Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prime objective

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. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 20:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Prime objective

Page offers no apparent advice. Author is disrupting Wikipedia by editing WP:PRIME to redirect to his page, rather than to its current, informative destination. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Prime objective where I've corrected the nominator on a couple points, and at WT:DAB#WP:PRIME, where there appears to be support for repurposing WP:PRIME for this guideline/essay. Note that Ive commented at WT:DAB but nominator has yet to respond. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The fact that there is an edit war about a redirect is no reason to delete this page. Please sort the problem out elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is it offers no apparent advice. The redirect thing is just to give a little background. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it offers advice. It reminds us to think about Jimbo's extremely well known quotation, when we are getting confused by difficult cases and other confusions. It helps to keep us grounded, and I think that is very valuable. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep a reasonable page. And its continued existence has nothing to do with the redirect dispute. --KarlB (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have specified three major concerns on this essay's Talk page. I think they are better linked to, than repeated here in full. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use the talk page to make it into a better essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Per a talk page suggestion, just repeating here - suggest rename to Primary goal, which is a more common way of saying what this means I think. --KarlB (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate use of WP: namespace. --Surturz (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question – If we keep the article, does that mean that we agree that it represents Wikipedia's primary goal? I am not familiar with what an article in this namespace represents, or what rules apply here. –BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the existance of an essay does not mean that non-authors agree with it. It does usually mean that some agree, and few if any seriously object. In this case, the title is misleading and should be changed, but that is not for MfD. It should be done WP:BOLDly, or via discussion on the talk page, or perhaps using WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an essay. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Essays need not give advice, although this one does. Essays can be the opinion of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. See WP:ESSAYS. There's no dispute that this essay has an opinion and I tagged the page with an essay template. On a different issue, the name Prime objective is odd and sounds too close to Star Trek's Prime Directive, which tends to diminish Jimbo's succinct and well known goal statement. I agree to rename to Primary goal. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2012 (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.