Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable

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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable

I think this policy should be deleted. It's being used and thrown around way too much with the purpose of indirectly insulting many good-faith editors. I see it happening in a lot of talk pages and I think its negatives outweigh its positives — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatmanBw (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.... This essay isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline and we have WP:EM that acts as a counter viewpoint. Personally, I don't think editors who specialize in certain topics can be replaced. There are ares of Wikipedia within an interest area that have not received any major updates for 10+ years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is..... it is becoming a tool to discredit or dismiss editors who question another editor or a process. I also saw it being used out of context way too many times when it's completely uncalled for. It is also demoralizing for editors who have a passion for a certain topic who might in fact be irreplaceable, as you mentioned. CatmanBw (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the single best Wikipedia essay.—Alalch E. 14:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to tell us the reasons? I personally think that even if it is partially true, not everything that is true or partially true needs to be said out loud due to its demoralizing effect. Imagine if your boss at work gave you a link to this essay....how would you feel about going to work everyday now? Well Wikipedia editors are volunteers, so they don't get any pay for their work. You expect them to continue to keep editing when they are constantly being reminded that they can be easily replaced? CatmanBw (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The essay provides a reasonable perspective as well as advice. If it is being misused by some editors to attack or belittle others, then that is a behavioural issue for that specific editor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the essay itself is partially to blame though since it gives people the ability to misuse it. CatmanBw (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you post diffs or conversations were the essay has been misused? NotAGenious (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't keep note of the all the incidences but I posted an example below. It's not really being misused in this example; I just don't think it was needed here. The editor clearly had good intentions when starting the discussion. There was no need to to tell them that they are irreplaceable and demoralize them. CatmanBw (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this essay. It is not a policy. If you disagree with it, don't link to it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#CatmanBw_(talk_·_contribs)_edit_warring_/_deleting_deletion_proposal_(1rr_violation)_+_personal_attacks_on_identity. seems like a perfect spot to remind you that you are not irreplaceable. Bbb23 probably should've blocked you for WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT. I see you are also BLUDGEONing this MfD. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what triggered my request for deletion. I see it being used all the time when it's not really needed. | This is the latest example that I've seen
My point is that: Users are not really irreplaceable, a lot of areas stop getting edited when certain users leave. And even if it is partially true, the content of the essay is demoralizing. These are my reasonings on why it should be deleted. But as I see from the comments, the consensus will most likely be to keep. I am not trying to win any debates, I am just having a normal discussion where I present my point of view. CatmanBw (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, each individual editor with a high level of competency is actually very important to Wikipedia. I do not agree with this essay's meaning. That doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. CatmanBw (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An essay is an essay. It represents a perspective some editors hold. Keeping it is not an endorsement. If there's a persistent problem with people referencing it, one can always address it through editing. Something like the banner at the top of WP:CIR or the caveat in WP:POINT may be a good idea. Nardog (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I also think the banner is a good idea since the essay will most likely stay. CatmanBw (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely not. Perfectly valid essay and opinion. The fact that one or two jerks choose to use it to abuse other users does not discount its message, however much people may agree with it. Writer cannot control what other people do, and nominator should have care to stop bludgeoning the "keep" !votes. The practice is frowned upon. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid essay. Andre🚐 04:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a somewhat callous essay, which I often see used to justify unreasonably mean-spirited comments. But an essay nonetheless. I don't think deleting it would fix the problems here. jp×g 06:20, 4 October 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.