Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conceptualization

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 Userfy. Unless someone else volunteers to adopt it (since the original author is banned for a year), this will be at User:Stevertigo/Conceptualization. Some comments below suggested deleting the shortcuts, but I'm reluctant to delete redirects that would break links from his ArbCom case, so I'm leaving them. Feel free to take it to WP:RFD for further discussion if desired. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conceptualization

This is a bizarre essay -- & one of several by this Wikipedian -- which AFAICS has no impact on how things are done on Wikipedia. ****, I wouldn't know how to use this essay if I understood it. What should we do with it? Delete it, userfy it (the essay was linked to in a recent ArbCom discussion & someone might want to follow the link from there), tag it as {{historical}} & ignore it? Or just simply ignore it -- how much cruft exists in the Wikipedia namespace anyway? -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a disputed single-authored essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't userfy. I don't see anything here that contradicts consensus. It might not necessarily reflect any practice or widespread consensus either, but that's why there's the essay disclaimer at the top. We might forget that meta was originally intended as a home for this kind of essay, but our practice wound up being to put them in Wikipedia namespace here locally, since meta never really caught on as a place to host essays. The fact that some essays have become more like guidelines is more reflective of people's reluctance to put a stamp of approval on new guidelines. But that doesn't mean that we should exclude the classic kind of essay that is merely insight on some aspect of Wikipedia, edited by one or a few editors. Gigs (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if an essay is disputed (as here, by the nom), and nobody will put themselves forward as agreeing with the essay, then it is an easy "userfy". Do you, Gigs, agree broadly with the essay. If you say yes, then I say keep. I think it looks reasonable, but I don't understand it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much my point. Since I don't understand the intent of this essay, let alone how it relates to Wikipedia, I'm uncomfortable with it being in the Wikipedia space. If it's left there, it'll set a precedent which will be cited to justify adding essays on any topic with weak or dubious relevance to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with it, but I kind of see what it's saying, after reading it many times. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the shortcuts to it. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing contrary to WP policies or guidelines in this odd essay. Surely it is not so controversial that it must be userfied. And dele the "BSM" shortcut. And if we delete everything which is hard to understand, WP would be down to 3 articles total. Maybe. Collect (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shame in an essay being in userspace. Many of the best are in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My motivation in nominating this essay was not that it was controversial or difficult to understand. This essay comes across to me as if the writer wants to convey something profound -- but there's nothing worth reading here. Or to put it another way, do we let everyone who wants to ramble on for umpteen hundred words about some abstract concept add an essay to the Wikipedia namespace? Or do we insist on some minimum standards of quality there? And if the consensus is that we don't enforce any minimum standards in that namespace, I can live with that. We may then need to be far more careful when referencing essays in interpreting & applying policy, though. -- llywrch (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Essay reflects purely personal views and has no prospect of documenting an important, though not necessarily consensus, view which is the purpose of Wikipedia space essays. If I may say so, I view its advice, particularly that we should start by writing prose that reflects the relationship between concepts and only then go back and find sources to support our words, as actively harmful. While not dispositive, there's no requirement that an essay reflect a general consensus, that is another reason to remove the implicit imprimatur of the location in Wikipedia space which is often percieved as being more official than it actually is. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy From WP:ESSAYS (which is policy):"Essays that [...] are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." This essay apparently argues against WP:RS, and by extension, WP:V. The latter is not a minor policy, but a founding principle on which WP is built. I would say that qualifies as "widespread consensus". Also, I would note that the essay reads a bit like something a crank might write, and as a result, it is somewhat difficult to evaluate. --N Y Kevin @254, i.e. 05:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.