Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, per unanimity below and request of original author. No need to encourage viewing Wikipedia as a battle, at the end of the day its just an encyclopedia. Prodego talk  03:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're either with us or against us
This seems to encourage a battleground perspective of Wikipedia. On the talk page, an editor claims to have modified it with that in mind, to turn the essay humorous. I continue to fail to see any humor in this though. If others do, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem keeping it, so long as the humor tag is posted. However if consensus is that this is not a humorous essay, I think it should be deleted. As User:DustFormsWords said better than I could have on the talk page, this "is not related to the business of building an encyclopedia, in that it offers no advice for editors on dealing with other editors ... It's political rhetoric ... if it's not humorous then it has no space in Wikipedia namespace." Equazcion  ( talk ) 13:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BATTLE. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace as a personal essay instead of rapid deletion. No need to make a brouhaha over things that will settle down over time.--Milowent (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLE applies to userspace as well. I would've nominated it had I see it there too. Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it does, but ignoring silliness sometimes works too.--Milowent (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as unrelated to the business of building an encyclopedia. I also have concerns as to what "no accomodation with those who actively seek to destroy or undermine Wikipedia itself" actually means; an uncharitable reading could see it as an incitement to commit harassment, abuse, stalking or other criminal behaviour.  I wouldn't object to a compromise position of userfication. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you that advocating these unacceptable things is not what I had in mind. We can (and should) do no more than ban users from Wikipedia when they are completely opposed to the goals of our project. *** Crotalus *** 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crotalus. I wasn't suggesting you were INTENDING to advocate that, merely that that's the way it could be read.  Although it wouldn't change my opinion that the article should be deleted, a re-write to better convey your intention would nevertheless be an improvement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Stifle. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannator  ─╢ 10:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and delete it. When I posted it, I mostly was just interested in gauging opinion on this subject. That has now been done. *** Crotalus *** 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle, and the author above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 May 2010
 * Delete per Stifle. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 23:56, 13 May 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.