- 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 Deleted as G7 Skier Dude ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Related AFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E (opposing viewpoint)
At least it is debatable whether or not this essay's parent, Wikipedia:BLP2E, is a pointy, bad-faith creation. But this? Quite crystal-clear and quite blatant. This is all spillover from the Bologna AfD, please keep Wikipedia project space from becoming another front in a deletion debate. Tarc ( talk) 02:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy, by default, as a disputed single-author essay. Another option, if it has genuine support, is to merge to Wikipedia:BLP2E. Ideally, we have one essay representing multiple viewpoints for a single subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no sign that anyone supports such a thing becoming policy. No point to userfy. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If an editor disagrees with Toddst's BLP2E essay then he can easily start his own counter-essay. There's no need for Toddst to do it for him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: without prejudice to recreation (as the sole editor of the essay). It was created to give a forum to those that objected to Wikipedia:BLP2E. As I stated on the talk page, the opinions there are not my own and I don't agree with them (but that's not a reason to delete). If nobody wants to further that position, I'm fine with it being deleted. If it's userfied, I will definitely delete it, so any advocates of userfy are effectively advocating delete. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "userfy" is on the assumption that you want it. If you don't, and no one else does, then "delete". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Given that it contains Inks.LWC's view copied from Inks.LWC's disruptive edit attempting to subvert the main idea behind the competing WP:BLP2E, this essay should be userfied to Inks.LWC if "userfy" is the outcome here. Inks.LWC clearly thinks his view is valuable given that he voted to merge below. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge to WP:BLP2E - the essay with that tile should contain a summary of both viewpoints even if the overall emphasis of BLP2E is against it. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Delete per Toddst1 Inks.LWC ( talk) 03:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on ANI about how the idea of merging these two was effectively co-opting the
WP:BLP2E essay and unacceptable. If you don't have the wherewithall to mount an opposing opinion, don't try to neuter the opinion. It's an essay - it's not supposed to be NPOV.
Toddst1 (
talk)
04:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is that BLP2E already is policy. If someone receives media attention for 2 things only after the last event, he is only notable for one event, and the first event is essentially a sub-event of the one receiving media attention. I'm not advocating for NPOV on the essay. I'm not trying to neuter it. I simply feel that the rationale should be explained, not defended. The fact that the essay is titled so that it represents the opinion, yet then explicitly opposes it without even explaining the position is inappropriate. It's the fact that it's misleading and POINTy that I have a problem with. Inks.LWC ( talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on ANI about how the idea of merging these two was effectively co-opting the
WP:BLP2E essay and unacceptable. If you don't have the wherewithall to mount an opposing opinion, don't try to neuter the opinion. It's an essay - it's not supposed to be NPOV.
Toddst1 (
talk)
04:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anything except the proposed merge. Merging is the only inappropriate outcome here according to the WP:ESSAYS policy. Vastly diverging viewpoints should be in separate essays like WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- And as a general comment: I see nothing wrong with editors writing essays based on their recent experience in a given AfD, as long as they address some previously undressed issue that is of sufficiently general interest (which is the case here with BLP2E). Making a point is entirely appropriate at times; writing it in an essay is not disruptive. This is what essays are for. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree here. Project space essays exist for the benefit of their readers. They should present balanced information, and leave open questions for the reader to decide. Multiple POV essays, where opposing contributions are sent elsewhere, create misinformation for the reader. The “See also” section of links is not sufficient cover for an essay that erroneously presents. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE would make for a much superior essay if merged. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete redundant with
WP:BLP2E. I hope we won't see more essays because of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna .
Will Beback
talk
22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment How is it redundant if WP:BLP2E doesn't even explain what's advocated in this essay? Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (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.
- 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 Deleted as G7 Skier Dude ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Related AFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E (opposing viewpoint)
At least it is debatable whether or not this essay's parent, Wikipedia:BLP2E, is a pointy, bad-faith creation. But this? Quite crystal-clear and quite blatant. This is all spillover from the Bologna AfD, please keep Wikipedia project space from becoming another front in a deletion debate. Tarc ( talk) 02:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy, by default, as a disputed single-author essay. Another option, if it has genuine support, is to merge to Wikipedia:BLP2E. Ideally, we have one essay representing multiple viewpoints for a single subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no sign that anyone supports such a thing becoming policy. No point to userfy. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If an editor disagrees with Toddst's BLP2E essay then he can easily start his own counter-essay. There's no need for Toddst to do it for him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: without prejudice to recreation (as the sole editor of the essay). It was created to give a forum to those that objected to Wikipedia:BLP2E. As I stated on the talk page, the opinions there are not my own and I don't agree with them (but that's not a reason to delete). If nobody wants to further that position, I'm fine with it being deleted. If it's userfied, I will definitely delete it, so any advocates of userfy are effectively advocating delete. Toddst1 ( talk) 13:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "userfy" is on the assumption that you want it. If you don't, and no one else does, then "delete". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Given that it contains Inks.LWC's view copied from Inks.LWC's disruptive edit attempting to subvert the main idea behind the competing WP:BLP2E, this essay should be userfied to Inks.LWC if "userfy" is the outcome here. Inks.LWC clearly thinks his view is valuable given that he voted to merge below. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge to WP:BLP2E - the essay with that tile should contain a summary of both viewpoints even if the overall emphasis of BLP2E is against it. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Delete per Toddst1 Inks.LWC ( talk) 03:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on ANI about how the idea of merging these two was effectively co-opting the
WP:BLP2E essay and unacceptable. If you don't have the wherewithall to mount an opposing opinion, don't try to neuter the opinion. It's an essay - it's not supposed to be NPOV.
Toddst1 (
talk)
04:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is that BLP2E already is policy. If someone receives media attention for 2 things only after the last event, he is only notable for one event, and the first event is essentially a sub-event of the one receiving media attention. I'm not advocating for NPOV on the essay. I'm not trying to neuter it. I simply feel that the rationale should be explained, not defended. The fact that the essay is titled so that it represents the opinion, yet then explicitly opposes it without even explaining the position is inappropriate. It's the fact that it's misleading and POINTy that I have a problem with. Inks.LWC ( talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on ANI about how the idea of merging these two was effectively co-opting the
WP:BLP2E essay and unacceptable. If you don't have the wherewithall to mount an opposing opinion, don't try to neuter the opinion. It's an essay - it's not supposed to be NPOV.
Toddst1 (
talk)
04:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anything except the proposed merge. Merging is the only inappropriate outcome here according to the WP:ESSAYS policy. Vastly diverging viewpoints should be in separate essays like WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- And as a general comment: I see nothing wrong with editors writing essays based on their recent experience in a given AfD, as long as they address some previously undressed issue that is of sufficiently general interest (which is the case here with BLP2E). Making a point is entirely appropriate at times; writing it in an essay is not disruptive. This is what essays are for. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree here. Project space essays exist for the benefit of their readers. They should present balanced information, and leave open questions for the reader to decide. Multiple POV essays, where opposing contributions are sent elsewhere, create misinformation for the reader. The “See also” section of links is not sufficient cover for an essay that erroneously presents. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE would make for a much superior essay if merged. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete redundant with
WP:BLP2E. I hope we won't see more essays because of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna .
Will Beback
talk
22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment How is it redundant if WP:BLP2E doesn't even explain what's advocated in this essay? Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (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.