Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article

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: No consensus to delete, therefore userfy * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) NotAGenious (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, not prime for project space, this is not a good application of WP:NOR or even reflected in policy or practice. I'd suggest userifying back to this (now-blocked) user's userspace or outright deletion. Awesome Aasim 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Confusing is putting it mildly. I'm not sure what the point of this was and, as the author is blocked, there is little chance of finding out. From the incoming links it doesn't look like anybody other than the author cared about it but I'd have no objection to it being draftified if anybody else thinks that they can do something valid with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When checking the incoming links I found a redirect from User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay6 and that worried me. So I went looking for other redirects like that and it looks like we may have another page of a similar nature: User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay5 -> Wikipedia:Prefer truth. That seems like an attempt to undermine several of our fundamental policies and looks even more deletable than this one. Fortunately, that seems to be the only other one. Should we add Wikipedia:Prefer truth to this MfD or start a separate one? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe a separate one so that there's less chance of WP:TRAINWRECK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense. Thanks. I've started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prefer truth. DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this was part of a vanity project by a now-blocked user, attempting to reinterpret Wikipedia's core values in a manner that suited their preferred outcomes. It's not an essay reflecting how Wikipedia approaches article creation, but just an attempt to convince others to follow their preferred style. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to User:Sennalen/Write the Infinite Article. Should have been in userspace. Is ok in userspace. Is unrelated to their being blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the user having the right, if unblocked, to request refund of this essay to project space. The author has been blocked by Arbitration Enforcement for tendentious editing. This essay defends the editor's outlook on controversial editing, and should only be kept or restored if the user is unblocked. The user is currently discussing making an unblock request, but has not yet made such a request. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom although allow restoration to user space if the user ever becomes unblocked (although... not trying to throw shade here... but it's clearly not ready for prime time as not particularly helpful in its current form). SnowFire (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Doesn't look like it's something that "must be removed" Tehonk (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. The essay, in its current state, does appear vague, unfocused, and more philosophical than practical, but I see no reason not to return it to the author’s namespace. Deleting it because of this would feel to me like WP:GRAVEDANCING. – XMcan (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting a wiki-essay by an indeffed editor, which has no bearing on the development of an encyclopaedia, doesn't qualify as "gravedancing" in any discernable sense, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, you are not impartial (excuse the pun) ;).............. XMcan (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why you are linking a (badly) failed ARE action by the indef-blocked author of the essay, in this context. It doesn't have any bearing on the fate of this essay, that I can see. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It could have bearing on your vote and it could explain your urge to comment on my vote. XMcan (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of these sound like WP:ASPERSIONS about my behaviour, which would be WP:UNCIVIL on your part and also off-topic for this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, I'd urge the retraction of the aspersions by XMcan; not collegiate behavior and it actually undermines your own argument to userfy. Tossing up a winky emote next to it doesn't make it any less uncivil, particularly since your subsequent comment indicated that you were indeed being serious. (Tone tags are actually a better idea if you're trying to be sarcastic.) _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this essay doesn't help anyone edit on wikipedia, doesn't (apparently) interest anyone on wikipedia, and isn't likely to be made relevant so long as its author is indef-blocked. Should this latter situation change, of course, they could ask for a WP:REFUND. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and HandThatFeeds. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per nom, as it belongs in user space. The fact that the editor is blocked is not relevant. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak userfy essentially per PK3 and my arguments in yonder MFD. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly split between deleting and userfying, with strong arguments from both sides. Those for userfying argue that these kinds of opinions are fine on userspace and that the creator being blocked is irrelevant. Arguments for deletion have been centered around the fact that the essay is confusing, misleading or an attempt to convince others to follow a preferred interpretation of NOR. Relisting to allow further comments to be made
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - as with my other comment at the 'prefer truth' deletion discussion, essay is not suitable for WP space, but no evidence has been presented that this essay contains anything that users may WP:UPNOT have in their user pages.  Tewdar  11:59, 6 March 2024 (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.