Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipediocracy

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: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipediocracy

Attack page. -Lemonaka‎ 14:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support anything which stops this being a projectspace essay. Doesn't meet the standard of projectspace-worthiness because it is not about Wikipedia, but about Wikipediocracy. That is incompatible with WP:ESSAYPAGES. —Alalch E. 16:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn. I object to your restoration of an inferior and completely different revision, the version at the time of nomination is much better. The inferior historical version is not the essay that was nominated for deletion. I repeat, I object to this weak, originally researched, non-neutral, polemical non-essay (not about Wikipedia) content that you've restored, so please don't restore it again. —Alalch E. 16:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought that if an essay is nominated for deletion it should be the version with the most content (the present version certainly has nothing going for it). I didn't deeply read or judge the content other than check to see if it was at least presentable in English. I have no opinion on the merits or the scope of the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Randy -- we should have the most useful version, not the most recent. Policy allows improving an article during discussion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an improvement. The form of the essay at the time of the nomination was what the original author of the essay came up with, and another editor made some edits to it. I oppose your revert to an abandoned historical version, as it is worse, not better. More characters does not signify an improvement in itself. I stated multiple reasons for why the old revision should not be restored. Please state reasons for why your preferred version is better, apart from consisting of more characters. —Alalch E. 03:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your preferred article is more of an attack article. In particular, see the Randy’s 2 fixes to your version:

1, 2

Are those comments you really wanted Alalch?

-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are irrelevant details. Contrarily, is it true that you believe that "All constructive criticism should be accompanied with a proposed solution" makes for good content in a projectspace Wikipedia essay? It's a totalitarian thought. It's a million times worse than "Cry more, suckers". Apparently, the author wasn't so confident about this content so they removed it, along with most of the rest of the non-topical (not about Wikipedia), originally researched, non-neutral, polemical content unsuitable for projectspace under Wikipedia:Project namespace.—Alalch E. 03:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need/want a Wikipedia space essay about Wikipediocracy? I'm not hostile to Wikipediocracy - I find many comments there interesting and helpful. But do we need an essay in Wikipedia space -- effectively something that's semi-official? I have my doubts but I'm interested in others' thoughts.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as inappropriate for project space, or Redirect to Wikipediocracy, which is good enough for project space because it is good enough for article space. or both Userfy and Redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just going to be a divisive internal political football that brings out the worst in editors; see Randy Kryn's removals of attacks just this week: 1, 2

Among our admins and most active editors, a substantial number follow Wikipediocracy and many even post there; another large number can't abide the site and would like to blacklist it. For this reason, we're unlikely to find a consensus for any sort of Wikipediocracy essay beyond:

- "Wikipediocracy exists. We can't agree on what to say about it. The end."

We don't need an essay like that nor do we need an attack essay. Editors should ignore or read Wikipediocracy as they see fit without instruction from an essay.

Wikipedia's and Wikipediocracy's servers are both legally and physically hosted in America where, when told what to do or believe, the inhabitants are prone to feistily retort, "hey, this is a free country, I can do what I want".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and A. B. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the indented conversation happening directly in between Lemonaka's and A. B.'s posts above. Proof positive that it needs to go. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:03, 9 November 2023 (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.