Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery

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 speedy deletion per G7. So Why 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery

Textbook POINT fork of WP:PUFF (seriously, it's an example in POINT) -- Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I created the fork because User:DGG added the self-contradictory material to WP:PUFF that didn't really belong there,[1] but I didn't want to censor his opinion. As long as the material doesn't end up in WP:PUFF, I am indifferent to whether there is an independent essay. THF (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for the removal of the content from the original essay: "From WP:ESSAY: If you do not want other people to edit your essay, put it in your userspace." THF, you do not own the essay. I'm prepared to do some rewording, but Perhaps we might even work something out together. (Ijust made some modifications in the text--I removed one sentence that was a little confusing in the present context.) If Stifle and I could work out a deletion review comment together as a joint comment, anything is possible. I should say I was deliberately writing in the style of Arguments to Avoid. Showing the two sides of something is a way to clarify the meaning. I'd have appreciated being notified before forking. I get to everything on my watchlist, but not immediately.
Sceptre, which example in POINT is this? I think this is no more POINTy than THF's which you closed as a snow keep in 3 hours before I or almost anything had a chance to see it , either. I think your actions are what's pointy and unreasonable. (pointy is apparently the strongest term to use in one of these discussions that does not violate NPA)
As a separate essay, if that is how it comes out, this is probably not the best title, so I could either move it or rewrite the material. Comes to the same thing. My first thought for the new title would be Destruction of content. DGG (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of a separate essay is POINT, not the opinion itself. To be honest, it's not an example in POINT as I thought (creating an opposing essay out of annoyance), but it is a POINT violation. I think PUFF could do with a sentence or two saying that it does work both ways. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "But see" accomplishes the same result as adding lines to the essay, though I wouldn't object to the line "The opposite of Wikipuffery is insert name, and can also be a problem" or some such. There's certainly a need for a term that describes editors who inappropriately strip an article or category, and then nominate the carcass for deletion; I'm surprised that there isn't. THF (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a WP:OWN issue, we're in the WP:BRD process. You boldly added, I reverted, we'll discuss. I don't think it belongs in WP:PUFF because it makes the essay self-contradictory. Your point about copyright violations was good, and I kept it. I haven't challenged edits made by other editors, either. THF (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) mooted by retraction THF (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I closed the MfD, I added onto the end of the first paragraph, "Obversely, but far less regularly, editors may understate the notability of a subject to support deletion." because it does happen, though over-inflation is way more common. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whatever the motive for creation, it seems to be OK as an essay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People are entitled to their opinions. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about people having their own opinions; this is a near cutpaste of the original, with some words changed. I think DGG never meant for this to be as its own page, but as an opposing point of view on the same page. THF probably over-reacted by creating the anti-puffery page, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into WP:PUFF, or if there are ownership issues there, userfy WP:PUFF. WP:PUFF is evidently created as a provocation, it alleges a balanced view with its "mention" of antipuffery, which supposedly occurs "far less regularly". A snow keep of WP:PUFF after a mere three hours sows doubts of good faith. This has the hallmark of bipartisan tactics, of the most disappointing kind. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of seldom-read essays in userspace, this one's no worse than many others, and a lot better than some. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never really meant to get things involved to this degree. For several reasons, I'd like to delete my essay under G7, and reconstitute the same ideas in a more extended format. I've been wanting to do that for some time--my talk page is much too long with things I think important to have available, and I ought to move them to WP essays or essay user subpages where I can work on them more carefully than a debate permits. I apologize to THF for raising WP:OWN. I did not mean to take his work and twist it to a somewhat different direction, and what I wrote there was probably a little excessive for just cautioning about not using this for a wrong purpose--the problem he is primarily talking about is real also & I too try to remove the sort of content he has in mind, and it is often extremely difficult to do so. I'll remember to ask him for help next time I have a problem with this, and I'm available if he needs me. So perhaps someone will close this and do the deletion. I'll make a comment on my talk p. when my essay is ready. I appreciate Sceptre's efforts to clear this up, though I think everyone may have done things a little too quickly. DGG (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about you move the article to you userspace - userfy it, then we could close off the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If DGG is satisfied with using the pre-fork history of the original Wikipuffery essay, I think it's fine to speedy delete this fork per his suggestion. Flatscan (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG added this section to WP:PUFF and THF then moved it here, 7 minutes after I incorrectly started the MfD on PUFF. THF had notice of the impending MfD, and moved the article here anyway, incorrectly thinking it was my contributions. Sceptre closed the MfD on puff after 2 hours 55 minutes, created this MfD on THF's fork, and contibuted to the original WP:PUFF article. A person can reasonably deduce that this is an attempt, by a very involved administator, to remove any counter viewpoint in the essay. Ikip (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else see the irony in an inclusionist asking us to assume good faith with new editors coming into an MfD and assuming bad faith with established editors and admins? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments over title do not amount to an argument for deletion. The only question is the essay an appropriate use for the space it is in. The answer is yes. Any other actions do not fall under MfD. Collect (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Puff, creator of puff moved this 7 minutes after incorrectly started the MfD on PUFF. Ikip (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. It is a fork, and forks should usually be "merged and redirected" and this is not an exception. Views and counter views should be acknowledged in the same place, consistent with WP:NPOV, which, although it is only *Required* in mainspace, should be an explicit goal of project space pages, and probably userspace too. Disagree that there is content deleteable under G7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G7-inspired IAR (doesn't technically qualify) per DGG. THF's explicit approval in addition to his neutral comment would be helpful, but I think it's unnecessary. DGG is the original author of the content and no substantial changes have been made since the fork. Ikip's and Sceptre's edits are confined to the MfD tagging. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to a G7. If you need official approval, you have that, too. THF (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism. It's what current page is about, removal of contents with a sole purpose of passing a bad-faith afd. Somehow the original issue of puffery has been lost in translation. NVO (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'd be obliged if User:Sceptre finds evidence that this text actually disrupts wikipedia. It's what WP:POINT is about, disruption. How could a two days old, one paragraph long wikibabble disrupt anything, pray tell me? NVO (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre's already retracted the POINT accusation. THF (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still discussing this? It looks like the authors agree to it being deleted, so there is nothing relevant left to debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (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.