Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What does 'per' mean?

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What does 'per' mean?

Maybe this is just me, but this essay seems very pedantic. Perhaps others agree, as it has no links from the Talk or Wikipedia talk spaces (two in User talk and one in Template talk). I've never seen anything to make me think there's much confusion as to what "per" means. It seems a solution in search of a problem. BDD (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete wtf is this? If you don't know what a word means look it up in a dictionary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This describes the usage in a wikipedia discussion context. This is what essays do, they more broadly explain things. The idea I presume is to supplement WP:CON, and show that editors shouldn't merely "vote". In addition this (as noted on the page) is apparently intended as a help page for newbies. Expressing a policy/guideline based reasoning rather than merely stating opinion can often have more "weight" in a discussion and can affect the closure. We do not "count votes" here, after all. - jc37 18:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (lol) jc37. I don't see anything wrong in this essay (nothing like WP:NOESSAY). And as jc states above, it explains how the term is used in context of Wikipedia discussion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jc37 (couldn't resist.) The essay could use cleanup, but I think explaining some of the more technical terms of Wikipedia's bureaucracy could be helpful. OSborn ^arf_contribs.
Keep per above . While it isn't particularly useful to most people and is rather hard to find for those who may need it (better linking would help here), there's no harm - in fact there's a benefit, however small - in having pages explaining WP jargon. Ansh6 6 6 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that it was intended as a "help" page, but was edit-warred and MfD'd in its early history (I don't know the editors, but I suspect WP:POINT), after which the compromise was to make it an essay. Ansh6 6 6 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't find it to be a particularly good or well-written essay the same could be said of many others like it. That in and of itself is not a reason to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2013 (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.