Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delete the junk

Wikipedia:Delete the junk

This essay is in contradiction to Wikipedia policy of WP:IMPERFECT. Dream Focus 04:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It's an essay that expresses the view of many Wikipedians. I won't comment on an inclusionist trying to stifle a deltionist opinion by attempting to delete an essay. AniMate 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This essay is counter to our core principles such as Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved and "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. Removing imperfect drafts completely so that they cannot be edited is incompatible with the idea of a wiki which anyone can edit. We only have a few thousand articles of GA/FA quality and even they are junk in the eyes of some perfectionists. If this idea was ever acted upon, it would destroy Wikipedia as users such as Kww talk of deleting a million articles. Destruction on this scale is not acceptable and we should not accommodate such views in this way lest editors get the idea that they represent policy. If editors want to rant about junk, they can do so in their user space, where the status of the sentiment is clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:ESSAYS states that Essays "that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." It clearly violates that rule. Dream Focus 10:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, overlooking the irony of "Rescue Squadron" members feverishly attempting to delete something here on Wikipedia, there's no evidence that this personal essay is contradicting "widespread consensus". Certainly against the ethos of the "Rescue Squadron", but nothing controversial. (If only the Rescue Squadron could be so adroit about deletion in the articles they rescue...) WikiuserNI (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't long held policies count as widespread consensus? Why bring the Rescue Squadron into this? Dream Focus 11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• The ARS is mainly about rescuing articles and this isn't an article. Editors generally spend too much time on non-article pages and that's contrary to policies such as WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#FORUM. If people want to remove junk and clutter then we should start with essays like this which are not the purpose of Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A touchy subject? No need to get hot and bothered about it, since you're left to edit as you see fit, why can't others be? WikiuserNI (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when are we left to edit as we see fit? And getting back on topic, this violates policy, and serves no purpose at all except to be used as an excuse for doing something against policy. People link to essays like this in AFDs all the time to try to justify their positions. Dream Focus 11:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading WikiuserIN's unbridled attack on editors who actually improve wikipedia. What a joyous day he must be having.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not an attack, merely a suggestion for an improvement on editing. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, its pathetic, and I'm calling it out as such.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Userfy This essay was written by a single editor [1] with a second section later added by another editor. [2] There appear to have been no other major contributions to this essay. I find this essay problematic in that no only is it counter to the editing policy (WP:IMPROVE), it also argues counter to the deletion policy and deletion process guidelines such as WP:BEFORE. The second section of this essay "Delete questionable articles and recover them later" is also problematic in that it is not currently possible for non-administrators to view or restore deleted content, and it is difficult for anyone to search deleted content, even those with a toolserver account. [3]

  While I don't think deletion of this essay is the answer, I do not think an essay such as this which is largely the opinion of a single individual that makes arguments counter to core policies should exist in the Wikipedia: project space. On the other hand, I do not see a problem with an editor expressing their own views in an essay (or their userpage), so long as it remains in their userspace, so as to make it clear that it does not reflect the view of the larger community. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Userfy'.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• UserifyIt's appropriate for people to be able to express their opinions on-wiki of what should be done here, but when it represents a rather idiosyncratic or small minority view, it should be in user space. DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I disagree that it is an idiosyncratic or minority view. I happen to agree with it, and I think many other editors do as well. There are plenty of similar essays that have a related message, e.g. WP:REALPROBLEM, WP:BEEF, WP:LITTLEEFFORT, WP:BUILDER. This essay is clarifying the widely held opinion that WP:IMPERFECT is not a license to create horribly written articles about notable subjects. It is not a license to create Barack Obama with the content "Barack Obama is half black." Such an article does not have WP:IMMUNITY from deletion. If some of you would pop your heads out from the ARS gopher hole every once in awhile, you might see that there are quite a few editors who believe that "No article is better than a terrible article", and that rather than allowing an atrociously written article persist for years, they would prefer to delete it and wait for someone else to come around who is sufficiently motivated to create a proper article. SnottyWong ^babble 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• If you actually wrote articles maybe I would pay attention to your opinions.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)