Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Participation optional

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: Redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service; no consensus on whether to delete the history first (which means it isn't deleted) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Participation optional

Not a useful addition to project space. Redundant to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. And while it appears as if the essay would be explaining the same thing about Wikipedia as that established explanatory essay, the text quickly loses focus and becomes incoherent, as the creator is actually describing some unsatisfying experience they had as a new editor of Wikipedia with no discernible relation to Wikipedia being a voluntary service and participation being optional. —Alalch E. 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ as a single-author disputed essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (without deletion) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. It is redundant to that much older and better essay. There is no need to delete this essay, it is not unacceptable as a user opinion, and it is bad to err on the side of censoring disagreeable opinion. It could be merged to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, but I wouldn’t, it’s good enough to be available behind the redirect history for anyone to pick up and work with, should they ever wish to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Userfy which will move the essay into limbo, because the userspace of a banned or indeffed user is a limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. But worse than that, the statement in the essay "Going through multiple discussions just to complain about how trivial they are, is generally of no value" is completely disruptive, as it is an attempt to facilitate the disruptive time wasting frivolous MfDs that this user was blocked for (among the other things they were blocked for). Accordingly this should also be deleted under criteria 13 of the deletion policy. James500 (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s slack to allege FORK without saying of what. Forking rarely calls for deletion above merging back. Unless it was a literal copy, which it wasn’t. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2025 (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.