Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not NOT a BUREAUCRACY

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not NOT a BUREAUCRACY


Basically a bitter users dumping ground to complain. This might be acceptable in userspace but it is not at all useful here. Beerest 2 talk 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More of a disaffected user's genuinely good-faith attempt to explain what's gone wrong with our project. Treat as you would any other editoralized user essay. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is patently not a legitimate essay, but a single user complaining about the fact that some debate or vote somewhere didn't go his way. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Wikipedia, but no sane person would ever say "the rules are enforced too strictly" is one of them. The place for something like this is, at most, your own userpage. Mogism (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Personal opinions should not be expressed in the Wikipedia namespace. No system of governance anywhere at anytime has been problem free, so people should stop being surprised that there are difficulties here. However, complaints should not be dressed up as advice. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the "nutshell" template, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints".  Konveyor   Belt  01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than suggesting that I cannot read, please offer a substantive response—do you believe there is anything that would justify calling this a "minority viewpoint" apart from the irrelevancy that 1 is less than . Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing in the essay seems against policy. The author is belling the cat, good on him. --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see that: User:HectorMoffet/Wikipedia is NOT NOT a BUREAUCRACY? Armbrust The Homunculus 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hadn't. Delete as de facto userfied by the single author.  Delete the shortcuts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete it is simultaneously bitter and sarcastic, and as such it is confusing or misleading. Saying a procedural error is grounds for rejection or reversion is a joke (I hope!), but somehow I doubt the first two paragraphs was intended to be a joke.  So is its advice supposed to be taken seriously, or not?  It's not marked as "kept because it's considered humorous", I don't think it is humorous (maybe others disagree?), and so I think it should be deleted, not userfied.   AgnosticAphid  talk 07:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete the shortcuts. This is the legitimate opinion of one editor on a Wikipedia matter. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see that: User:HectorMoffet/Wikipedia is NOT NOT a BUREAUCRACY? Armbrust The Homunculus 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I had not. I suppose it was a copy and paste move, but there's no other significant edit history here. Yes, I think deletion is a safe choice now. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Read and learn from it! ...and only after that userfy. I don't oppose keeping it as it is now, even. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is insignificant if viewed in the shadow of WP:PPP. It's a valid expression of opinion by a wikipedian, but not worthy of project space.  Oppose deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Surturz. I was also wanting to link to it from my user page. The idea that following the letter of the law can at times interfere with the spirit of the law is a nuance few appreciate. It's hilarious that here we are engaging in bureaucracy about a *paragraph* (dun dun dun!) making fun of its overuse.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If a user space is needed to host this essay, mine is available.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The user, who create this essay, already copied it to their userspace (to User:HectorMoffet/Wikipedia is NOT NOT a BUREAUCRACY), and therefore keeping this in the Wikipedia namespace isn't needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Armbrust, now that there's a userspace copy. The shortcuts should still probably be deleted per precedent, but I can take that up at RfD later. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per AgnosticAphid and Mogism, among others. While essays needn't be as focused on actual practice as policy or guideline pages, this one is so innacurate that it introduces confusion, especially to new editors who might not grasp the nuance between essay and policy.  Do we really want a page that tells people "A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution [is] automatically grounds for reverting it"?  No.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - essay bloat. Essays that give bad advice and/or opine misleading opinions definitely do not belong in the Wikipedia space, where they are generally seen to carry a rough community stamp o' approval.  If someone wants it is their user space, that should be prohibited, although it should be done unless someone says they explicit want it, and waive off warnings that it's a bad idea. (In as much as I once had a moronic essay in my userspace, learn from my mistakes). Wily D  11:18, 28 February 2014 (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.