Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not 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 not failing
One of the only reasons we have this article is to try to address and respond to Wikipedia is failing. My question is: why do we need either of these articles? Surely this is navel gazing of the most extraordinary order. Both of these articles, to my mind, are divisive and not particularly constructive. We already have: Why Wikipedia is so great, why do we need this essay? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 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)
 * Comment. (edit conflict) While I don't have much of an opinion on whether this should be deleted, I will say that writing an essay for the sole purpose of rebutting another essay does not make for a well-written essay.  This one does not read as well or make its points with the same clarity as the essay it is rebutting. —Doug Bell talk 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? Both essays are divisive and serve no real purpose. They've been written elsewhere. And I'm afraid that as NPOV does not apply on the essay space, the only way to answer essays is to write a rebuttal. Sound good to you? It doesn't to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I'm not kidding. It's not as well-written.  Not offering an opinion on its point of view, simply on its quality. —Doug Bell talk 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was responding to: "I will say that writing an essay for the sole purpose of rebutting another essay does not make for a well-written essay". Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be saying that rebutting an essay isn't a smart way of going about things. Maybe I misunderstood you there. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep same reasons as WP:FAIL. This one isn't especially good, but some of its functions are being served by the better WP:EVAL. Opabinia regalis 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Jeff Carr's userspace, as I will be consistent with my opinion of userfying the counterpart. At present, the essay is the opinion of one user which is cool, but should be outside the Wikipedia namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Wikipedia is failing to create Is Wikipedia failing? where a neutral assement of performance could be carried out. --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.