essays/stories that are unrelated to the encyclopedia. I am willing to support retaining these pages if those supporting retention can rewrite the essays to demonstrate how they are related to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a number of people do see the relevance to WP, and since it is related to WP as far as those people are concerned, would that not obviate your concern?  I would, moreover, state that metaphors which are explained as you suggest lose their effectiveness. Collect (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Plain speaking is far more effective for communication than clever metaphors.  If the clever metaphors are really clever, then keep them, but it doesn't hurt to explain more simply further on.  I have read it a few time and it is too clever for me.  I do not see any meaning it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK -- consider the apes as WP editors, the man in the ape suit as someone above mere plebian editors. Consider how WP defines "consensus" and so on.  Fill in further blanks on your own .  I suspect most readers could figure this one out .  Collect (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood that, but I completely missed any point it was actually trying to make (if indeed it is trying to make one). Is it saying that this is a good thing? a bad thing? if the latter, it doesn't give any indication about how we should avoid it. At the minute all I can see is it saying "this happens", which doesn't help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are essays required to recommend courses of action? I think the point it's making is that Wikipedians often seem like apes throwing feces at each other and arguing about trivial things.  I mean, what we call our Airplane  Aeroplane Fixed-wing aircraft article isn't exactly Serious Business, yet there was plenty of proverbial poop being thrown. Buddy432 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the question here is, are all essays with some link to Wikipedia welcome in projectspace? These two have received essentially no visitors, are linked from nowhere except each other, and would likely have remained that way indefinitely. Were they attatched to a user in some standing they'd probably get userfied. But put out anonymously? Is there a line there at all, and if so what would one have to write to get under it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one else will take them, and they aren't allowed to remain in wikipedia project space, I'll take the long one in my User Space. Maybe if I ever have time and the will, I'll work on it a bit to make it a bit clearer, etc. (user:buddy431) 130.126.222.146 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support userfying this to your userspace so that you can work on it. Delete the second "essay" as lacking substance. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both Utterly useless and unrelated to project; does not belong in that namespace. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both I'd normally push to userfy, but there's no evidence the user is around. I didn't miss the analogy, but it's not well-done enough to justify keeping for a user who has no other contributions. -- SPhilbrick  T  16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get the joke. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both Completely unhelpful and unfunny, and not in any way related to the Wikipedia namespace. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2010 (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.