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. There is really no consensus here. Let us give ourselves some time and renominate say in half a year.Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OMGNUDEHUMANBODIES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is just plain disruptive, bordering on the farcical. Count Iblis thinks he is going to summarily move discussions from User talk:Jimbo Wales that he does not wish to be there, i.e. Wikipedia Commons porn/smut/pedophilia-related topics, and dump them onto the talk page of this 1-paragraph essay. I believe it is obvious all-around that that simply isn't going to happen. Jimbo has always let it be known that his talk page is like an open sounding board for community concerns, but as it is also in reality a user talk page, he can and does archive or even delete threads outright as he sees fit. As far as I am aware, Jimbo has not decreed that certain topics can be shunted off to other spaces, so the intent of this "essay" is for all intents and purposes moot. There has already been a tag-team attempt (Geni, Iblis) to close a discussion on Jimbo's page and ship it off here (since reverted by another editor). I will do the same myself if I see another attempt. It'd be best all around to throttle this thing in it's bed before it learns to walk. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc (who is himself a moderator of Jimbo's talk page), misrepresents what is going on here. Geni most likely isn't aware of this page. He removed a discussion he thought is inappropriate on Jimbo's talk page. His deletion was reverted and Geni reverted again. In such a case of a revert war on Jimbo's talk page involving yet another Commons thread, a good alternative to deletion is moving the page the talk page of this page. People can continue discussing the topic, a link on Jimbo's talk page will point to the discussion, while Jimbo's talk page will be free of yet another screen filling discussion on politically incorrect body part pictures on Commons. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regarding "a moderator of Jimbo's talk page", that's news to me. Is this a tenured position? Is there a stipend?

2. Regarding "a good alternative to deletion", I have a better alternative; mind your own business. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to the extent this is a mini-essay; otherwise delete. There may be the germ of a legitimate idea for a Wikipedia-space essay here, but this page is not it, and especially not under this title. Beyond that, the proposed plan of routinely moving things from Jimbo's talkpage to some other talkpage elsewhere strikes me as completely inappropriate, but MFD is probably not the best forum for discussing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the page has evolved significantly since I posted this comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if Jimbo wants conversations on his talk page to be routinely moved elsewhere he's perfectly capable of saying so himself. It isn't appropriate for other editors to take it upon themselves to do this. Hut 8.5 20:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find Count Iblis' chosen title to be pointy and insulting to many of those who participate in discussions of Commons. This is an extension of the tactic used by Count Iblis and others to dismiss discussions about Commons as an "anti-porn crusade". I am not anti-porn and there is no "anti-porn crusade". I have no problem at all with nudity. What I do have a problem with is the uploading of people's nude images on Commons without their consent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It expresses an opinion that some people disagree with, like, say, WP:Fancruft. If essays have to have consensus, there's quite a list of them to get rid of. If not, then let it sit. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until Jimbo decides. He may well wish to shunt the commons image discussions like this to another project or discussion forum. This page may stay as an essay, become a project, or just a sub-page of his talk page to discuss concerns on commons. I don't think it is a pointy page nor disruptive. Other readers can ignore links to it or add to sections there if they wish. If discussions are moved from there to here without permission or consensus then that would be pointy and disruptive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It certainly seems representative of some views in the community and thus is perfectly suitable as an essay.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a valid viewpoint and comment about Jimbo's talk page. Is there a reason that you're trying to censor this? Silverseren^C 03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the page has evolved significantly since some of the above comments were posted. This doesn't mean that all those comments are now irrelevant, but it bears on the suggestion that people are trying to censor something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this serves no purpose other than to be divisive. It ridicules and marginalizes those with whom the author disagrees. There's no way this is appropriate. --B (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Silver says, it's certainly a valid viewpoint and has some useful observations about the ongoing campaign by Wikipediocracy members on this topic. Prioryman (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the essay does it mention Wikipediocracy? Maybe you should add that, Wikipediocracy reader Prioryman... Don't forget to cite your sources... Carrite (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per canoe1967 Pass a Method talk 08:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not so much an essay as it is more of Count Iblis' POINTy nonsense. Resolute 13:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "I disagree with what you say but acknowledge your right to say it" is a good policy (within reason) and is operative here I think. I have argued for the deletion of other essays, but this one doesn't mean any of my criteria for essay deletion (or userfication), which are:

• Is it very badly written, semi-literate, complete nonsense, an egregiously unfunny attempt at humor, or somesuch? No, it's not. It's not great but it's within standards for a wikispace essay, I think.
• Does it make an extremely minor point, such that it's not worthwhile cluttering up essayspace with it? No, not in my opinion. It's a minor point but not completely trivial.
• Is there an existing essay(s) that make the points just as well? Not that I know of.
• Is it just one person's outré opinion, that at best only a very tiny minority would likely endorse? I don't think so, no. A minority, but not a very tiny or mad one.
• It it materially damaging to the Wikipedia to host it, such that a WP:IAR delete would be in order? No, it's not. It's just an essay. I'd rather it didn't exist, but it's not going to harm us to any great extent.
• Is it just trolling, or is there some other consideration such that a WP:IAR delete would be in order? Not that I can see.

To my mind the main purpose of essays is to provide a shortcut link such that one doesn't have to type or copy in the same arguments over and over, and this serves that purpose. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, not just for the closer, I encourage everyone to read this." It is permitted, I think, for editors who don't agree with the essay to add a section refuting the essay's point in a separate section. I wrote an essay, WP:HARDCORE, which argues that we shouldn't include hardcore porn images in Wikipedia articles. There was much fighting about this, it was MfD'd (and kept), there was edit warring within the article, it went to mediation, and so on, with the end result that the essay contains a section more or less the effect of "Why this essay is wrong". It' still there now I believe. I was against this and think it's an extremely bad idea, arguing that essays should not have to contain their own refutations and this would lead to constant sterile warring -- instead, writing a counter-essay and pointing to in in the original essay's "See also" section is fine and much more elegant and fair and productive. But I did not win that argument, so I'd have to say that the opposing principle was de facto established. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I guess -- and really has to be if we're to run this site on a fair basis -- so have at it me hearties and let us well use this two-edged blade gifted to us by the folks who so opposed [WP:HARDCORE]]. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WP:BOLLOCKS. — Scott • talk 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointy battleground essay. On the other hand, if you really want to greenlight this sort of paranoid crap, Wikipedia is not paper... Carrite (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, unless I get to rewrite it to give an accurate view of the opposing position Right now it's a misrepresentation of the opposition. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable request. After all, it should be in userspace if it were not publicly editable. And there shouldn't be any reason why both positions cannot be accurately rendered together. Of course, the fact that the essay is a thesis of the one side rather than the other should be preserved; it will be strengthened if it is rebutting a more realistic position rather than something viewed as a strawman. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. The inappropriate suggestion of moving discussions from Jimbo's talkpage to this page's talkpage seems to have been dropped (and in any event is unlikely to be allowed to be implemented), so there is no longer any good reason to delete the page outright. The page is now defensible as a Wikipedia space essay, since essays need not express majority or consensus views, but given its confrontational nature I think it probably belongs better in userspace. For what it's worth, see the talkpage of the essay for my view as to why the essay is overly simplistic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales. I don't have any policy-based rationale, but this seems reasonable to me. Optimom (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - When I sarcastically created the redlink, I didn't expect it to become blue. Well, I forgot the beans, apparently. However as it is now I feel it's a perfectly reasonable essay on a known community issue. Let's let it live. --Cyclopia^talk 11:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep My hunch was to userfy, that this really just represented one editor's hobby horse, but judging from the page's history, that doesn't seem to be the case. I still wouldn't object to userfication, but deletion seems a bridge too far. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to userfy. After further review of the page, I find it overly combative and ill-suited for W-space. I still wouldn't like to see it deleted outright, however. That feels like censorship, which would just be too ironic for my tastes. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or delete. This would be OK as a userspace essay, but I think it's too partial and intentionally provocative to be acceptable in Wikispace. Keeping this as a Wikispace essay (particularly under the current title) implies a kind of authority or widespread acceptance it doesn't currently have. Robofish (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or delete. An essay that almost exclusively pertains to some activity on Jimbo's talk page, as far as this Wikipedia is concerned anyway, doesn't belong in this Wikipedia's space. There is something called meta:; it may belong there because of the inter-project frictions. If this is kept, I expect WP:OMGWIKID77 to be created soon thereafter, because he takes so much space on Jimbo's talk page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and remove all shortcuts. Fine for a personal essay; does not have widespread acceptance and so does not belong in project space. --Jayron32 02:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy seems like a valid viewpoint to me, and I do agree with a few things mentioned in the essay. Legoktm (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is whether or not it's a valid viewpoint – or whether people agree with it – it's about if this is appropriate enough for a mainspace essay and if it wasn't simply written out of battlefield mentality. — Richard BB 07:37, 20 June 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.