Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 169.231.53.195 (talk) at 06:53, 28 May 2011 (c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over

Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Essay goes against the Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPROVE and thus violates the rule at WP:ESSAYS. Dream Focus 04:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dream Focus; you're *supposed* to notify the *author* when you try and delete their work. Bzzt. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A banned editor can't respond here anyway, so I didn't follow that suggestion. Dream Focus 21:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's not banned. He's left, but he isn't banned. Hut 8.5 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author hasn't worked on it himself since May 2009 and hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2009 either. I'm not absolutely certain, but I think he was blocked. Dream Focus 05:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I agree with deletion. --Kleinzach 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current activity of A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is irrelevant. User:A Man In Black was an active and valued Wikipedian who last edited in a period of stress that does not invalidate the record of his work or his considered opinions. This is a valid deletionist essay. User:Dream Focus is a vocal inclusionist. Both viewpoints have at heart the good of the project, but they sometimes are antagonistic. Regardless of the merits or the strengths of arguments involved in the essay or its counterpoints, it is not an acceptable thing to try to steer policy by deletion opposition pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith please. This essay was recently cited in an AFD by someone who agreed the subject was notable enough to have an article, but didn't like the way the current one was written. Deleting something entirely instead of trying to edit to fix the problems, is against the the Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPROVE. Dream Focus 08:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to assume good faith here. You really believe that the page encourages destructive deletions. Peoples good efforts, hard work done in good faith, when deleted is lost forever, as is it never happened. On the other side, some people think that when a drawing doesn't come out right, it is better to throw it away and start again. These are reasonable opinions to hold, and to record. The essay is not so absurd as to require deletion. With 140 incoming links, it should not be deleted. The policy status of Wikipedia:Editing policy, which is an odd case anyway, does not mandate deletion of counter-essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whether or not the page agrees with every one of our policies is irrelevant, as we allow editors to hold opinions that disagree with them. The current activity level of the author is also irrelevant. If people are using it as a way of illustrating their opinions then that is a strong indication that the essay is valuable. No valid argument for deleting this essay has been presented. Hut 8.5 10:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ESSAYS states that Essays that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. This essay contradicts policy, which is based on widespread consensus, and thus violates the rule for essays. Dream Focus 12:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The essay simply contradicts the Article Rescue Squadron mindset, which is itself a minority point of view. Perhaps we should put WP:ARS up for MfD someday and let the lulz flow. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has nothing to do with the Article Rescue Squadron. And the ARS isn't an essay page but a Wikiproject, which has survived multiple attempts of destruction. Dream Focus 15:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lol, "destruction", do you see yourself as the Wiki-X-Men or something, fighting the forces of Evil Deletionism? But seriously, don't get too carried away; I was simply pointing out that all WP:TNT contradicts is your group's consensus, not project-wide consensus. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three points.
  • Firstly the fact that an essay contradicts a policy does not mean the essay is inappropriate. WP:SNOW, for instance, contradicts the deletion policy (which says that AfD discussions must last for seven days). The reasons for this should be clear: it is sometimes necessary to weigh policies and guidelines against each other when they say contradictory things, policies and guidelines can sometimes be ignored, and if a page is widely cited and used then obviously there is some consensus that what it has to say is at least sometimes right. If the essay contradicted something more fundamental such as WP:V or WP:BLP then your point would be much stronger, but it doesn't.
  • Secondly the essay doesn't contradict widespread consensus. The central point of the essay (that if some content is completely unsalvageable it is sometimes appropriate to delete it) is widely supported. The editing policy (a rarely-cited, somewhat obscure and vague document that has been the subject of numerous attempts to demote it) doesn't contradict this either: Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. (emphasis added)
  • Even if the above two points were completely wrong there's still no reason to delete the page. WP:ESSAYS (which I think is the page you meant to link to) recommends userfication rather than deletion in that case. Hut 8.5 16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IMO what the core of this essay goes to is competence, which is a very widely accepted and cited essay. Simply put, sometimes editors write shit, shit so irredeemable that more effort would be spent to fix it than it would be to wipe the slate clean and start fresh. There is nothing wrong with this point of view, and the goal of the Wikipedia is to create and maintain quality articles, not to simply bean-count the quantity. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Reluctantly) While I disagree with the idea of deleting notable topics because of fixable issues, this is an idea that has drawn some support from the community. (At least in extreme cases.) Qrsdogg (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The essay doesn't argue or promote the notion that deleting an entire article should be common, it only advocates it in the case the article cannot be repaired. It is hard to argue with that simple statement, although editors will disagree about whether a particular article qualifies, and some will argue the rule describes an empty set. I see no harm in retaining it, and possibly some value.--SPhilbrickT 16:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- No valid reason for deletion has been presented. This essay reflects the views of many Wikipedians and is actually consistent with editing policy in that it advocates the removal of unsalvageable content. It is explicit on that point throughout, something the nominator appears to have missed. It is not cool to try to suppress a point of view because you personally find it unpalatable. Pointless, too. Reyk YO! 21:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reyk. I don't think this essay violates policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page's title is an overt incitement of violence. Such language is uncivil and, as it is possible to explain our editing policy without it, we have no need of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing an essay about Wikipedia's deletion process to a threat of violence or suicide? Hut 8.5 08:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language used is not that of the editor or scholar; it is the language of the violent revolutionary or soldier. When I have occasion to make a fresh start upon the text of an article, I use the simple word rewrite. The use of violent language instead seems intended to intimidate and offend. In my case, I live and work in places which have in recent memory been the subject of violent bomb attacks and so do find the sentiment offensively inappropriate. Putting the matter in this way is contrary to policy and so the page should be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's rich, Warden. Let's look at the Article Rescue Squadron charter, where a badly-written article heading for AfD is analogous to a critically-injured person being murdered via a mercy killing, i.e. "an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion?". You have no legitimate argument to make about others framing article deletions within a backdrop of violence when you advocate for such yourself. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and assume a military rank as your user name. Reyk YO! 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Squad's charter is worded to appeal to ones sense of compassion. We need new recruits with the heart of a noble knight; editors who care enough to spend time trying to save other peoples work and with the courage not to be disheartened by the attacks rescuers are frequently subjected to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for such drama. I shall try dropping the Colonel and using just Warden, which also has the great virtue of being brief. The ARS naming and tableau is not my doing and might usefully be simplified too. Just calling that project Article Rescue might be better. Warden (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if that will do it, CW. I mean ... at least Colonel Warden suggested that you might have a proper military bearing and a swagger stick. But just "Warden", to me, invokes the image of a man who is a lone king-of-the-guards with a club, keeping a violent prison population in check. Perhaps you would be so kind as to consider a change of surname?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Homo Logica (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If only such points were useually considered a good argument! Sadly, once an articles survived an attempt to destroy it, deletionists are often like "Oh don't worry fanboys, we'll just re-nominate every few months until not enough of you show up to save it. Sooner or later, all the stuff we don't like will be gone!" FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess Dream Focus nominated this for deletion now because they saw it appealed to wrongly at a recent deletion discussion. I read the text for the first time today and I can't really say it's irredeemable, but it is a bit on the rambling side, it has too much "Sometimes, ..." which reminds a lot of WP:WEASEL. Maybe it would be best to blow the essay up and start over, but that would kinda prove its point, now wouldn't it? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk)
  • Let's AGF, Joy. I don't think he did it to make a point. I think, especially given his previous nomination of a similar essay, that he genuinely believes it to be in violation of policies :-)
Homo Logica (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm pretty consistent in my view that essays almost never merit deletion. As with all others, its an essay that only has persuasive force to the extent its persuasive. This essay has next to no persuasive force, because if a topic is notable that article should be improved by any editor wasting more than 10 minutes trying to rely on this dumb essay.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly valid opinion in this essay. Deleting without prejudice against recreation is a standard practice on the German Wikipedia for unsalvageable articles on notable topics about which nobody currently cares enough to start a valid article right away. Forcing people to write reasonable articles on less important topics just so that rubbish can be removed is not a good use of our resources. Hans Adler 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename as suggested by SmokeyJoe or to WP:CleanSheet. As per editor Warden the current name has violent overtones and may encourage a brutal disrespect of other editors hard work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You act like the essay is some wikified form of Che Guevara, plopped into the middle of Bolivia AfDistan to rally the peasants to revolt. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasnt Che anti-elitist and for the people? Id associate him with the talismanic DreamFocus, certainly not with a deletionist essay. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep seing this "elitist" from you folks. Isn't that really anti-intellectualism? 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ya'll seem to be missing the fact the this is an attack on the departed "A Man In Bl♟ck" by some of the WP:ARS kiddles. He MfD'd their precious and tehy hates him. Tehys hates us, too. It's all-battleground all-the-time with these participants. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't edited in almost two years now. And how long ago was it that he tried to delete the ARS page? If we were out to get him, wouldn't we have done something long before now? Dream Focus 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Man in Black? I thought this was on attack on that Jack dude? Surely he's cyber-bleeding.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Deletion argument is flawed, demonstrating one of the fundamental problems we have on Wikipedia: the refusal to recognize that some things are of no value. The message and logic of the essay is quite sound: deciding that a topic of an article is worth keeping is one thing, but doesn't prevent us from recognizing that everything in the current version is worthless. If there is no text worth keeping in an article, there's no reason to keep the text in the history: it's only mandatory to keep it if it will be built upon, and some things will never be built upon. This doesn't contradict WP:IMPROVE at all: note the section WP:IMPROVE#Problems that may justify removal, which this essay elaborates upon.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an essay; as such, it expresses the opinion of one or more editors, which other editors may not agree with. It's not policy. The opinion in this one may even be one that most editors disagree with, but it's a legitimate view to take; and in some rare cases 'blow it up and start over' is the only appropriate solution to a highly problematic article. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wanted to briefly address the issue of violence. I understand how people can see it that way, but it seems to me, to be an extension of the building metaphor that surrounds wikipedia. We talk about building an article, on the proper foundations, so on and so forth. Explosives are used in construction to blow a building up. Thus, if a house is in such bad shape that it cannot be just fixed, a construction crew would "blow it up and start over."
Homo Logica (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this counts as canvassing. [1] How did everyone find their way here? Dream Focus 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By hook or by crook, eh DF? Why don;'t you count how many !votes have been cast since that diff you liked to, and tell us how it matters. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it counts as canvassing, since Brad and the IP were already in the middle of a discussion on a closely related topic. Besides, didn't you try to canvas Jimbo Wales the last time you tried to go all 1984 on an essay (with hilarious results)? People in glass houses, and all that. Reyk YO! 03:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't canvassing to ask a person who is involved, since he created the policies I felt the essay went up against. Totally different situation here. I was trying to get input, not just mention something to a group of people I felt would vote a certain way. Dream Focus 05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, I get that some people don't like the ARS and think there's too many crap articles. But given that there's an "unsalvageable" article written on a topic agreed to be notable, just why is it a good idea to have it be a redlink? You don't need the delete button to "blow it up and start over", you can just do that in the edit box. And even if you're too lazy to rewrite the article, what's the advantage of deletion over turning an article into a one-line stub? 169.231.53.195 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Blow_it_up_and_start_over&oldid=431299844"