Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Three best 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: move and restore redirect (no consensus to delete outright). There is not a lot of discussion about where the page ought to go instead, so I will leave that for you all to figure out, whether through a BOLD move, an RM, or some other kind of discussion. But there is a consensus that it can't stay here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three best sources

This essay has lived in my user space for the past seven years. Based on the number of times people have linked to the shortcut WP:THREE, it has become well-known. Recently, Pigsonthewing forked my essay to project space. I requested that he revert that, which he declined to do.

While I am flattered that PotW thought my essay a useful starting point for his own, I am concerned about the manner in which he did it. Using the same title in a different namespace and reproducing verbatim my distinctive writing style, will inevitably lead to confusion. If PotW disagrees with my essay, I encourage him to write his own, as Banana Republic did some time ago with Wikipedia:Multiple sources. In fact, I just noticed that where Banana linked to my essay (User:RoySmith/Three best sources – another commonly cited essay regarding number of sources), PotW has changed that to point to his own, keeping the "another commonly cited essay" language; this seems like a deliberate attempt to confuse readers.

If this is not deleted, then at least it should be moved to a distinctively different title, and a note added explaining that it is a fork, so readers are not confused. I would do this myself, but WP:INVOLVED, so bringing it here. RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. There is no valid reason for deletion stated here, just egregious ownership. I was accused of "stealing" the content (which is clearly openly licenced), for which RoySmith has yet to apologise, or retract.

I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused.

Since forking the essay - with due attribution in my edit summary - and making it available for the community at large to improve (it is, of course, not "my own"), I have already begun to modify it (as others are welcome to do), so it is no longer the same thing as RoySmith's personal copy, which remains where it was and is still available for him to refer to as he sees fit.

The accusations of "a deliberate attempt to confuse readers" is, of course utterly without foundation and an equally utter failure to assume good faith, and I invite RoySmith to retract that also. For shame! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused. Okay, but I don't really see why that's a problem. It's allowed to be where it is. It's not disruptive or anything for an essay to just stay in the user namespace and there's no reason to demand moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. It's fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I demand it be moved there? I've explicitly said that he is entitled to keep his preferred version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that "steal" was a poor choice of words. I've struck that. RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect that was initially created at this title. RoySmith is allowed to keep the essay where it is, and this title as a project space redirect was sensible as a means to allow editors to quickly find it. Hijacking the redirect to the essay for whatever it is that Pigsonthewing is trying to do here is not appropriate. The appropriate place to do something like this is on a subpage in your own userspace, or in your own user sandbox. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place to host an essay for the community as a whole to edit and use is not my (nor anyone else's) user space. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jonesey95's proposal of moving this to another name and then restoring the redirect. That seems reasonable. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Restore the redirect” is confusing. Does it mean “revert back to the old redirect”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I linked the diff containing the redirect in my !vote, and I was intending to imply that I believe that diff should be reverted back to. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pain to work out. “THE redirect” is WP:THREE, and as long as that redirect points to Roy’s essay, everything important to the history and intended past uses is ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a different name and restore the redirect. Some people may intend to link to the userspace essay from this page, and that long-standing link should be preserved. It's fine that this repurposed text exists, but it should not usurp the original links created by the first author. Improve the new version of the essay, create a new name for it, and create a new, snappy shortcut for it. (I have removed wikitext from the page that claimed it was linked to from a shortcut that actually points to the userspace essay.)
Repurposing the essay in Wikipedia space removes a disincentive for other editors to improve the essay; we are discouraged from editing pages in other people's userspaces, even pages that are commonly linked to from discussions. Removing that disincentive is a good thing; Pigsonthewing and I have already polished the text, and more will probably happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original text written from the first person is much more convincing. You are concerned about the snappiness of the new shortcut but what about the authenticity, persuasiveness, and, ultimately, snappiness, of the actual content? The essay works better for the whole community as-is, it has a greater impact as a viewpoint expressed by one editor, emerging from his lived experience, which was then accepted by many and was widely disseminated. The project space clone is a net negative. —Alalch E. 18:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is out of scope for MfD, I oppose allowing discussion on redirects at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so out of the ordinary. "Redirect" is a common WP:ATD which is regularly voted for at AfD discussions. I do not see why MfD should be any different. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok to !vote ATDs, it is not ok to nominate ATDs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and restore redirect per Jonesey95.--Laun chba ller 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note that Roy previously wrote that forking the article was an appropriate thing to do, as long as the forked text doesn't imply to be his opinion. As it stands, he acts as sole guardian of his essay, which might serve his purposes but does not necessarily serve the higher purposes of the Wikipedia community. I would hope that he would be proud to have given birth to the essay, and with the bold input of a range of editors I would hope that this new, community version might be subject of an RfC to become a guideline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Treat as a naming dispute—start an RM to determine where the (original) essay shall be~~ (switched to "delete"18:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)). This is about a single page, a literary work whose proper title is "Three best sources". To get the tecnically complete Wikipedia page title, this can be preceded by "User:RoySmith/" or by "Wikipedia:". There is disagreement on whether it should be one or the other. Whenever a name is disputed, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requested moves. The community is able to change a userspace essay to a projectspace essay even if the author of the essay disagrees. Delete the redundant copy. Treat what has been done as an improper and incomplete cut-and-paste move.
Pigsonthewing said: I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused—so start an RM.—Alalch E. 14:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone else to agree with my analysis, in order to procedurally close this and migrate the process to Wikipedia:Requested moves: @RoySmith, SilviaASH, Jonesey95, and Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for considering.—Alalch E. 14:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USERESSAY seems to say that Roy is entitled to keep his version, in the form and location in his userspace that he prefers, and others may work on a separate version with a view that it becomes 'proposed', with a hat tip to Roy. Not ideal per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays but Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay No. It is unfair to Roy to say this. By looking at the page history, there's zero evidence of Roy's (as-would-be-legitimate since it's his userspace) ownership of content of the page; the essay was edited by multiple people. He's not been exhibiting a desire for control. Interpreting this dispute in such a way is a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have other people write essays based on mine. If you disagree with what I wrote, that's perfectly fine. Write an essay espousing a different point of view. Stand up and proclaim to the world, "Roy Smith is wrong, and this is why". If you want to reuse my text, technically I can't stop you. CC-BY-SA gives you that right, and leaving a link in an edit comment certainly fulfills the legal obligation imposed by the "BY" part of that.

What I'm not happy about is taking something I deliberately wrote in the first person in my user-space to express my personal opinion and republishing it with instances of "I" changed to "reviewers". And doing so under the same title, which has been well known for years. What possible reason was there to do that, if not to confuse people? AGF has its limits. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Curb Safe Charmer. Roy should be allowed to keep his version in his userspace, if he so wishes, while the community may work on another version of the essay. However, if Roy would rather this be dealt with at RM as you propose, then I say deal with it at RM. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the community can still move the essay in a consensus process. And it doesn't appear that this is an essay that RoySmith doesn't want others to edit, it's just an essay that he believes works better as a user space essay for the whole community. He just needs to be told by multiple editors that it is a good essay for project space, and additionally, that there's nothing that distinctive and colorful about the writing style of the essay. It is written in a balanced and serious style, making it indistinguishable from any good project space essay in style, and many project space essays have more "personalized" writing style. In addition, the viewpoint presented is widely accepted and not anything like a minority opinion.—Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I support moving this to RM. The Manual of Style does not apply to project space; essays can be written whatever way the author(s) may please. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? He's entitled to keep his version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't want his version, he disputes moving the essay to project space. It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content. He believes that for the entire community, the essay in question should be a page titled "User:RoySmith/Three best sources". It appears that this is because it is written in his "distinctive writing style", but that may not be because he is interested in maintaining that style as such, but because he doesn't believe that essays in project space should be written in such a style. —Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: I don't know why you wrote "It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content" when he clearly does... a few quotes from Roy on the essay's talk page: ""I'm trying hard to keep it terse" ... "working fine as is" ... (by another editor) "I tried to broaden the essay to be AfC inclusive but RoySmith reverted" ... "I have on occasion (not too often) accepted changes people have suggested" ... "people keep messing with it in ways I don't agree with" - these all indicate a desire to tightly control the version in his userspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't, that's not remotely the level of control over content that is only appropriate in user space and not appropriate in project space. All pages are edited on a consensus basis. —Alalch E. 15:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Did you actually read WP:USERESSAY? To quote policy: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." ... "The author of a personal essay located in their user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read it. I understand what you're saying very well, but I don't see evidence, in the page history, of RoySmith using such prerogative on multiple occasions to the extent that goes beyond what an author of a project space essay might do. So, in project space, an editor might also say "I prefer it staying the way it was on grounds of style", and the two editors could then discuss it on the talk page. In all important aspects of the essay, on substance, there haven't been significant attempts to change its message. That's because what it says is pretty mainstream. —Alalch E. 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't want his version (he clearly does), he can nominate it for deletion.

Your suggestion was that I should try to force his version to be moved, contrary to his wishes; I have no interest in doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. —Alalch E. 18:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a thought on alternative approaches - could the content be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources which already has the redirect WP:3SOURCES pointing to it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“could the content be merged” is a speedy keep argument. Merge proposals don’t belong in XfDeletion venues. Deletion proposals that don’t articulated why merging is not ok should be speedily closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposals don’t belong in XfDeletion venues. Not so. WP:NOTBURO, WP:ATD-M. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the substantial change folks want to make to Roy's essay that he will not permit in userspace? Is it just "we must have control of your essay" for the sake of principle? A dislike of the use of first person point of view? I'm struck by how unnecessarily aggressive this seems to have gone down compared to the pretty minor changes in the essay. Certainly agree that all existing shortcuts should continue to go to the original essay, and that some sort of retitling makes sense to avoid confusion. Also tend to agree that WP:Multiple_sources seems like a pretty natural place to just drop the "three" idea rather than have multiple sources and the personal essay and the basically-the-same-as-the-personal-essay-but-in-projectspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK#1 no reason for deletion. As interesting as this discussion is, it is not a deletion discussion. It belongs on the talk page. Use WP:RfC for more attention. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't exactly understand when I first saw this MFD 48 hours ago, and I still or again don't understand, even if it is morphing. It appeared to be a request to delete an extremely useful essay, not because of anything wrong with the essay, but because of what appeared to be an issue about ownership, although it is also said that this isn't about ownership. An essay on Three Best Sources is needed, and it has been cited often enough that the shortcut WP:THREE should refer to it. I don't fully understand or know why User:RoySmith wants the essay kept in user space, unless it is ownership, which I am told is not the case. I see that one reason for the essay to be in userspace is that it is written in the first person, stating the experience of Roy Smith, an experienced AFD and DRV participant, and that the version in project space is written in the indefinite third person. I now see that the issue is whether to delete the project-space version. Why should either version be deleted? Can both be kept, with different shortcuts, and WP:THREE continuing to point to the Roy Smith original? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think both should be kept and the shortcut should be retained, as I stated above. It seems like most other people agree with me, or are at least ambivalent on the issue beyond general agreement that no deletion action should take place. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There were two confusing requests on 28 May 2025 to delete two useful essays on notability. I wondered what the difference between them was. The answer to that question was obvious: 97. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and restore redirect – per Jonesey95. This discussion should have happened on the talk pages of the essays. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did attempt to discuss it on the talk pages. PotW made it pretty clear that he didn't want to discuss it. RoySmith (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an answer you did not like. I did not refuse to discuss the matter. Indeed, the very act of giving that answer was part of the discussion; as are my several prior comments on this page. This is not your first false accusation in this matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant non-helpful content. Inferior to the orignal essay. No one should ever read it when the original essay exists. Net detriment on the website. Extra useless without the established shortcut. Usurps the redirect which should stay as it used to be. Don't move it out of the way, just delete it. It can't be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources (WP:THREESOURCES ... note the superficial similarity) because that essay advances a particular interpretation of GNG ascribing a particular meaning to the word "multiple", and has nothing to do with the topic of WP:THREE. Similarity due to the appearance of the number 3 in both essays is superficial. RoySmith's essay works great for the whole community in RoySmith's userspace and there has been no problem in that regard. Work with RoySmith on any stylistic ideas, and the substance of the essay is not in dispute anyway.—Alalch E. 18:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have proposed changes to Roy's essay, which he has declined to accept. I believe the intention of the new version is to allow such editors, and others, to collaborate on such improvements. Wikipedia is never finished, and collaboration is to the betterment of the project. To delete the new version now would be to judge it prematurely. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, since the original patently does not "work great for the whole community". Furthermore, Alalch E. is as welcome as anyone else to a make or propose good-faith changes to the new, communal, version. But instead prefers to bandy about claims like "Inferior to the orignal [SIC] essay" without making any attempt to substantiate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I substantiated them in a separate reply that I posted a bit later, please see Special:Diff/1293795453.—Alalch E. 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Restore redirect. If someone wants a user-space essay, let them have a user-space essay. Forking it with an alternate version in Wikipedia space will cause people to assume that this is the more famous WP:THREE and is deeply misleading. If people want to create an alternate version, let them, but under a more distinct name and not hijacking any redirects. SnowFire (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: how can it be better that one editor i.e. Roy has the exclusive right to edit on this topic, which is clearly of value based on the number of links to WP:THREE? Wikipedia is a project based on collaboration. While he is entitled to keep his userspace version as he wants it, there's a clear need to have a version that the community can hone based on the principles of WP:BEBOLD and consensus? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's what user space essays are. If a user space essay is linked to a lot, that's cool. That's not a problem. If Roy wants to accept some edits and not others, that's up to him. IMO, we should be doing the reverse of this MFD and taking various opinionated Wikipedia-space essays and making them user-space essays instead. SnowFire (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forking is not evil, troublesome only. Forking is good if the forks then proceed in different directions. Does the new page take us ina different direction? If not, if it’s now a parallel track, then “Delete” is a sound argument. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore redirect why was it moved to WP space? simply bc others dislike the essay being in userspace (which per WP:USERESSAY the essay is allowed to exist in userspace, moving it to WP space is essentially an WP:ILIKEIT argument where others want to exert control over someoneelses essay, and as for I don't see evidence, in the page history, of RoySmith using such prerogative on multiple occasions to the extent that goes beyond what an author of a project space essay might do. Looking at the edit history it doesn't look like there has been that many changes by other people to determine that, wanting this essay in WP space smacks of what I would call "Reverse Ownership" where others believe that the author should relinquish all control of his own personal essay simply bc they like it and want to expand it wherein the author doesn't think it need expanding. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavalizard101: the problem that other editors had with the essay living in userspace is that it gives Roy sole veto on what it says. The community should be able to contribute by honing the essay in ways that are not possible with the status quo. It is one thing to look at the page history, there are other points of view expressed on its talk page, and likely pent up desire to make amendments which have been held back in the knowledge that Roy may revert. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Roy shouldn't be able to maintain his own version. See WT:Three best sources for some examples of ways that the essay can and should be improved, in the new location. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who have argued that we should 'restore the redirect' from WP:Three best sources to Roy's userspace essay, it is worth looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Three best sources which shows that only 11 pages link to WP:Three best sources, most of which are in the context of this MfD and it is only perhaps the Teahouse link that suggests anyone is currently using WP:Three best sources rather than referring to User:RoySmith/Three best sources or its shortcut, WP:THREE. So I don't think it can be argued that Pigsonthewing has usurped anything of special value. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree there's no special value to the WP:Three best sources redirect, given that nobody has ever linked to it, which is why I suggested (looking in @SmokeyJoe's direction) it be deleted. What I object to is deliberately using the same name as the existing essay, which is sure to confuse readers as to which they are reading. This is the reason we have, for example, WP:SIMILARNAME and WP:DOPP for usernames and templates like {{Distinguish}} for articles. There's a long and rich history of software projects being forked, but these forks generally pick new names to eliminate the confusion factor (ex. MariaDB) . Often the names themselves are forks of the original names (LibreOffice) or even puns (IceWeasel).

So, by all means you're entitled by the terms of CC SA-BY to reuse the text. Now just address the confusion issue by picking a non-confusing name. Perhaps WP:How to demonstrate notability or WP:A community guide to three best sources, or WP:Another take on three best sources. And get rid of the silly You are probably here because one or more other Wikipedia editors are considering whether an article or draft that you created should be part of Wikipedia or not, which is clearly not true because as @Curb Safe Charmer points out, there aren't any XfD discussions which link here. Maybe there will be at some point in the future; if so, then it'll make sense to add a statement like that. Until then, it only serves the purpose of confusing readers. As does the inclusion of the link to the /notes page in my user space. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can be useful without being linked to; they can also aid searches. Per WP:CHEAP, I think this redirect should be kept. It might not be essential, but it's also not problematic to keep it. I'd especially advocate keeping it now, now that the page title has history which may be of interest or use to editors in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at me? The idea of deleting the redirect is a follow up of the main proposal to rename the new fork essay. This is the wrong venue to propose a rename.

Nothing *needs* doing. This discussion belongs on a talk page, not at a week-limited deletion forum. However, some have argued for outright deletion of the new fork essay, so “speedy keep” is no longer on the table. So my !vote now is “Close, an out of scope nomination like this is a time-consuming train wreck”. Reserve MfD for articulated proposal to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 6 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.