Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Multiple sources

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Multiple sources

This essay is out-of-line with what the general consensus is of this term meaning (see this discussion (permalink)), so this essay should either be deleted or moved (so an essay explaining the current background and consensus in a neutral manner could be written here), or rewritten to the same effect. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Speedy keep. This essay is intermeshed with policy. Take issues to its talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Intermeshed with policy? For the start, WP:N is a guideline, not policy at all. Secondly, there was recently a discussion establishing consensus that this essay is not an accurate reflection of the general consensus on this topic, so keeping it at its current title allows it to mislead people. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should withdraw and go for WP:RM for a rename. If a rename would solve the problem, then deletion is off the table. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my nomination statement? I am not only seeking deletion here, and keep/delete are not the only possible outcomes from MfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did. There is no valid deletion rationale. Speedy keep #1.

On renaming, oppose procedurally, as no new name is proposed.

If it were a single author disputed essay, I would support userfication.

I recommend taking issues to Wikipedia talk:Multiple sources.

Wikipedia talk:Notability#pointless essay linked to by its creator is clear consensus to not link from WP:N, which I guess was the driving issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small p policy dispute involving this essay, so MfD is inappropriate. Mfd must not be used as a tactic in policy disputes. WP:N is not just any mere guideline, it is pseudo policy due to being referenced as a deletion reason at WP:Deletion policy, WP:DEL#REASON #8. This makes listing this essay at WP:N very serious, and that must be resolved at WT:N, not MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While not especially helpful, I'm also not seeing anything especially problematic about it. That's not far from average for an essay. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the nominator admitted that they are not necessarily interested in the deletion of the page. If they want to improve the essay, they are welcome to do so. --Banana Republic (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfactory as it is, and can be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I agree with the nomination that this essay does not reflect overall consensus how to interpret WP:N. Daranios (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Essays may present minority opinions on policy interpretation. If consensus is that the opinion is minority and disputed, it may be appropriate to note that in the essay lede. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Interesting, is there a specific way to do/phrase such a caveat lede?

If it were a single author disputed essay, I would support userfication. This essay was written by a single author, changes afterward are only of an editorial nature and exchange of examples.

Intermeshed with policy: This is one user's opinion on how to interpret the guideline - which I am sure is shared by others, but there is no consensus on it - so "intermeshed with" does not seem to fit to me. Linking the essay within the guideline does seem to me to suggest such a consensus, artifically doing such an "intermeshing", which would therefore be misleading to the casual reader.

Changing my !vote in light of this new input:

Delete or userfy with an introductory statement that makes clear that this interpretation of WP:N does not reflect consensus. Otherwise it might mislead readers, which in my view is serious enough not to keep it like it is. For my further rationale, please see above. Daranios (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Banana Republic. Deletion should not be used as a cudgel to prompt revision. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly good essay. However, it could probably be updated. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A101:2C6F:57B3:C73D (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by updated, since this is not a topic that becomes "obsolete", but if there are any deficiencies in the essay, you are more than welcome to address them. Banana Republic (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd prefer that all essays were deleted. However, if they are allowed then I see no reason why this one shouldn't be. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be better ways to explain it, but until there is, the essay should be kept in my opinion. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, go ahead and improve the essay. Banana Republic (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2022 (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.