Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was No consensus.

If there are 10 subsections, I think we can safely say that consensus won't be found using an MfD discussion :-)

Regular discussion might still work though. For starters, try taking it to Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza.

Kim Bruning 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I realize this is an unusual place to add a comment, but as a second admin I fully concur with Kim's decision. There are good arguments for reform and changes of Esperanza, but at this point the MfD format is hindering progress in those discussions. There won't be any consensus here, so there's no need to carry on. -- SCZenz 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I endorse Kim Bruning's "ruling", as well. 1ne 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From MFD page

CLICK HERE TO EDIT THE MFD.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza is not transcluded here because after about 12 hours the page is already approaching 200KB in size. Only the nomination is included below for reference. Click one of the links above (not the section [edit] link) to edit or view this MfD.

• Also included in this nomination: all subpages, and associated talk pages. I suppose people might want to userfy some of the pages for archival reasons if this is deleted, and I can't imagine that would be a problem.
  

Esperanza is an idea that, in theory, sounds like it could do a lot of good, but in practice has proven itself quite harmful to our project culture. It, more than anything else, gives new users the idea that Wikipedia place for socializing rather than working on an encyclopedia. Before people comment on this nomination, I'd like to ask them to browse through the Coffee lounge, talk pages, and archives. Note that many of the people involved with Esperanza are relatively new users, and ask yourself if we are doing the project or these new users a service by presenting them with the notion that this is what Wikipedia is about--and I submit that people most certainly are getting that notion.

Esperanza's stated goal is to build a stronger sense of community amongst editors, but I believe it has failed in that goal, and has actually become detrimental to the construction of a stronger editing community. There is, of course, room for friendship and socialization in a project like Wikipedia, but it must be in a form constructive towards the purpose of the project. Userpage competitions, bimonthly popularity-contests-in-the-form-of-leadership-elections, and canned good cheer are not the building blocks of a healthy working community; collaboration and mutual respect are. By drawing some new users away from the business of building the encyclopedia, Esperanza is impeding their induction into a community based on those principles.

I mean no disrespect with this nomination to the members of and parcipants in Esperanza, and I hope that none is inferred; the organization's membership rolls include a great number of editors who have made superb contributions across the encyclopedia. I firmly believe, however, that Esperanza as an institution is harming the culture and progress of the project, and I therefore propose that we delete it. --Robth^Talk 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: If the decision is to delete, the following copies of this page that have been made since this MfD was opened should go also:

• User:Monkey13/Esperanza

[edit] Wikipedia:Esperanza

Shortcut: WP:MFD/EA

Contents 1 From MFD page 2 Wikipedia:Esperanza 2.1 Random section break 1 2.2 Random section break 2 2.3 Random section break 3 2.4 Random section break 4 2.5 Random section break 5 2.6 Random section break 6 2.7 Random section break 7 2.8 Random section break 8 2.9 Random Section Break 9 2.10 Random Section Break 10

• Also included in this nomination: all subpages, and associated talk pages. I suppose people might want to userfy some of the pages for archival reasons if this is deleted, and I can't imagine that would be a problem.
  

Esperanza is an idea that, in theory, sounds like it could do a lot of good, but in practice has proven itself quite harmful to our project culture. It, more than anything else, gives new users the idea that Wikipedia place for socializing rather than working on an encyclopedia. Before people comment on this nomination, I'd like to ask them to browse through the Coffee lounge, talk pages, and archives. Note that many of the people involved with Esperanza are relatively new users, and ask yourself if we are doing the project or these new users a service by presenting them with the notion that this is what Wikipedia is about--and I submit that people most certainly are getting that notion.

Esperanza's stated goal is to build a stronger sense of community amongst editors, but I believe it has failed in that goal, and has actually become detrimental to the construction of a stronger editing community. There is, of course, room for friendship and socialization in a project like Wikipedia, but it must be in a form constructive towards the purpose of the project. Userpage competitions, bimonthly popularity-contests-in-the-form-of-leadership-elections, and canned good cheer are not the building blocks of a healthy working community; collaboration and mutual respect are. By drawing some new users away from the business of building the encyclopedia, Esperanza is impeding their induction into a community based on those principles.

I mean no disrespect with this nomination to the members of and parcipants in Esperanza, and I hope that none is inferred; the organization's membership rolls include a great number of editors who have made superb contributions across the encyclopedia. I firmly believe, however, that Esperanza as an institution is harming the culture and progress of the project, and I therefore propose that we delete it. --Robth^Talk 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: If the decision is to delete, the following copies of this page that have been made since this MfD was opened should go also:

• User:Monkey13/Esperanza

Just a note: this dramatic attempt to backup and try to save the content is absolutely and completely unnecessary for the following reasons:

1. If something gets deleted, it doesn't just go *poof* - administrators are able to view deleded edits of pages and I'll gladly provide the deleted content to those interested in moving it elsewhere, however...
2. ...if the decision is to migrate the content, I don't think anyone will go on killing sprees - we'd move and delete things gradually - don't be concerned that anything gets lost.
3. Finally, if the decision is an absolute deletion, then that's it - it's not supposed to be recreated in userspace and would be speediable per WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of deleted material.

Regards, Misza13 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(I think the migrate idea is to reform/refactor material that can be legit, not just a simple copy and paste recreation.) JoeSmack ^Talk 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Delete - I agree with Robth. When Esperanza got started, it had a cool idea and a good ideal base. But recently, I've seen some very disturbing trends from some Esperanza members. The feeling, based on multiple statements, that Esperanzan projects should be exempted from rules and policies. The almost arrogant way they claim that if we shut down certain Esperanza projects like the coffee lounge, that we might as well shut down Wikipedia. The sheer mass of the Esperanza projects that do not lead to improving Wikipedia. I'm aware this may make me pretty unpopular, but I don't care, Esperanza is not helping the community, and it is rapidly becoming a sinkhole. There are a LOT of good editors who are a member of the project, and this is not a slam against them. Sadly, there are a few Esperanzans who do live up to the ideals of the original project, and I regret this will make them feel hurt, but I cannot do otherwise. Policies I cite: WP:NOT a social network. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Keep Here we go. Well, for starters, Esperanza does work. Talk to a number of editors, me, E@L, Spawn Man, I'm sure other, and they'll tell you that what Esperanza does, works. It has helped many good contributors to both calm down when in the past they have been, shall we say, rather loose cannons, and it has stopped people from leaving. Secondly, I have met with some great wikipedians in Esperanza, wikipedians who, in turn, have helped me develop into what I consider an alright wikipedia, who helps this project. So, I quite strongly disagree with that Esperanza's primary goal has failed. You may also want to look at our Collaboration of the Month. True, our main goal is to help wikipedia's editors, and to strengthen our community, we also work towards imporving the encyclopedia. Admittedly, this was created not even a week ago, so right now, it is still not in full swing, but I think, at the very least, this is more than a statement of intent. So when the nom says "...collaboration and mutual respect are." (the way to a healthy working community), I'd agree. But what the nom hasn't add is that is what Esperanza is doing. II'm not for a second say Esperanza is perfect. It isn't. I'd love to see more projects like COTM started, and we are working towards that. I have also never been too fond of the Coffee Lounge. It's helpful to see areas of wikipedia that need attention, or to hear about an incident on wikipedia that may need admin attention, but I often feel that it detarcts from both Wikipedia and Esperanza. Again, things are being done to combat how much time is spent on the coffee lounge. As I say, Esperanza isn't perfect. I'm not, you're not, Wikipedia is not. But at the sametime, It does a lot of good. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thε Halo ^Θ 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Huh? Anyway, Esperanza's not just 'far from perfect', it's getting to be a waste of time. The Coffee Lounge is a waste of time. Going to people's talk pages and starting completely off-topic discussions is a waste of time. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how Esperanza's so good for the community. If someone really needs help cooling off in an edit war, they can talk with other users. That's just my take on things; and by the way, this can't be speedy kept. 1ne 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How exactly is it a waste of time? If you don't want to participate, don't. I'm not a big fan of the Coffee Lounge either, but that is only one page of Esperanza. Do you have any actual experience with Esperanza? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • He does. He, and a whole host of others "left" Esperanza early this morning: [1]. Thε Halo ^Θ 17:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The central idea may or may not be good, but the cruft and attitude that has grown around it is inimical to the encyclopedia and has not been reigned in by Esperanza "leaders". (Regarding the collaboartion of the month, I do wonder what would happen if the Esparanzans voted on a certain article organization and including certain information, and the American historian who happened to be peacefully editing the article was suddenly onslaughted by them.)—Centrx→talk • 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not appreciate that comment. If an American historian came along, it would in fact be incredibly awesome, as we could use the help. Don't provoke me; I am at the end of my civility cord. DoomsDay349 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While I favor this proposal, I'm refraining from labelling this comment as a delete because I fear that this nomination is going to cause a lot of ill will. I completely agree that Esperanza has good intentions, but that the ideal is separated from the reality at this point. Rather than deleting, however, I would favor making this a discussion (and this is probably not the place to do it) on how Esperanza can refocus their efforts in a way that puts the emphasis back on supporting the creation of an encyclopedia rather than what I see as the current over-emphasis on feel-good social engineering. Just my two cents. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So you think it should be deleted, but you don't want to vote delete because you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Not exactly "not hurt their feelings", but because I don't know if a deletion discussion is the most constructive way to correct the problem. I actually considered making this proposal a couple days ago, so my comment reflects some of the consideration I had then. I think there is some good in there that is worth preserving amongst all the foolishness. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    To Doug; there is in fact a lot going on to help reform Esperanza. I understand the concerns, and am not here solely to argue my point with no defense. The Collaboration of the Month is the first step to this; it's a reform that's come late, but it will come. I'm hoping to start a snowball effect with that project, and maybe we can one day get enough users for a weekly Collaboration. Remember, lot's of good things underwent reforms and turned out better; the Gregorian Reformation, the Protestant Reformation... so my only two examples are Church related. They sprang to mind. DoomsDay349 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, although with no malice. The welcoming committee is a good thing, but that existed before Esperanza. The Esperanza CotM is a marginally good thing, I suppose, but it's the only collaboration type that is defined by who edits the article, not by what article is about, and I don't see that as a good precedent. If the members did not have the Esperanza CotM, and could only work on one of the dozens of other weekly/monthly collaborations, I don't see a problem. Esperanza as a subgroup is not inline with what Wikipedia is, IMHO. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Before you make the decision, please also consider the following sub pages:
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Tutorial Drive Designed to improve help pages to provide more specific answers to commonly asked questions dealing with some of the technical minutae of editing.
    • (These all seem redundant, I've linked corresponding programs that already exist Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC))Wikipedia:Help desk
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month designed to target a specific article for improvement each month. Currently working on American Revolution
    • (many other collaborations linked elsewhere)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Barnstar Brigade designed to recognize the contributions of deserving parties in all of wikipedia.
    • (Addressed below)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching designed to provide one-on-one coaching by admins or other highly experienced users for new users to better learn the intricacies of proper editing at wikipedia
    • Wikipedia:Mentorship / Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts Designed to provide support for good editors who are in danger of leaving Wikipedia for various reasons, and to attempt to keep them and their positive contributions around.
    • See above.

  I will concede that certain aspects of Esperenza subculture (the coffee lounge, the userpage focused subsections) stray into the non-sequitur quite often, but also consider that OTHER subpages of worthwhile ventures at Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and various aspects of Wikipedia:Reference desk also go well beyond what one would normally consider worthwhile at Wikipedia. It is unreasonable to condemn an entire enterprise like Esperenza simply because of a few questionable messages left at the Coffee Lounge. With any community as large as Wikipedia, are there going people who do not get with the program. So be it. The fact is, the core of Esperanza is quite involved in improving Wikipedia in very direct ways, and not just by "raising morale". If there are subpages at Esperanza you would consider not in with the mission of Wikipedia (I have found a few I would not object to losing), then nominate them for deletion. Consensus held, for example, that the Games page was deletable, and it went bye-bye. But to condemn the entire enterprise, in light of the fact that on the balance, it DOES do very direct, specific things to expand and improve wikipedia, is unreasonable. --Jayron32 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  All of these things can be done, and in many cases are already done, separately from Esperanza. Also, Admin coaching is actually a bad idea, and handing out barnstars to all and sundry is demeaning. —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I have to second the opinion that admin coaching is a bad idea (along with editor reviews). They're silly. And while I think barnstars are a fine way of recognizing contributions, they lose their value when a group is actively looking for reasons to hand them out. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I agree that admin coaching is a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with the editor review process at Wikipedia:Editor review, which is outside Esperanza. Carcharoth 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep. I do agree about the Coffee Lounge being deleted. I think it's worthless. However, Esperanza does help the encyclopedia so I'm saying keep for the entire thing (except the coffee lounge). TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I tend to agree with Doug Bell that deletion right now would create a lot of hurt feelings. However, my opinion has been changing in the recent weeks and drifting towards ideas like transwikiing the entire idea to, say Wikia and leaving only a redirecting stub on Wikipedia. I believe however, that this is not an issue to be decided on MfD (Village Pump maybe?). Misza13 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What about taking it to meta? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Esperanza would be laughed out of meta. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Compared to a few other "organizations" on Meta?--TBCΦtalk? 05:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not as active in Esperanza as I used to be and so am a little out of date, but I think that it has a valuable role to play - at the very least it does far more good than harm. We do not have an issue with resources here and some of the programs that Esperanza organises are very useful. For example, the admin coaching while backlogged can help a lot, and there is nothing wrong with more forums for debate. It's all in the Wikipedia: namespace, so it can't affect casual browsers. —Xyrael / 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or close. If the problem is that some of the projects end up not helping Wikipedia, then put those up on MFD. I very highly doubt a MFD of all of Esperanza, all its projects, and its subpages will achieve any kind of consensus, given how large the group itself is (and the fact that it exists on other Wikipedias does not help). This is an issue for something such as Meta or the Village Pump, not for MFD. --Coredesat 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Mmmmm! ...has proven itself quite harmful to our project culture. It, more than anything else, gives new users the idea that Wikipedia place for socializing rather than working on an encyclopedia. Where is the harmful thing in that Robth?

Note that many of the people involved with Esperanza are relatively new users... No, If you have ever read some sections at the coffee lounge, many users celebrated their 1,000 edits!!! I also bet that you haven't eben read the membership requirements.

You state that Esperanza's stated goal is to build a stronger sense of community amongst editors, but I believe it has failed in that goal. Another important thing to note here is that Esperanza has contributed enough to the project. Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs is the proof. I am sorry therefore to disagree w/ every single point you raised. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I also agree somehow w/ Doug Bell and I must add that a project w/ 707 active members is not a joke. Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'd like to start off by thanking the nominator and most of the delete votes. When I heard this MfD was about to occur, I was afraid this would become a near-sighted attack of Esperanza's members. However, everything so far as been very respectful and well thought-out, and I appreciate that. I agree that at times Esperanzans do more socializing than should be expected, particularly in the Coffee Lounge. However, as a whole, I believe Esperanza is living up to its goals. I could quote the entire introduction on WP:ESP, but I'm sure everyone can read that for themselves. The bottom line is that improving the community does in fact improve the encyclopedia. One of the major things Esperanza does is user appreciation and retention. User appreciation -> users staying on the project -> more contributions -> better encyclopedia. Furthermore, every step Esperanza has taken in the past three months has been towards making it a more encyclopedic project. We have redefined our goals, stressing that "members of Esperanza are here to create an encyclopedia." We have encouraged users to make useful tutorials and collaborate on articles. We have awarded more than 200 barnstars to deserving contributors, and attempted to help the next generation of admins become thoroughly versed in policy and other things every admin should know. If other users think we should double our efforts to define and shape Esperanza as a better project, I'm all for it. But I think the bottom line is that Esperanza is doing much more good than harm, so I say keep. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 18:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.- I'd like to echo previous editors that if there are certain subpages of Esperanza that you feel should be deleted, I encourage you to nominate those individually so we can have a more specific and detailed debate about those. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 18:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep What is this fresh madness? I do feel strongly against this deletion proposal, considering the potential Esperanza has and how far it has come already in achieving its potential. The day Wikipedia functions in harmony is the day we should see this page again - but something tells me that won't happen for a long long time. May I suggest that backers have a look at the Charter to see what we are really all about? Cheers. Anthonycfc (talk • email) {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAYNAME}} [[{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}]] [[{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] (UTC)

I have. The problem is that the Charter is not being followed. When I hear Esperanzans complaining about the Games being up for AfD like it's some kind of outrage and "well, if you delete that you might as well delete everything else" and proposed policy statements putting Esperanzans as equal to admins to chastise people for being uncivil, I worry. The charter is a charter. Many people have reservations about how it's being followed. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 18:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Jayron32. If certain projects are a problem, lets discuss those, not toss the whole lot. Shell ^babelfish 18:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Xyrael. Will ^{(message ♪)} 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not April 1st already is it? --Alf ^melmac 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen a lot more distracting socializing than actual encyclopedia work done around esperanza, but I'm not ready to pass a wholesaale deletion judgment. As for the barnstars, I've noticed that they tend to get tossed around very freely there--half a dozen went out to the people who left sympathy messages on the talk page of a user who left without explanation. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community only so far as it contributes to the building of an encyclopedia, and much of this is a distraction from that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, with or without Esperanza, the value of barnstars is really up to the individual contributors. The Esperanza program that encourages barnstars says, "This does not mean that Barnstars are given away for the sake of giving them away, and it does not mean Barnstars awarded via the project are obligatory awards not to be taken seriously. Barnstars will still be awarded for demonstrable good work, and will remain a symbol for valuable contributors. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars; it merely aims to look a bit harder than usual for such contributions." For example, all of the barnstars I've awarded have been for encyclopedic purposes. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The concern here is, as throughout this nomination, is that intent and effect have diverged. Several people have cited various of Esperanza's written rules and guidelines while arguing to keep, and I agree that many of those rules and guidelines are written with good intent and, specifically, with the goal of encouraging involvement in the actual work of encyclopedia building. It does not appear to me that these guidelines have overcome the tendency of Esperanza to serve as a distracting influence and a detriment to the process of integrating all users into a community centered around collective effort on the project. --Robth^Talk 18:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reading the comments from people who signed up for Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#Barnstar Brigade makes me shudder. About a quarter of the comments are of the effect giving out barnstars is fun, I'm going to give out a bunch. This is not an example I would use to argue for keeping Esperanza. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I completely concur with this. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I think this organization is getting out of hand. First of all, we are an encylopedia, not a social networking site. Esperanza is not conductive to the task of encyclopedia editing. Second of all, I have referred many a person to Wikipedia that have been turned off Wikipedia by the actions of Esperanza and it's members. This is not productive to the community. We should be encouraging people to join, not discouraging them. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia's five pillars - the first pillar is that this is an encyclopedia. I hardly think Esperanza is encyclopedic, and I doubt anyone would contest that. It is that simple. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 18:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment neither is Wikipedia:Department of Fun want that and all similar ones gone too?--Alf ^melmac 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment - absolutely, i do. i'm not into exceptions. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination; Esperanza looks like some sort of popularity contest. I don't see its usefulness. _JD^talk 18:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Esperanza is a well established, highly proven and successful organisation (as it were) on Wikipedia. It has a big following a lot of support and thus is very effective in supporting people within Wikipedia. It achieves its goals and is a huge benefit to Wikipedia. All this nomination shows is the sheer boredom of such nominators, driving them to nominate organisations that are clearly successful and positive within Wikipedia as a whole - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask you to assume good faith. This nomination was made in good faith with a reasonable explanation. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make the nominator a bad person. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - i have news for you. it is not 'clearly successful' (as per nom). and saying we're 'merely bored' for voting/noming here doesn't add anything to the argument but insults. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I echo the sentiments above. Esperanza is not perfect, but neither is Wikipedia. And what EWS said is perfectly true: stronger community > better Wikipedia. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - even if it violates the 1st pillar (WP:5P)? the pillars are foundational. i think wikipedia has a strong community already, and i think community can exist outside of esperanza. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd much rather have a community built around ... you know, actually building the encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia already does have a vibrant encyclopedia-writing community anyway, and advancing the claim that without Esperanza Wikipedia would lack a community is very denigrating to the real community that actually gets articles written. --Cyde Weys 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia and community in general can exist without Esperanza; I never said it couldn't. What I do believe, however, is that Wikipedia would have fewer strong contributors and a worse atmosphere than it currently does.

(edit conflict) Adressing your point of the five pillars, I don't believe that it does violate "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". We help the encyclopedia, not only in our specific programs, but by motivating the "workforce". People can't work nonstop, and there's no reason why a small amount of not-directly-on-topic-activity should be disallowed. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a motivation seminar. Allowing 'small amounts' of whatever is relative; like i said up higher: im not into exceptions. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Motivate was the wrong word. And anyway, I know that without Esperanza, I would be even less active than I am currently. And I'm not arguing for exceptions. I don't believe that Esperanza violates the letter or spirit of any policies, so wouldn't be an exception to any of them. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per deletion discussions regarding the WP:CVU. They're equally useful in my opinion. --tjstrf talk 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment One article or wikiProject's validity does not speak of another article or wikiProject's validity. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply unless the two are comparable in the aspects being discussed. In this case, they are. Both are opposed for the same reason (being club-focused more than article-focused), both have the same minor merits (centralized discussion of... whatever it is they do), and the deletion of either will cause more problems than it will solve. --tjstrf talk 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I think Esperanza has long outlived its usefulness and functions now as little more than a clique that is often used for voting each other into positions of power. Earlier I had my suspicions, but when the green links in the signature links, a sort of in-crowd membership badge, started showing up, I really grew wary. I just don't see the point of Esperanza. EA members point to half-hearted and miscontrued efforts like "admin coaching" or "barnstar brigade" as somehow helping to write the encyclopedia, but the proof just isn't in the pudding. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, the best idea was to approach Esperanza administrators and members and discuss w/ them the concerns brought above. That would have been the best thing to do. Some people above confess that the charter is not respected but don't we communicate that before taking any action like this MfD. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the Esperanza Council is not above Wikipedia policies. Frankly, without this MfD I doubt anyone would bother to do anything about this at all. An XfD is not a bad idea if it helps establishing a solution. Misza13 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Programs such as Admin Coaching, which are useful can be moved elsewhere, but things like userpage awards, which aren't can be deleted. --Majorly (Talk) 19:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this does nothing other than promote cliquishness and other stupidity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for self-congratulatory group-hugs and insipid get-along-gangs. See also this MfD. The Crying Orc 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• The weakest of very weak keeps. First of all, I would like to point out that I agree with very large chunks of what both the nominator and Elaragirl and the rest of the delete votes are saying. Their opinions are offered in the best of good faith, and comments such as "What is this fresh madness" and "It's not April 1st already is it?" are totally out of line. Such comments are both extremely immature and plain wrong. Even if consensus is to keep, the opinions of fine Wikipedians such as these should not be laughed off. They should be regarded as very fine constructive criticism.

  But the rationale for my keep vote? In my opinion, it is simply a matter of potential. In its current form, Esperanza, I agree, does not do a huge amount of good - in fact, it probably does more harm than good, and I would dearly love to see the wretched Coffee Lounge deleted pretty much instantaneously. I was thoroughly appalled to be voting delete on a whole load of HANGMAN games, not to mention the umpteen billion archives. But, in Esperanza I do actually see the potential for something productive - per The Halo, ECOTM is a fine program, and if it works, will bring great benefit to the encyclopaedia. The Stress Alerts program does at least provide a place for people to vent their exasperation at the WikiWorld, even if nothing else. Esperanza does need to change and be drastically slimmed down, and a virulent focus be brought to bear on the encyclopaedia that we are trying to build. If Esperanza becomes as I would envisage it to be, a place for people to coordinate encyclopeadia work in an agreeable manner, then IMO it will become an asset to the encyclopaedia.

  But this is conditional - probational - at best. If Esperanza does not change as I believe it must, then after six months I shall vote the other way. But potential is there, even if, like Elaragirl, I did not like much of the arrogance I saw at the Coffee Lounge Games MfD. A stay of execution is probably best - but for God's sake burn with fire that wretched Coffee Lounge. Moreschi 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not into mincing my words, my comment was only one half of my thought, the other being - "no, but it's time for the annual bloodbath/bunfest/wiki-drama" - if I'm sick of such happenings and my reaction appears out-of-line, so be it. --Alf ^melmac 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I'm sorry, but I've changed my mind. The harm outweighs the good - no matter how well ECOTM works, there is too much I've been uneasy with for too long - power issues and "Esperanza votes" at RFA, something I see too much of. Maybe send to Wikia, but at any rate this probably has to go. Delete. Moreschi 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I truly believe that without Esperanza Wikipedia would not be the place that it is. Okay, it does tip over into socialising sometimes (like the coffee lounge; fun, but is it necessary?), but there is so much support from Esperanza that without it, the community would just be...well, hopeless. Just consider some of the programs:

Stress Alerts

Barnstar Brigade

Reach out

Seriously, Wikipedia without Esperanza is really a foreboding image. You'd be hard-pressed to find a user who hasn't had at least one Esperanzian say a nice word to them. I really feel that the community needs esperanza's support. To quote Redvers, Esperanza is "that voice that says "thank you for your contribution. Have a barnstar. What a nice user page. Have you thought of being an admin. Don't worry that your contribution has been rejected loudly. We valued it. Thanks."", and without that, I do see quite a lot of people getting fed up. We need all the contributors we can get, and so often, users are on the verge of leaving, when EA talks them away from the edge. I can't see this project doing anyone any harm, in fact, quite the opposite. ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia without Esperanza is really a foreboding image"? Really? What about all the thousands of people who steer clear of it, or all of the people who managed just fine before it existed? Don't get such an inflated sense of self-importance that you cannot possibly fathom Wikipedia without your beloved Esperanza ... because many of us can, and it looks pretty much the same. --Cyde Weys 19:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way, but try to remain cool. That was just my opinion, and I'd like to think I'm entitled to it :). ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never gotten an Experanzian nice word. I've been on wikipedia for years. And i don't think that 'Wikipedia without Esperanza is really a foreboding image'. I kinda feel the opposite :/ . JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since some people think many editors are too new for Ezperanza, let's consider raising the number of edit to at least 150 article edits. Either that or 250 overall edits. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 19:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A group such as Esperanza is necessary to encourage new users to interact and get to know our more experienced users, giving them the sense that there are other people there to help them in case they need help, or if they're considering leaving the project. Shadow1 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think hundreds of thousands of users survived a-ok without Esperanza before it started, and I don't think it is suddenly necessary now. :/ JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I like the Esperanza idea, actually. I really do. But I've watched it change over the time I've been here in directions I'm not sure I favour, so I left it. I've seen efforts to try to change it to get it back on track, to supporting the project of writing an encyclopedia (why we are here!), but they haven't completely worked. And there are parts of Esperanza I think are fine, as is, although I know others disagree. For instance, Admin coaching, properly executed, is a way for interested prospective admins to learn if adminning is really for them, and for others (the coaches) to evaluate whether they'd actually be suited. At least one of my coachees, I think is not a fit, and I wouldn't hav.e known without the process...

So Esperanza has good parts, worthy of saving. But something needs to change. I reserve further comment for now, to see how well the core Esperanza thought leaders respond... can they take this criticism on board more effectively than they have in the past? Time will tell. Often, an XfD can be a spur to change. I've seen article after article improved because of AfDs. Can Esperanza be completely redone in a week to address the criticisms the delete commenters raise? I'm not sure it could, it's rather a massive undertaking. But if there were signs that change was in the offing, perhaps that would be good enough. As an aside I am not sure moving to Wikia is the answer... needs more thought and discussion ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep & Cleanup It seems to me that most of the opposition here acknowledged that Esperanza is a good idea, they contend it went wrong somewhere. I would contend that Esperanza is suffering from the same influx of people who are coming to Wikipedia, trying to change it into something it is not. That being said, I don't think deletion is the answer; it would only throw the baby out with the bath water. I do think that we need to reexamine our operation, and perhaps consider changes to our governance if it would result in a stronger Esperanza. --RoninBK_ETC 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy and are-you-kidding-is-it-april-fools-day-already keep What harm is it doing? Give examples. WP:IGNORE. Alethiophile^{Ask me why} 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Give examples? I take it you didn't bother to read through what's been said then. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: This is not a vote, so comments such as this one do not add much to the conversation. This nomination was done in good faith, and most of the contributors to the discussion are acting civilly and reasonably. I recommend that everyone take the time to really think about this nomination and make a well-reasoned argument. One word or one sentence "votes" won't do much to add to the debate. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Furthermore, Alethiophile, and you should know this, WP:IGNORE only applies to things that directly imrpove the encyclopedia. We (the delete votes) are saying that, regardless of what the intention of Esperanza was/is, the actualization of Esperanza is that it is becoming divisive, that it is violating WP:NOT beyond the exceptions we usually give (Department of Fun type things), and that Esperanzians are beginning to act as if they are superior to other users. The nom was in good faith, and so were all the votes. For crying out loud I nominated Spawn Man for admin, and he's an inclusionist to boot. It's not about the people,it's about how Esparanza is acting. If it moves to Wikia I'd have no problems with external links to it, but it no longer serves a purpose here, and by some of the dismissive attitudes and non-arguments I've seen, it seems as if you see Esperanza as more important than Wikipedia. This are my opinions, if I'm wrong, tell me why. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  "and you should know this," could be considered a personal attack. I didn't say any of the votes, or the nom, were in bad faith. The reason for my "is-it-april-fools-already" comment was that when I saw an organization so obviously dong community good as Esperanza being MfDed, I thought it had to be a joke. Per a whole bunch of other Keep voters who I am too lazy to look up the names of, if you have a problem with some of E@'s subpages, MfD them. There will obviously be no consensus on this, so the nom was pretty much a waste of time. If the nominator knew that, it could be construed to violate WP:POINT. Also, if you have a problem with individual E@ members, take it up with them. I am a member of E@, and I don't act superior to anyone. You shouldn't delete all of E@ because some subpages/members are giving offense. That is analogous to nuking the whole Middle East because Iraq is a dictatorship. Esperanza is obviously helping contribute to the encylopedia, and therefore WP:IGNORE applies perfectly to it. There is no reason to delete the whole thing because of some offensive subpages or users. As said by The Halo, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Alethiophile^{Ask me why} 20:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  This is wikipedia, not Iraq. Rebuilding takes minutes, not years. Please, don't get all crazy with metaphors. This is not a WP:POINT or WP:SNOW issue, this is a real discussion about some core Wikipedia issues, and it can only be centered around this process. It's a completely appropriate thing to do here. The nom 'wasn't a waste of time'. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely strong keep Esperanza is the only reason I am here, in two senses of the word. I got depressed for a while, stopped editing the main encyclopedia, but stuck around the coffee lounge because I had made friends there. I recovered and started editing again. Then something huge happened in my life and I was very close to suicide (despite what I may have told my friends). However, people showed an incredible amount of support for me, all of whom were friends from Esperanza or were notified of my problems from Esperanzan friends or the Alerts page. Without their show of support, I may safely say that I would not be here today.
  While I know perfectly well that building an encyclopedia is the main focus here (obviously), I have chosen to focus much of my attention on the other users (helping them out, cheering them up, etc.), as I believe that the social side of Wikipedia is important as well. When people are stressed and ready to leave, a kind word or message of appreciation may help to change their mind. Real-life troubles can bring prolific editors down and they are no longer interested in editing. I try to help people, and through my actions I hope that others are more productive -- so in giving up one editor (myself) to spend time helping others I sincerely hope that I am helping many more people remain, or stay interested in, the encyclopedia.
  Esperanza has helped me do this, and provides a very necessary place to go to for help; and the coffee lounge is a perfect place to lighten up and relax when life is tough :-) — Editor at Large^(speak) 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - and i think that the coffee lounge can do the same thing if it was migrated to Wikia with all of Esperanza. It would keep both sides happy. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As cold as this sounds, this is exactly why it's up for deletion. We're not here to be a chat room and support network, we're here to build an encyclopedia. The social side of wikipedia is there to support that, not editors' personal problems. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Aye, indeed it does sound cold. A) Check out my below comments. They might help. B) I ask you; what is wrong with accomplishing the same goal in a shorter route? Some cases aren't as drastic as E@L, but a lot of people have personal problems that cause them to leave Wikipedia. They might find support elsewhere, but what the hell is wrong with getting it from Wikipedia? And I really don't want a WP:NOT reference; this goes deeper than policy. This goes to moral itself, and that, my friend, is more important than policies, more important than Wikipedia itself. Is it right to tell someone "No, no support here, go find a chatroom" or is it right to say "Yes, we understand, come on in"? If you can really say that you believe it is the correct thing to do to turn away someone in need, then I might as well leave Wikipedia right now. Because that is not an attitude I care to be associated with. DoomsDay349 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• To be even colder, I would suggest that those who are dangerously stressed by Wikipedia should leave Wikipedia. Trying to keep people here who may (for whatever reason) be unable to cope with the stresses of Wikipedia, may actually do more harm than good in the long run. I've also seen lots of comments to the effect that Esperanza has been the thing that persuaded people who were 'on the verge of leaving' to stay. In a sense, if people are on the verge of leaving, that might be because they have failed to adapt to the conditions here. If Esperanza provides them with a comfort blanket, that is retarding the natural selection process that should produce a productive and harmonious community of people. Carcharoth 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're getting towards something I was reluctant to stay. If the only reason people are staying here is to chitchat with their wikifriends, is it really better to have them around? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, as community and cooperation are important to the this massive effort of building an encyclopedia. As for the Coffee Lounge and the non-editing-related "games" on Wikipedia, though, it won't be devastating to put them somewhere else. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm so sorry for the comment I just removed! I intended no offense by it! --Gray Porpoise^{Is this overformatted?} 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...or redesign, with plenty of thought, as long as it's not destroyed entirely. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well the reson is obvious, per WP:IGNORE, anything that is beneficial to the project should be kept, even if it has to disrgard other rules to exist. If it means people come back and edit, and get support and stay when otherwise they would live, and continue to contribute to the project, then the existence of esperanze is incredibily beneficial to the project, we cannot rely on obsessive nerds to run wikipedia, there has to be some support for normal people, and if this is how some of those people find their support, then it helps contributors, who in tun help the project. And if that isnt what you want, why are you even on wikipedia? Philc _T^E_C^I 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - wikipedia existed just fine for a long, long time before Esperanza, run by 'obsessive nerds' and you put it as well as normal people. wikipedia is not reliant on Esperanza - i think you'd be hard pressed to prove it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

...nor is it reliant on help pages, good article candidates, speedy deletions, or, heck, NPOV. These things keep Wikipedia as a proper, non-chaotic, encyclopedia that does not deter newbies, but, like Esperanza, they're not necessary to the project; only the funding to keep it going, at least one editor, and no violation of law. It's a good quality to be able to vigorously defend your view, but the more deletionists do so, the more I shall. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

removed help pages and NPOV and you tell me if wikipedia would go to hell in a handbasket or not. remove esperanza, and i don't think the same would happen at all. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and cleanup. The Wikicruft areas of Esperanza, like the userpage awards or whatever can be deleted or moved to Wikia. However, the programs which are used in an effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia (such as Admin Coaching) should stay. Even if you personally think there is no merit to some of these encyclopedia improvement areas, others will certainly disagree. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia would lose much more potential allowing people to be driven away than providing something that only takes a few minutes a day to actively participate in. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is totally not the issue at hand. Plaudits are nice, but justify its existence with wiki-policy. I think you'd find that policy is pretty clear against most of its existence, if not all of it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not set in stone. I believe that Esperanza helps us more than it harms us. For example, its efforts to consult stressed Wikipedians may be helping to keep people from leaving the project forever. The Admin Coaching program (though I wish it was named differently) is a way for editors to help each other improve. EA needs some modifications, but deletion is going too far. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza would need a LOT of modifications to make most people happy, and I'm just not that patient to wait for these changes. I don't see why building it again better from the ground up is any harder than from the top down. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My own metaphor: Don't release the wrecking ball until we have a good scale model of the new structure. Then, though, it can be built again from the ground up. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're saying in that that there was never a good scale model of Esperanza in the first place, then it should definitely be here at MfD. I don't see why starting over wouldn't be possible, or even hard. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Esperanza is a project that in no way contributes to the encyclopedia. They play games and give out rewards to people with pretty userpages. The CotM is fine, yes, but that can easily live on without a big e on the page. It wastes time. Users, even some admins, participate in this project, and in the meantime the work just keeps piling up. I spend 3 hours on wikipedia a day, plus or minus, and the entire time I am at RC, or newpages, or on vandalproof. If I was doing something like this, it would be the only thing I did. Remember that Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. ST47Talk 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia. Therefore, we need editors. It's their choice whether they want to participate, so we need to be welcoming to them. Some of the reasons people have put up for the deletion of Esperanza could be applied to userpages, Wikipedia:Welcome, the sandbox, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Concordia... --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep... but selective move to Wikia of the non-encyclopaedically-helpful material such as the Coffee Lounge as discussed below. haz (talk) e 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Refactor - As you may have known, I am no big fan of Esperanza because it does not help the encyclopedia. However, I am also a big fun of promoting WikiFun and WikiLove. That being said, I would not mind Esperanza existing if it promised to refactor itself. First off, anything that does not contribute to the encyclopedia must be disposed of -- this means coffee lounge, games, and the pointless bureaucracy (if you insist on having a leader, please cut it down to one advisor or so). If you wish to keep them, then you can move it off of Wikipedia. Additionally, Esperanza should seek to be small (in number of pages), non-cabalistic, and encourage more encyclopedic contributions. Also, I'm not a big fan of Admin Coaching: it makes adminship look like a holy grail you have to train for. If you could change it to, say, Editor Advice, that'd be more within my goal of making Esperanza helpful for the encyclopedia. If you have any questions in regards to my ideas, feel free to ask me. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - I wouldn't mind too much if the coffee lounge and other unrelated parts were moved to Wikia, but the project itself is helpful in Wikipedia, and it would probably devastate many users if it were deleted. —The Great Llama ^talk 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Esperanza has long since stopped being useful to the encyclopedia. It is a great example of a violation of WP:NOT hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm seeing many users saying "promotes cliquishness, stupidity, Esperanza is a dumb club, etc.". How in the world can you say that? A clique, by nature, shuns those unlike it. When, and give me one good example, when has a user ever claimed to be better than another on the sole basis of being part of Esperanza? As for stupidity, I understand the root of that concern; the coffee lounge. I attempted to begin a reformation of the coffee lounge, recently, and I did the best I could. What we could do besides deleting it is discuss it on it's discussion page and work through the silliness, come up with guidelines, etc., etc., and try to return it to it's original goal. And finally, for the "dumb club" label. Essentially same as being a clique; but there's another point I'd like to make. Esperanza is, in fact, clubbish. But just because you don't belong to the club doesn't mean we adopt a "not with us, you're against us view". We can still work together; it's your choice not to be in Esperanza; but I think that a lot of you have adopted the "Not with us, against us" view. Forgive me if this sounds like a personal attack, it's really not meant to be. But I'm seeing "Hey, Esperanza is different from me. Delete." kinda thing going on. Esperanza is like...a volunteer group. You don't have to be with us, but everyone can benefit from us. DoomsDay349 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  I will say this, DoomsDay349, you are attempting, from what I've seen at the Esperanza Talk pages, to shake things up and change things. You are one of the few who does. I feel really bad in a way about noming your page for AfD, but I would like to say that DoomsDay349 is the way an Esperanzan should act, all the time with class and dignity and civility. I don't see what you said above as a personal attack in anyway, but allow me to refactor your statement back at you : are you sure you are seeing Esperanza clearly, or what you'd like Esperanza to be? --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per my above statements. DoomsDay349 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP KEEP KEEP! Per everyone else's comments--IAMTHEEGGMAN^{Δdark side} 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Leave editors alone If Esperanza helps a single editor be civil, that is a net gain to the project. If it is, as some posts here suggest, turning into a cabal and vote-stacking, collect the evidence and take it to ArbCom. Having Esperanza as a WP Project should make this easier to do, and therefore ought to be encouraged; again, for the good of the encyclopedia. In short, Keep. Septentrionalis, a nonmember of Esperanza, 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• My personal opinion, which I've held since becoming a regular contributor over a year ago, is that organizations like this really aren't necessary or helpful. This isn't just because I would never even think about signing up for such a thing. It's because I think it's not in the best interests of the project – and by "project", I refer to the encyclopedia that's sitting out there somewhere, not the "community" that appears to have sprung up behind it. These pages and others like them turn Wikipedia into a social networking website, something that is explicity mentioned in What Wikipedia Is Not. So I say delete, and while this MfD seems unlikely to succeed now I shall continue to say "delete" for the foreseeable future – Gurch 22:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom, Esperanza was a good idea in the beggining, but declined it quality to become sort of the wikipedia version of myspace, transwiki is fine as well, and Keep and rename the admin coaching part to Wikipedia:Admin coaching Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Warning - this is long Esperanza is, in theory, a good idea.

  Esperanza takes its name from the Spanish word for hope. Esperanzians try to spread hope throughout the encyclopedia, and Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the Wikipedia community will never again break away as a portion of the Spanish Wikipedia did to form Enciclopedia Libre.

When I first visited the Esperanza page shortly after signing up for a Wikipedia account (when I still wasn't all that familiar with what Wikipedia was or how it worked) I read that and thought it spoke of a painful thing that had happened to the beautiful idea that is Wikipedia, and a desire on the part of some individuals to "never let this happen again". In the 9 months or so I've been fiddling with Wikipedia I've discovered that lots of people ultimately grow frustrated with Wikipedia and leave. I look at pages like Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts that say things like,

If you notice that a Wikipedia user is showing signs of stress, taking a wikibreak, or considering leaving the project altogether, please add the user to the appropriate list below so that the Esperanza community can intervene with encouraging comments and suggestions.

and think again, what a beautiful idea. However, I don't think that's happening. A while back I noticed a comment from a user who had edited mostly in the mainspace, adding many beautiful, well-written (I would call it brilliant prose), informative articles on notable racehorses. These articles were referenced, but did not use in-line citations and were not fully wikified (which makes sense - new users don't know how to use wikimarkup and those stupid citation templates are a pain in the butt to learn how to use when you first start here). Moreover, the beautiful prose was more appropriate to story-telling then to an encyclopedia. Several of these wonderful articles were tagged for clean-up, mostly with {{inappropriate tone}} templates (like I said, they were written in the voice of a story teller). The person (a professional writer of fiction in real life) was highly insulted, thinking their work was not good enough for Wikipedia. They started blanking their articles and preparing to leave the project. I immediately thought of Esperanza. After all, isn't that their stated goal? To help people who are feeling stressed by the nature of Wikipedia, to discourage them from leaving? So I posted to stress alerts, expecting someone from Esperanza to follow up with them. Meanwhile I talked to them and tried to help them. No one from Esperanza ever followed up on the stress alert. The person did eventually decide to stay. While posting to the stress alert page I saw a thing about barnstars and decided to give the person one (a tireless contributor one, I thought it was appropriate considering the sheer number of horse articles they had written or improved). I think the barnstar was what convinced them to stay.

I think Esperanza has lost sight of its purpose. Esperanza didn't go rushing to that person with arms stretched out to give them hope. Esperanza's barnstar brigade didn't notice that person and give them a barnstar. Even when a request was made for Esperanza to go help that person; they ignored it.

I see a lot of people here complaining that Esperanza and their coffee lounge and their games are a "distraction". I hear comments like, "The Coffee Lounge is a waste of time" and, "It... gives new users the idea that Wikipedia place for socializing rather than working on an encyclopedia," and, "Esperanzans do more socializing than should be expected" and, "I've seen a lot more distracting socializing than actual encyclopedia work done around esperanza" and I just cringe. In addition to contributing here, I also contribute a little to the Simple Wikipedia. One reason I haven't contributed more there than I have is that about the time I discovered Simple, it blew up. I won't get into details, especially since I wasn't really involved; but the problem had to do with the attitude of the (one and only) bureaucrat there. One of the (apparently objectionable) things that the bureaucrat did was to unilateraly delete the Esperanza coffee lounge with a reasoning of, "write articles, Wikipedia is not a social club". He(?) also said things like, "I'm actually coming to the mind that the page is useful only in that it helps identify non-productive users who need to be kicked in the ass out the door," and, "I see anyone playing chess or other non-productive crap on this wiki, and I will start using blocks to discourage that". This was some of the first things I saw when I started poking around Simple after signing up for an account. I found that threatening. I almost felt like I should stay away from Simple unless I were prepared to devote 8-hours a day to writing simple articles and doing nothing else.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia (be it en, simple, or any of the others) is not a job. I contribute to Wikipedia because I enjoy it. I enjoy learning new things, sharing the things I've learned with others, honing my writing and research skills, and yes, the occasional off-topic chat. We are not paid to edit wikipedia. We do it for fun. The sorts of comments that are being made about Esperanza, both here and on Simple, make it seem like Wikipedia is a job, and that esperanzians are wasting time on the job and should be disciplined. Now, I'm sorry, but I'm not Wikipedia's employee.

Even if Wikipedia was a job, and we were its employees, I think there would be a place for something like Esperanza. Where I work we have a human resources department. If we have a problem (we're not getting along with a coworker, we're swamped with work, we're unhappy with our pay, whatever) we're encouraged to go talk to HR. They are there to improve employee retention, help alevieate stress, etc. They organize the Christmas party, outings to the zoo, a fun little "benefits fair" (which I expected to be open enrollment for health care, but wasn't), etc. When someone quits or is fired they do an exit interview, and if someone is thinking of quitting because of a problem or stress, they try to fix the problem rather then lose a good employee. It seems to me that Esperanza is ment to fill that role on Wikipedia.

In real life I quit a job a little more then a year ago and went to the one I have now. Admittedly, sometimes I'm frustrated and dissatisfied with the one I have now, but it's a whole heck of a lot better then the one I left not-so-long ago. A big part of the reason is that it's a friendlier, happier atmosphere. When I actually have work to do (the last couple months have been really slow) I'm far more productive then in the other place.

Sometimes I look at comments like those of the Simple Wikipedia's (now former) bureaucrat and am reminded of my boss at my old job. I think to myself, "If I wanted to put up with that I wouldn't have quit that job. I'm sure as heck not going to subject myself to that for free." I don't think anything anyone has said here is quite as bad as what the bureaucrat on simple said, but it's still the same attitude; and it's a bad one for a company and an even worse one for an all volunteer encyclopedia written by people in their spare time.

To sum up this rather long statement; I don't think Esperanza is terribly successful in their efforts to relieve stress, provide hope, and stop people from leaving. I think it needs a wake-up call; and I think this MFD is it. However, I do think that Wikipedia needs something like Esperanza. Therefore I think that Esperanza should be Kept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I am not a member of Esperanza)

• Comment. I agree with a lot of the above, but some stuff I don't. If I do say so myself, there is a biased view of Esperanzians, but if you ask me, we don't even know it. It's subconsious; I can't come up with the reason. Anger? Jealousy? Envy? Who knows. But what I feel is a lot of underlying "Esperanzians are more stupid and less valuable than I am, for that simple reason". I'm not attacking anyone in particular, but that's how I'm feeling. Ah, but out of adversity comes greatness. Thus, I see the need for the reformation of Esperanza. Firstly, the Coffee Lounge. No, I do not believe it should be deleted, but it most be regulated. Not moved. If we move it, that says "Oh, let's sweep it under the rug. It won't bother us that way." We have to address the problem here and now. What do I think, then? I have a lot of ideas; you'd hate a lot of them for their radicalness. One is limiting the number of messages you are allowed to post daily; I'm not sure if that's the way to go, but it's a thought. Another is an old idea of mine; a friendly warning to those who spend too much time there. I know it seems like a nice way of saying "Get the Hell out", but that's really not my intent for it. It's just a way of helping out the users, saving them from themselves, you know. Then, we have Esperanza's other programs. I'm not trying to present a biased view of the ECOTM, but it was said before that "There are many other COTWs they could join". Be that as it may, what, what I ask you, is the harm in having one more. How does that prevent us from building the encyclopedia? Hell, it is building the encyclopedia! But then there are other programs. OK; Stress Alerts. It's slow, and sometimes if we don't know them, we don't respond. That is something we can't reform; it's your choice to respond or not. But there's no reason to remove it; what harm is done? Happy Birthday Program, next. This is borderline, I must say. While it doesn't do us harm, it is tough to say how much good it actually does. So what do I say about it? Keep it, sometimes it helps to know that someone out there gives a damn. Ah, but now Barnstar Brigade! I agree wholly with the deletion of this; this would be like handing out the Stanley Cup to every hockey team for "good effort". Barnstars are an honor and should be earned, and unless you edit in an area where no one ever sees it, you'll get one. Admin Coaching, in short, is useless; I won't argue either way on that. User Page Award? Another one of those, no harm but how much good things. Though, I think we ought keep it for the purpose of recognizing those who are especially good at Wikimarkup and thus can design their page well. To-Do list, I know next to nothing about, but I'd wager it's dead or slow; so I'll say yeah let's get rid of it. And the Tutorial Drive, well, is incredibly useful in both teaching new users Wikimarkup and discouraging vandalism. Well, that's my two cents...a bit more than two cents, though, I must say :). DoomsDay349 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: May we please try to start formulating new reasons for and against the deletion? Using the same arguments over and over in different wording will not help to reach consensus. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - despite your impassaioned plea, you basically admit that at least half the program is marginal at best....so it's hard for me to reconsider my opinion. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, I did. My point was that yes it's flawed; so weed out what's not good and keep the rest. Take the split of the Roman Empire, for example. A once whole and flawed Empire split to form two distinctly different halves. The eastern half prospered and thrived whilst the western degenerated and was destroyed, essentially. Thus, one half survived for the reason it removed itself from the other. Same deal here. DoomsDay349 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Esperanza had a purpose awhile ago, and a good one at that. Now, it has not retained its goal of what it was in the beginning. The only thing it is responsible for these days is steering people away from contributing to the encyclopedia, and instead giving a place for people to hang out. This is not myspace, this is not a place to meet people, this is an encyclopedia, and a serious project. We have work to do here, we don't have time to play around. EA is hardly as active as it was, say, six months ago, and based on my personal experiences with it, it only serves to drive editors away from the main purpose of Wikipedia, rather than provide love and support (I know this because I hardly ever received the latter, and instead was nearly driven off Wikipedia). Please, let's get back to writing an encyclopedia, and create better, more important things than this organization. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "We have work to do, we don't have time to play around". I'm sorry but do you realize that that is the exact attitude that gets rid of so many users? I agree; it is serious. Wikipedia is not a collection of stern faced impassioned writers. We are a community of regular people (unless you, of course, have some superhuman power to avoid communication) who need intereaction and support. Interaction doesn't mean social networking; it means a friendly face to talk to when you're down, not when you're up. That is the main problem with the Coffe Lounge: people go there when they are in good spirits to chat, not in bad ones to get support. DoomsDay349 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Don't think this organization hasn't been responsible for driving off users, because it has. It was far from friendly to me and many other users. Please don't continue to patronize me and waste your time any further. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote. What do you mean it's driven off users? You're actual account might help; just saying "They were mean to me" doesn't cut it. How has Esperanza not been friendly? As for patronizing you, either you are severely mistaken or you need to pick up a dictionary; I'm far from agreeing with you. Take a look at some of my below comments; they might help.

• Another reason for deletion: All of the hideously long, over-formatted sigs I'm seeing in this debate. I can't quite put my finger on it but there is definitely a correlation between being an Esperanza member and having an obnoxious, flowery, overly-long signature that inhibits editing with no "benefits" other than "looking nice". --Cyde Weys 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on now! You are pulling out the stops on this one, aren't you. "Oh, they have a nice sig! Let's delete Esperanza!" Try to make some sense, next time. DoomsDay349 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I noticed the same thing when I went and looked at the Coffee Lounge earlier. I don't think I saw a single signature which had not been trumped up in some ridiculous way (admittedly, I would probably have done something to my own sig -like making it green- if I only knew how). The Crying Orc 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If by "nice" you mean hideously long, over-formatted, obnoxious, flowerly, overly-long, and inhibits editing, then yes. --Cyde Weys 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeating what you've already said doesn't help. A) Elaborate and B) Give examples. And, for the record, how in the world does this affect the MFD? So what if those users have long signatures? It has nothing to do with Esperanza. Give them warnings and be done with it. DoomsDay349 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It affects the MFD because Esperanza encourages this, what with the various sig workshops and the green e link that was practically mandatory awhile back. They encouraged sig spam; they gotta go. Ohh, and as for warnings, well ... Cyde Weys 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry! Is my signature over-formatted? (I'm not being sarcastic; I want to know how far is too far.) --Gray Porpoise^{Is this overformatted?} 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've toned my own signature down, but flashy sigs are commonplace. I don't really hold that against them, Cyde, considering I had for a long time the most page-stopping sig in Wikipedia. shuffles off --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. You didn't really make that clear before, thanks for doing so. I'm sorry if I sounded mean or abrasive, it's just that something like this makes it hard to stat civil. Thanks for the warning, incidentally; I'll be leaving you a message on what exactly is wrong with mine. No images, you know...I suppose the green 9 is part of the problem, eh? DoomsDay349 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• An observation: I've never felt particluarly negative towards Esperanza, but to all Esperanzans participating here, I would like to say that the conduct of many of you reflects poorly upon the project you defend as intended to "be a friendly and approachable community". Responses here are fraught with assumptions of bad faith and incivility.
  • For the three of you that so enthusiastically defend Esperanza be calling for a Speedy keep, why is that? Please read the guideline linked to. Esperanza is not an article or policy, this is not unanimous, the nominator is certainly not banned, and MFD is where it goes; do you realize that speedy (not strong) keep is an implication of bad faith or vandalism on the nominator?
  • For those of you engaging in out-and-out assumptions of bad faith or incivility, I am utterly flabbergasted.

"Don't provoke me; I am at the end of my civility cord":"What is this fresh madness?"

"Keep It's not April 1st already is it?"

"All this nomination shows is the sheer boredom of such nominators"

"are-you-kidding-is-it-april-fools-day-already keep"

"This is ridiculous."

"we cannot rely on obsessive nerds to run wikipedia...And if that isnt what you want, why are you even on wikipedia?"

"Leave editors alone"

• To be blunt, but, I think, entirely justified; If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay at home. Esperanza aims to enhance the encyclopedia by improving the community. If so, the poor conduct abounding on this very page is astounding. I think it's time for all participants to rethink their participation. Dmcdevit·t 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I left the first message you posted; I'm sorry about that. I was really, really shocked at this and then the comment about the ECOTM seemed like an attack to me at the time, and I seriously almost lost it there. To you, the user I said that to, and to everyone else, I apologize. I've tried to defend my views on other parts of this page civilly yet passionately. Again, I feel bad about that. DoomsDay349 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and heartily so. Assuming bad faith on behalf of the nominator and delete voters is deeply wrong, against WP:AGF, and, for that matter, unEsperanzian. Moreschi 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • My apologies... I assumed good faith, but didn't sound like it... I hereby abstain from this discussion, lest I hurt anyone else. --Gray Porpoise^{Is this overformatted?} 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, now, no need to leave. And a message to the above; yes maybe I (and others) assumed bad faith, but aren't you now assuming bad faith of us? I've justified myself and apologized; as you see, it wasn't made in bad faith, just sheer shock. DoomsDay349 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly appologise for the speedy comment. Not done out of any disrespect, just how I felt at the time. I don't mind admitting that it came as a shock to see this here. I've struck through my speedy, as it was said in the spur of the moment, with no bad intentions. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I say keep, since 1) It looks like a usefull project, and 2)What does it hurt to have here? I mean is wikipedia that crunched on server space?

• Comment. Dmcdevit has a very good point. I find some of the comments on this page completely unhelpful, and I would have thought that Esperanzians would be able to react much better than this. A few observations from me, that certain participants of this debate need to remember:
  1. This is a good-faith nomination. The people !voting are are rational, sane people, simply with differing opinions. They are perfectly entitled to their opinions.
  2. MfD is not a vote. It is a discussion, and this is especially important to remember on a contraversial debate such as this. We are not head-counting. !Votes with no meaningful or thoughtful comments attatched will likely be ignored. If you've not got anything useful to the discussion to say, please don't say at all.
  3. Civility is non-negociable. No matter how attacked or hard-done-by you feel, that is not applicable to this MfD. By all means complain and "blow off steam" in private, but this isn't the place.
• Sorry if I'm dictating or whatever, but I'm really disappointed in how this seems to be degenerating into a slanging match. I don't want apologies; I just want people to think before they post. Kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I've never seen Esperanza accomplish anything useful (and I've seen a lot of talk page entries created related to Esperanza), but I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to delete it. --Gwern (contribs) 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page, Keep Esperanza -Monkey 13!!! 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's votes like this that make me think less of esperanza and the people who participate in it.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Its comments like that that make people feel that there is a need for esperanzas freindly atmosphere. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Considering that Monkey13 moved this entire page to 'Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense' need much more be said? Assuming bad faith on the part of the nominator and everyone who opted to delete, disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia in order to perpetuate social networking, lack of critical engagement with the issues at hand... The Crying Orc 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Monkey13 just moved this page to BJAODN in the middle of the debate and then made a comment that's extremely ignorant of procedure. I've seen many comments about how esperanza keeps good editors around, and I'm sure there are good people in esperanza, but things like what Monkey13 just did are actually detrimental to the project. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The lesson that should be learned from this is not "Esperanza is harmful", but "Think your edit over multiple times before submitting it." --Gray Porpoise^{Is this overformatted?} 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
          • • Listen though; you can't let one user reflect how all of Esperanza feels! Most of us really do assume good faith, and Monkey...dude you screwed up real bad there. I'd be surprised if you don't get blocked for that, it most certainly was vandalism, and bad faith at that. Monkey...you should stay away from this debate, but apologize first. DoomsDay349 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
            • (after 4 edit conflicts)I agree with you Night Gyr, not everyone in Esperanza would do, or even consider doing something like that. I think I can speak for everyone when I say it was a horrible action to take. It is totally detrimental to what we are trying to achive here. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 1

• Observation. This debate is taking a bad turn, because I'm seeing sensible non Esperanzans voting delete and fanatical Esperanzans making short statements that don't address the issue and are making a very poor case. If you want Esperanza to stay, do so with good faith and please, be sensible. A lot of people have done things, but Monkey was the worst, vandalism to this debate, in fact. Please, continue this vote in a calm and serious manner... if you keep going on like you are, you're just going to get Esperanza deleted that much faster. DoomsDay349 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've tagged all the Esperanza subpages with the MfD template, as they seem to be nominated for deletion as well.--TBCΦtalk? 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have personally seen that Esperanza has a direct positive influence on the encyclopedia. Programs like the Stress Alerts and Admin Coaching have affected numerous people for the good. I would not be opposed to moving the Coffee Lounge (and the already-deleted games) elsewhere, but everything else should stay. Esperanza is in no way "cliquish". It is welcoming of everyone, though I can see how it might be viewed as "clubbish". In that case, join or don't join, it really doesn't matter. But for the people who are members, Esperanza is important. It is a major reason why I am still around, after all. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all Esperanza related pages, except for the Coffee Lounge, which should be moved to another Wiki as mentioned above.--TBCΦtalk? 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - If it is going to die, let it die a natural death, otherwise, just leave these people alone. They actually aren't hurting anything. Much more benign than the CVU and that was kept. You'll never get consensus to delete it anyway. pschemp | talk 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Then eventually Wikipedia will be overwhelmed with trivial stuff that has just enough support to avoid deletion. The logical conclusion to all this may be the very fork that it seems Esperanza was founded to prevent. Needless to say, such a fork would be immensely damaging. Some pruning every now and again is needed to remove dead wood. Carcharoth 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TeckWiz's 2nd Suggestion
Move to Userspace with a link someone in Esperanza

1. Things related to talking about non-encyclopidic stuff (like the Coffee Lounge)
2. Anything Associated w/ the Coffee Lounge (the games)

Keep in Esperanza

1. Things related to the encyclopedia (ex. ECOTM)
2. Things that help editors (ex. Admin Coaching, moral support)

editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 23:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If not for the massive support Esperanza provides, User:Editor at Large, User:Tachikoma, and many other valued contributors would have left Wikipedia because of stress. Esperanza is a great support mechanism. ~ crazytales_{(speak to me)} 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, i'm tired of this flavor of keep. If we gave every user a dollar if they stayed, we might get some editors to stay that way also. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide a kind and accessible environment for users to contribute, but we definitely shouldn't be keeping Esperanza because some people have stayed because of it. Esperanza violates the first pillar of WP:5P, most of it just isn't encyclopedic. People come to and leave wikipedia, thats life, and I think the swollen million plus userbase is gonna keep this place above the red well enough. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider that, although I don't know the stats exactly, most Wikipedians don't have many contribs. It's only a few small percentage that has hundreds of edits and contributes significantly. ~ crazytales_{Stalk me!} 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard the opposite. The majority of edits that add actual content (new text) to the encyclopedia are made by IP addresses, and the majority of the cleaning up and tidying and debating and drafting of policy (oh, and Esperanza socializing as well), is done by those users that have hundreds and thousands of edits. This sounds far more plausible to me. Carcharoth 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What Carcharoth mentions here is probably from a post on the Aaron Swartz blog which received a lot of attention while he was running for the Wikimedia board. He actually did some tests that support this. Delta Tango • Talk 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what good this will do, but I made a short statement that I used a while ago, it might help here.

I hear a lot about how Esperanza is a "stupid club", and it disturbs me. The very people who say this are those most in need of a sense of community. What people fail to understand constantly is that Wikipedia is more than your average encyclopedia; we are not a small, select group of stodgy experts. We are a massive, diverse, group of average people banded together for the common cause of bringing free information to the world. And, being average, ordinary people we have the need of support and companionship. True, such companionship could come from chat rooms, or even real people, and there's no reason why it shouldn't! But, having a fellow writer, a friend standing alongside you in the hope that this young, criticized, and in some cases, hated encyclopedia might usher in a knowledge revolution, to stand by you and give you their support could be a hundred times more relieving and powerful to a Wikipedian than any other type of support.

There it is...let's see how it goes. Another tidbit of mine, though I've slightly paraphrased it from the original posting: "There will come the day when we all stand together and say one of two things, either 'We worked together and we have succeeded' or 'We fought and we have failed'. Maybe my nuggets of wisdom will help out. DoomsDay349 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This may not be of any encyclopedic benefit, but it is a social support network (of sorts). --SunStar Net 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You've just voted keep with a rationale for deletion next to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Night Gyr, true, that is a deletion rationale. I'm just keeping the status quo. --SunStar Net 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Esperanza inspired me to not vandalize anymore and to solve this in a sensible way. I read a bit of the Stress Busters page and decided that I could save Esperanza in a sensible way. I made a copy of Esperanza that's technically my subpage and no one cane delete that. And I'm sorry. -Monkey 13!!! 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, user subpages are just as subject to policies and deletion as anything else. This wouldn't be much different if esperanza was entirely someone's user subpage, becuase you don't even WP:OWN your userpage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Lord! I managed to avoid responding to Monkey13's earlier antics, but I can't restrain myself here (though I know I should, but I'm tired and cranky). I know I should WP:AGF, but I get the feeling that a troll or a child is loose in the room. The staccato talk and the short attention span are a dead giveaway. And yes, I'm sorry too. After reading all these comments, I think I need a soothing 'Esperanza', calming 'Wiki-couch made of wiki-love' session, so ironically Monkey13 may have turned me into a keep vote. I'll sleep on it and decide in the morning (assuming the responses to this aren't too excessive) - please turn on your irony, sarcasm and humour detectors. Carcharoth 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep per above. -AMK152 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep preserve status quo. --SunStar Net 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why preserve the status quo? Like High School Musical says, ‘‘don't stick to the status quo!’’ (never thought I'd be quoting HSM...) ~ crazytales_{Stalk me!} 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • More concisely, WP:CCC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• KeepTo quote the great John McEnroe "You cannot be serious". I only joined a few days ago but I have always admired the social, supportive, and human nature of Esperanza. To keep I cite WP:IAR, and use it with the fact that such a large amount of WP editors aremembers of Esperanza and I always believe that to keep the community happy as a whole is more important than one editors bureaucratic power trip. †he Bread 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So because everyone else is doing it? And I'm not sure what a large amount would be to you, but it is certainly less than 1% of users. I'm all for WP:IAR, but not in this case, as it violates other pillars in WP:5P, namely the 1st as most content just isn't encyclopedic. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe we're in the wrong venue for this. Since Esperanza is a project that involves many experienced users, the better place for this would be the village pump. We can't establish that it is ok for long-standing projects to be simply disbanded or deleted in some fashion like this. A discussion is a much better option, as opposed to a vote (don't deny it, there is discussion, but it all starts up with something like "delete" or "keep"). Note: This is not a opposition or endorsement of any of the sides in this. I'm simply suggesting that this isn't the way we should do things. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. It's interesting to read through this discussion not even a day after it's begun, and to see how everyone is feeling. I'm glad that so many people, both for keeping and deleting, have been respectful throughout this, as it certainly makes for a less-stressful situation. At the same time, I think that many editors, especially Esperanzians, could be a little bit more peaceful about this. We all have our own opinions about what should happen, but we should respect everyone else's opinions too, and listen to what is said.

I unequivocally think that Esperanza should be kept. However, that does not mean that I do not recognize problems within Esperanza, because I do. I recognize that the Coffee Lounge has grown from the small place that it was created as to a rather social entity that may in fact be taking away from the encyclopedia. And I don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing that Esperanza has problems too. I think that we should take up those problems, and fix them. Whether that be moving the coffee lounge, modifying it, or deleting it all together, there is surely a solution, and it should be taken care of.

I don't think that a solution is deleting all of Esperanza, for there are many things within Esperanza that really do benefit the encyclopedia. We can talk about the fact that having a community in turn helps the encyclopedia, but I know that many people find such a philosophy sub-par. And you know what? That's okay. I just want everyone to recognize that Esperanza does a lot of really great things for the encyclopedia. No where else to editors work together to keep people happy. And while being happy might not seem like such an important thing for an encyclopedia, think of how many people leave Wikipedia because they are dissatisfied by their experiences here. Whether it be how they were treated, the outcome of a discussion, or just the atmosphere, I'm pretty sure that all of us see valuable contributors leaving at an all-too-frequent pace. When Esperanza can help people to stick around and contribute to the encyclopedia, then we really are benefiting the encyclopedia. It's pretty awesome to have someone tell you that they decided to stay and keep editing Wikipedia because you gave them a word of support, or because you told them that things really aren't as bad as they seem.

You can do this all with talk pages, no need to keep for this reason. Nothing is stopping anyone from encouraging others independently of Esperanza, and in fact, this is how it worked for a long time before Esperanza existed. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If that still seems a bit too wishy-washy, there are many definite things that Esperanza does for the encyclopedia. Though it may not be widely known, Esperanza has been working on this for a while. It's been brought up many a time that we could do more for the encyclopedia. And every time it is brought up, no one every says "nah, that's not true", or "no, we don't need to help the encyclopedia". Every time it is brought up, Esperanza works together to focus more on the encyclopedia. We want to benefit the encyclopedia, because in the end, it's the encyclopedia that matters. Both directly and indirectly, we help the encyclopedia. All of the latest programs have been encyclopedia oriented. And even the hotly-debated admin coaching should be given credit. Isn't it good that if someone is going to put themselves up for an RfA, though should be well-acquainted with what it takes to be an admin? Doesn't helping future administrators learn what it takes benefit the encyclopedia? Doesn't collaborating together on articles, albeit a new program, help the encyclopedia? Doesn't explaining Wikipedia things in simpler terms help the encyclopedia? And back to my previous point, doesn't keeping editors relaxed and at Wikipedia help the encyclopedia? I'd say so.

'Admin coaching' and collaborations can and have existed in other capacities without Esperanza. Saying 'Esperanza has been working for a while' doesn't necessarily make it true, as per you can see by some of these MfA comments. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm sure by now you can tell that I want to keep Esperanza. Sure, it's separate programs could be separated, but what is the point of separating parts of a project with similar goals? Regardless of the outcome, I hope this doesn't create bad blood between editors, because that just hurts Wikipedia more. Thanks, as always, -- Natalya 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is to lance all the cruft that isn't encyclopedic. Nothing that has been proposed to be separated couldn't be added in an hour back to a WP namespace. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Muchly agreed, Natalya. I think people get the wrong image of Esperanza (you and I have been through this, but let the rest of them now, eh?). People see a bunch of users who are ignorant, arrogant, and who don't want to change. But you're right; every time, we have rolled with the punches and adjusted. Esperanza is undergoing reform, and I can only hope that when we come out of this we'll be able to fix Esperanza and bring a better image to Wikipedia.

I don't see Esperanza as a bunch of silly users who don't want change. Reform is great, but promising the stars won't do anything. The thing needs to be torn down, otherwise you're going to see this nom again in a month or two. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But... and this applies to everyone not just Natalya, I don't think we've fathomed how hard this is going to be. From this moment on, Esperanza is faced with twenty times more obstacles than ever, assuming we survive this MFD. No longer can we be lax; no longer can we sleep. Attack will come from every side, adversity from all corners. We will have to completely and utterly change Esperanza...sometimes that is my greatest fear. That in changing ourselves, we may destroy ourselves. But without the change we are guaranteed destruction; with it, there is a light of hope. I don't know what these changes are, but know this; we'll need them, and we'll need them bad.

Woa, i don't think furious users are shooting ire at you guys every second. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is neither here nor there. I have rambled long enough; we have the MFD to get through. DoomsDay349 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Respond to Joe: I didn't mean they were at the time, but they will after this MFD. Clammoring for the deletion...hell we could see this debate once a week. Not to mention rampant vandalism I can almost guarantee will occur. I agree with "tearing it down" but there's no sense in deleting the salvageable. I say just let it be, and let us make changes to the existing pages. DoomsDay349 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep WP:IAR. Esperanza might have a few issues that go against some policies, but it's beneficial for the project. Myself, I like to check what is Esperanza up to every now and then, it surely breaks the routine of editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, I acknowledge and praise the objectives of Esperanza in fostering a sense of community which I believe is vital for the project.--Húsönd 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is great, but it also violates the first pillar, 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia' - and esperanza for the most part is just not encyclopedic (and no one is arguing against this, the scary part...). Community on wikipedia will be fine without Esperanza (it has before), and can do so in an encyclopedic manner (Wikiprojects/portals). JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to say, for the most part etc, which means you agree that some (even a tiny bit) of esperanza is for the encyclopedia (also no one is argueing that), so why not delete the bad, keep the good? Thε Halo ^Θ 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever might be salvagable in maybe COTM or week or whatever, there is nothing difficult about starting it from the ashes. Its a small element of a whole lotta unencyclopedic stuff. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And Joe, there are aguments, just above here..scan the page. And I might add that you continually use the same argument; Violation of 1st pillar. I also noticed you haven't combatted any of my statements...hmm... DoomsDay349 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, this thing is massively long; i'm only one man, sorry i didn't respond to any of your stuff. anyways, before i read some of these essay-like comments let me just say that i continually use violation of the 1st pillar because it is a really friggin significant one, ya know? and it does. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 2

• Strong keep - New users constantly come to the Esperanza talk page and welcome themselves; they feel more connected to the community because of this, and many continue editing after that. —Mets501 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New users can come to connect and talk with experienced users without Esperanza. It is not vital for this process. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not vital, not vital, not vital! That is all I'm hearing! Who cares if it's not vital? Your legs aren't vital for your survival, but I bet they help out a good bit. Cutting Esperanza would be like removing a leg. DoomsDay349 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, no one is cutting the legs out from Wikipedia! Esperanza violates the first pillar of WP:5P. We have other capacities to do the same thing, without violating it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And what capacities are these that don't violate the encyclopedia and get it done faster and more effectively than Esperanza, and what are these high and mighty structures that couldn't benefit from Esperanza? Also notice that you've pulled out your First Pillar argument for the millionth time. You can't respond to everything with the First Pillar argument. DoomsDay349 00:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as it remains a valid argument, he damn well can. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The fact is, we are not a normal encyclopedia. We are not Encarta, or the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in which a group of experts corresponds with each other. Rather, this encyclopedia is made up of more than a million users, all of which come from all over the globe. Unless there is some sort of organization or something of the sort to prompt others to get together, users will not spontaneously work together. Esperanza is not just a frivolous society, it is comprised of the heart of Wikipedia. Here, commited users may collaborate and basically let their Wikistress off for a second. Not every user is some geek who spends all their time on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing articles. Rather, it is this sense of community that continues to bring users back to Wikipedia. With all due respect to Elaragirl, haven't you listed enough for deletion? bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "more than a million users" - I'm sorry, but this figure includes inactive users and sockpuppets. There are not a million active users, and even if there were, if only 700 of them are members of Esperanza, how do those 700 people create this sense of community that binds millions of people together? The largest votes on Wikipedia gather around 1000-3000 votes, which should give you an idea of the size of the active, talking membership. The editing community on Wikipedia is much larger, but thankfully most of them read and edit without being aware of (or not caring about) much of the 'community' structure of Wikipedia (Village Pump, Community Portal, Esperanza, etc). Carcharoth 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's beginning to appear to me she has a vendetta against Esperanza. But that's just one opinion. And biblio, you reflect my views exactly. DoomsDay349 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Deriding article editors as geeks, Bibliomaniac? I'm terribly sorry, but my assumption of good faith on your part just expired. (Actually, I don't believe that "geek" is an insult at all, but you certainly phrase it as one.) In fact, before I saw the behavior of some of my fellow Esperanzians in this mfd, I was leaning towards keep. So much for "strengthening the Wikipedia community." Picaroon9288 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sweet Monkey Jesus, I'm a deletionist. Of course I vote a lot of stuff for deletion. But this....well, I'll say this to answer a lot of the "keep arguments" to this point: Half of what you say basically boils down to "we want it and we say it's important so it should stay." I'm still waiting for someone to actually address the problems pointed out in the reasoning for deletion. And the other half of the arguments revolve around WP:IAR, which is rather disingenuous, since IAR applies to things that help the Wikipedia, and most of us do not think Esperanza, as it is, helps the Wikipedia. Now, I'm trying my best to be civil. I even made a comment about how evenhanded and civil that DoomsDay349 was, and what do I get? Assumptions of bad faith, claiming I have a vendetta. Esperanza is about ready to drive me away from Wikipedia. If Monkey's actions weren't clue enough, maybe the fact that Bibliomaniac thinks anyone who isn't an Esperanzan is a geek. You have made my points for me. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah...Ella, I'm really sorry. I keep saying this, but I'm under tension running all around this page responding and trying to keep Esperanza afloat, and unfortunately this comment was the one where I kinda lost my cool. It feels horrible that someone who congratulated me is the one I hurt. I'm so, so sorry. DoomsDay349 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Selective delete. I'm not in favour of blanket deletions at the best of times and I can't support the deletion of Esperanza in its entirity. As with gardening, occasionally there is the need to prune. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a lark but some parts of Esperanza are beneficial, such as admin coaching. Delete the chaff but make sure not to lose any wheat. Mallanox 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I understood deleting the games, but this absolutely must remain. I have no second thoughts about voicing this opinion. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep To a certain extent, I feel that Wikipedia works in part because it is disorganized. The fact that it is not overly run by cliques of users does serve the project and there is indeed a growing sense that Esperanza is a risk in that respect: too much organized social networking will do that to you and before you know it individuals start acting and thinking as a mob. A short time ago, I read this proposal of WP:COUCH and yeah, my initial reaction was "I sure hope that 99% of Esperanzans feel uncomfortable with this wording". It was a clear indication that at least some editors tend to consider Esperanzans as more valuable. Of course, I can't tell how prevalent a feeling that is: I've been around for a few months but I've never been involved with Esperanza. I do understand that people involved in that project feel strongly about keeping it and so it should probably be kept to avoid unnecessary bitterness. But I do think that the project needs to seriously examine its place in Wikipedia and change to a certain extent. Pascal.Tesson 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is subjective, and I may well be wrong, but I've seen Esperanza membership referred to a few times in discussions as if it means something. For example: in the current discussion WP:AN#Proposal for independent board, the suggestion is made that a new board be created to review admin actions, and one of the proponents suggests that "only non-admin users under Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching would join"; another suggests to recruit clerks from "Wikipedia:Esperanza or similar organizations". I've seen this kind of thinking before, that members of Esperanza are somehow better qualified, or that Esperanza projects like Admin school are (or should be) obligatory. But wikipedia has existed successfully before Esperanza existed, and even now, it is just a small club of editors who think they are more important than they really are. (Ah, I just saw that Pascal Tesson made a similar observation about WP:COUCH. Maybe it's not just me.)

That however, is not the real reason I'm voting delete. The first thing that comes to my mind when thinking about Esperanza is those d*mn green e's in signatures. This project encourages those terriple multiple line signatures, see the above discussion for oodles of examples... Therefore, delete. Eugène van der Pijll 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Kusma (below) for the description: Esperanza is a chat club with delusions of grandeur for teenage Wikipedians with obnoxious signatures. Or at least, that is the impression it makes. Eugène van der Pijll 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the sentiment I expressed in my reply to Bibliomaniac15. Picaroon9288 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps geek was a bad way of phrasing it. Listen, tensions are really high in this debate. It's hard to remain cool. Please, I know you're having a hard time assuming good faith, but please do. DoomsDay349 01:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Clean up. Yes, some Esperanza programs are quite useless to us as far as building an encyclopedia goes. I'd like to point out to the users in favor of Esperanza here that

1. Any well-wishing Wikipedian can cheer up another user who may be in need.

2. This is a website; if an editor feels stressed by another user, they can go and cool off on another site, go out for a run, or talk to their friends (wiki-friends are included).

3. What exactly is the merit of "admin coaching"? People are given the proverbial mop and bucket when they exhibit the qualities that the community values in an admin. Candidates shouldn't be "trained" and pumped out by programs.

My suggestion - can we change Esperanza into a mailing list? That will save on server space, and members can still communicate with each other. Anyone who needs support can join the mailing list and explain their problem so that Esperanzians can help them, privately and without wasting server space. Everyone here in favor of keeping Esperanza is saying that the program's best quality is its ability to de-stress Wikipedians and make them feel welcome. So, why not keep the welcoming committee, convert the "article improvement drive(s)" into a separate Project, and move the "counseling" portion of the program into a mailing list? Srose (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some have proposed to move to Wikia. I am for this personally. Others have decided that it would make it 'too disjuncted' or 'too hard' to have seperate wiki for this. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It would man. Esperanza would be so far away...it wouldn't be worth it anymore. I'd just leave Esperanza if that happened. And to the original poster; thanks for the comments. If this MFD results in keep, then please come by wherever we will undoubtedly be discussing reform. Thanks! DoomsDay349 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Far away? One mouse click? Opabinia regalis 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 3

• Neutral. Esperanza has serious problems, which I hope this MfD will provide people with the opportunity to address. The three I can think of the moment are:
  1. Too much time is wasted on "community-building" activities that don't accomplish anything. Community building as to be more than just socializing.
  2. It is being viewed, by some users, as a "voting block" on administrator nominations. This is very bad, and may stem from taking the "popularity-contests-as-leadership-elections" mentioned in the nominations too seriously.
  3. It seems in some cases to have more internal bureaucracy than it needs.

  At the same time, I don't think full deletion is necessary. A lot of people at Esperanza are missing the point, but there are plenty of good users there who aren't. I'd like to see the good users do more to get the rest on the right track. -- SCZenz 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah! Thank you so much for those comments. I began an attempt to reform Esperanza shortly before the MFD, and hope to continue it soon. Thanks a lot for saying that; it's almost exactly my feelings! DoomsDay349 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think ONUnicorn's huge long essay up there really pinned this. Especially the "I guess what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia (be it en, simple, or any of the others) is not a job. I contribute to Wikipedia because I enjoy it. I enjoy learning new things, sharing the things I've learned with others, honing my writing and research skills, and yes, the occasional off-topic chat. We are not paid to edit wikipedia. We do it for fun.....Even if Wikipedia was a job, and we were its employees, I think there would be a place for something like Esperanza." bit. There's a lot of "it's not encyclopedic" and "it's not doing any good" comments here. But it's clear from the comments made by many editors (about how they've felt they have personally benefited from Esperanza existing) that is helping people. And if esperanza is helping editors, they are in turn helping those editors help the encyclopedia. No one's really provided evidence of harm being done from Esperanza's existence - so i don't see why we need to get rid of it, especially when it is helping some people. If it's really getting out of hand, then we need to deal with its activities seperately (like how the games got deleted), but wiping out the entire project is overdoing it. --`/aksha 01:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Esperanza is about ready to drive me away from Wikipedia." - from Ellagirl up there. And read some of the comments, some people don't agree that Esperanza isn't doing harm. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This MfD is not the first time I've ended up feeling like "offing" either; polarising users in what appears to be an attempt to improve the encylopedia, with the same results, is a theme that's getting old for me. Please assuage my instinct and tell me this MfD wasn't discussed somewhere else and then brought here. --Alf ^melmac 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I am not a member of Esperanza and have had only the most tangential contact with it; I've spent more time reading the Esperanza pages today than I ever had before. From everything I have seen, Esperanza serves a legitimate purpose within the community (and yes, we are, and should strive to be, a community, albeit a community with a central encyclopedic purpose). While this deletion debate may have some positive effect in invigorating the more encyclopedic aspects of Espiranza, in general the deletion process is not a good vehicle for discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a Wikipedia organ or process or group of users. Moreover, although "if you delete my page I'll be upset" is not a strong argument in an XfD debate, in this instance the amount of bitterness, anger, divisiveness, and sadness that would be created if this nomination were to succeed leaves me strongly opposed to deletion. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:IAR first and foremost. Lincher 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • IAR isn't an argument for anything in itself; you still need some rationale for whatever you want to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, If I were in control of the decision I would first of Keep Esperanza...But I would delete the Coffee Lounge, the Coffee lounge is almost like Myspace in my opinion. And when all your edits are to the Coffee lounge then you are not accomplishing anything on Wikipedia.--Seadog 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I considered MfD'ing the Coffee Lounge when the games stuff came up, but decided that repeatedly nominating Esperanza subpages for deletion would amount to a disorganized chipping away at the project, and hoped the arguments made in the games discussion were enough to give the leaders a sharp poke about the problem they had on their hands. I'm not sure enough time has gone by to see whether Esperanza can "fix" itself. But if kept, it does need fixing; the Coffee Lounge is entirely nonsense. many of its programs are marginal at best, and many of its members seem to spend an awful lot of time prettying their sigs, spiffing up their user pages, chatting among themselves, and otherwise not writing an encyclopedia. I'm also not sure that MfD is the right forum for this, not least because we all might get buried under an avalanche of wiki-markup it's nearly impossible to establish consensus in this format, with strings of what are essentially naked votes. (Plus I'd rather see Concordia go first.) But if I had to pick a side I'd go with delete. Opabinia regalis 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This whole MfD nomination comes down to essentially one thing: The Internet is Serious Business. Well, I don't agree. Maybe all the delete "vote"-ers should go find something useful to do instead of trying to make happy editors unhappy. I can't shake the feeling that this nomination is something the nominator thought of while reading a Dilbert strip where the boss makes people miserable for no reason. Lots of people edit as a hobby. This isn't a job, it's a volunteer effort, and the best way to retain volunteers is to make them happy. Encouraging cool-offs, civility and friendliness can't possible be anything but good ever, ever. Lots of delete "vote"ers also say "seem" a lot. It "seems" pointless. It "seems" like a waste of time. It "seems" like it doesn't do a very good job. Well, it "seems" like you aren't really sure you know what you're talking about, and clearly would rather say "seem" than really look into it. Also, here is a sample of some things described in Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs:

(NOTE: These threaded-looking bullets are still in the above comments)

Barnstar Brigade: "Here at Wikipedia there are hundreds of Wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, like RfA participation, [or pointlessly nominating organizations they left for deletion] their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project." - Translation? People who aren't cliquey buruaucratic Wikipoliticians and are actually improving articles most of the time get no recognition and may leave out of boredom or whatever, and Esperanza likes to prevent that. Sounds pretty much A+ to me.

Collaboration of the Month: The basic idea is this: a poor article or stub with potential will be chosen once a month and all Esperanzans who choose to be a part of this project will begin work on it. The goal is to make it a GA class article by the end of the month. - It's not tough to see the benefit that this program does to the encyclopedia, so I'm not going to waste time talking about it.

If you're going to do away with Esperanza, you may as well get rid of all the userboxes and barnstars too. That alone makes the whole idea ridiculous. There are better places to express bitterness than the deletion boards. Just put the userbox from here and be done with it. Finally, I will upload a naked photo of myself if I don't get edit conflicted Sorry, looks like that's not gonna happen. Miltopia 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Looks like you need a good does of WP:AGF. This is a good faith nomination that highlights problems in a project. Is it likely to get deleted? No. Will it solicit needed changes? With hope. Let us hope Esperanza sets a greater example of good faith and civility than has been expressed here, even soliciting dcmdevit to post. As he said

If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay home

The conduct of people on here, to me, is proof positive of this nomination's truth. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an Esperanzian mahself, but anyway... you make it sound like it was nominated to make a point. In that case, it's really not a good-faith nom. Miltopia 01:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia, it is also a community, and Esperanza (which means "hope") is a longstanding and valuable part of this community which helps editors help each other. Keep hope alive. Esperanza is an editor mutual support group. It is editors helping editors. Wikipedia should not become a stark impersonal monolithic bureaucracy. We must retain the human element here! Esperanza is an entirely appropriate, or even essential, part of this dynamic and extensive community. Remember, editors are people, and Esperanza is here to remind us and help us treat each other like people. Deleting Esperanza would be an injury to Wikipedia itself, and a shame.  The Transhumanist   01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep from another non-Esperanzan. 1) MFD is not the place for discussion of deleting a Wiki project, and 2) Based on my quick observations, with similar discussions on things like (the now defunct) WP:COUCH, I must be straightforward: this deletion appears to be a not-so-subtle attempt to snub one's collective nose at the community for perceieved grievances. Reasons like "I don't like people's long sigs" are, last I checked, not in Wikipedia's criteria for deleting an article or project. If you have a problem with the community, there are ways of dealing with it other than ruining other people's enjoyability with an out-of-process, likely and just possibly also bad-faith nomination. A very clear case of WP:SPIDER. If you don't like part of Wikipedia, and feel the need to ruin other people's sense of belonging and community, then shame on you, but at very least go about it through the right process. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be careful with accusations of "bad faith" nominations. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would like to remind you to assume good faith. This nomination was made in good faith, highlighting problems with the project. If you don't like those problems, then change them. It isn't, however, constructive to simply blow off criticism. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Keep, Keep. I'm not a member, but it sounds like someone is extremely bitter about Esperanza for some reason. I believe this proposal to be without merit. Lankiveil 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Please look at my comment above, as well as [User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon's]] —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not accusing the nominator of a bad faith nomination, I'm just stating that I do not really think that this nomination is a productive use of editor's time. Esperanza could probably do with some heavy reform, I'll admit, but outright deletion of it on "ultra-constitutional" grounds is going a little too far, I think. Lankiveil 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

• Keep. The greatest problem with Esperanza is that it is organised in such a way that new programs are difficult to produce and maintain. On the other hand, the currently running programs -- admin coaching in particular, and numerous others besides -- provide an ongoing and significant benefit to the community and, by extension, the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not well served by deleting Esperanza itself, without first seeking to address the actual problem of bureaucracy. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Such programs can merely be moved. Wikipedia:Mentoring and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User fulfills programs like admin coaching without being affiliated with Esperanza JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 4

• (edit conflict)Keep It seems I have come in too late for this discussion to even have time to read the previous comments. Anyway, I have read the nomination, and I object. Esperanza has kept many users active in the project. After many users declared they would leave, we sent them encouraging emails and messages on their talkpage begging them to come back. You may see examples, such as User:Editor at Large and User:Tachikoma. I, too, have also threatened to leave Wikipedia, after a statement I left on User:Ed/Statement. Esperanza is vital to the Wikipedia community, since its primary goal is to promote a sense of community. Without Esperanza, the EA community would fall apart, since most of the editors were friends with have some sort of connection with Esperanza. In addition, where would stressed users go if they need the advice from an expert editor? Where would users have the ability to express their opinions about the current Wikipedia we work in? --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What EA community? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your question. Please restate.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • "Without Esperanza, the EA community would fall apart" -- What is this EA community and what does it mean for it to fall apart? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • EA stands for Esperanza. It's Esperanza jargon. And plus, most of the 700+ members here at Esperanza have strong ties to the organization. If the organization is deleted, then the community would simply fall apart.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Which means what? They'd leave wikipedia, or they'd stop wasting time chit-chatting and having contests to make the most over-formatted sig? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I already established the fact that more users have been kept here in Wikipedia as a result of our encouraging words. If the community falls apart, then more users would leave.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very, Very, Very Strong Keep Esperanza is a very popular and successful Wikipedia community; one of the oldest. It needs to be kept, as it's invaluable to Wikipedia. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What you haven't said is whether it benefits Wikipedia. Isn't that the issue here? -- SCZenz 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "It needs to be kept, as it's invaluable to Wikipedia" - actually, it sounds like he's said it does. Miltopia 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It would help if someone could actually show how its benefits outweigh all the silly distracting crap that it's produced. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please see WP:TEA#November 2006 and perhaps leave a comment of your own. I have poured all of Wikipedia a cup of tea, and it would be delightful if you could join me. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia is an enormous project, and no project of this size could possibly operate without a strong support network. Esperanza forms an important part of that network. In much the same way that large workplaces now emply occupational therapists, we at Wikipedia get on far better for having Esperanza. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We couldn't? I'd say 99% of wikipedia's editors have never been dependent on the existence of a support club to do what they do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reform (give it one last chance) per the above arguments highlighting the problems Esperanza has, and, per ONUnicorn's excellent essay, consider renaming to Wikipedia:Human Resources Department (a name cunningly designed to emphasise the support nature, while discouraging excessive socialising). Keep the already-existing unofficial support and discussion networks that exist outside Wikipedia (mailing lists, IRC), and at the water cooler, the Community Portal, and on user talk pages. Turn the on-wiki support network (Esperanza) into a Human Resources department. Carcharoth 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep

Let's keep this Espranza page because when active users or administrators are stressed out or don't feel like editing anymore because theyre life is busy, it will be less sudden when people lidt them on the Espranza page then just leaving without a warning. This page should also bee a strong keep because when some users are stressed, other users will cheer them up and to do that we need the page to know which user is stressed out.--PrestonH 02:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It's Esperanza! This group of users are part of Wikipedia's backbone, and by deleting Esperanza, you're deleting a part of Wikipedia. Think of all the great programs Esperanza offers, and how it has helped Wikipedia! Example: Admin coaching-has improved many users to become better editors, and show off their true potential on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What backbone? I've been trying to think of anything esperanza has done besides have silly distracting contests and off-topic discussions and I've never seen any of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "votes" like this make a swift application of a IAR deletion make sense. Rather then being a backbone, Espranza is pretty irrelevant to Wikipedia. Rx StrangeLove 02:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest.Keep.Ever - This is just getting ridiculous. FireSpike 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• The very strongest, most infinitiveness KEEP --- Bearly541 05:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KeepThis is bizzare. What's next? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Mega strong ultra keep. What better place for wikipedians in esperanza to chat and get to know each other. It wouldnt be esperanza without this place. Culverin? ^Talk 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd love it if you guys joined the discussion. This isn't a vote so much as consensus building, you've essentially said nothing. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see so many Super-duper ultra-mega strongest.delete.there's.ever.been!!!!! !votes here...it does make me wonder: Just what is the average age of an Esperanzan? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Hope? What's all this hope crap? Who the hell needs hope on Wikipedia? I thought the encyclopedia needed articles, not people who felt good about writing articles. (And actually, the encyclopedia doesn't need articles like Intercity Bridge, Minnesota State Highway 33, or the idiot editors who create such cruft and then get reported to WP:AN/I about the cruft, but I digress.) How about just writing the articles? Userboxes, use of <font> and <span> tags in signatures, pictures of flowers and seashores on user talk pages, and attempts to create a "happy" atmosphere don't get an encyclopedia written. Just ask Encyclopedia Britannica. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia doesn't need a happy atmosphere? So users are going to join a place with a bitter atmosphere and volunteer their time and work to such a place? You know what gets the encyclopedia written? The community. I think users will be much more willing to contribute to a place with a happy atmosphere.  Shardsofmetal  03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned creativity on userpages as if it is a bad thing. I view it as practice, and practice builds skills. It's better for someone to experiment on images on their userpage than in the encyclopeida proper. Userboxes provide practice with template code. And so on. If user pages help users stick around and become a more active part of this community, then that is a very good thing. The same applies to Esperanza.  The Transhumanist   02:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles don't need fancy floating CSS or images all over the place. They need good content. I've never seen a fancy userpage that I've thought articles would be better off looking like. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep per all of the reasons above. Esperanza fosters a sense of community amongst Wikipedia editors. I see nothing wrong with developing a nurturing environment that provides reasonable tutorials to editors. Alphachimp 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral As a very new member of Esperanza (and one that's only been active on Wikipedia for the past few weeks, having signed up ages ago), I am neutral, though I must say that I was greeted warmly by the Esperanzans and made to feel very welcome in the Wikipedia project as a whole due to their friendliness. I've never thought of it as a club or a clique but a support group for editors in need of a bit of a cuppa tea and a sit down, or some cheering up, or a long, long-overdue barnstar for their efforts in making Wikipedia better (you'd be surpised at how demoralising it can be not to have one's work recognised, even if it is in the form of a little jpg image). However, I do agree that some parts of it are distinctly un-encyclopedic, especially the Coffee Lounge, and if their deletion is decided, I would not mind as I understand the logic behind the decision. What I don't understand is the logic behind deleting all of Esperanza. Silliness may be thrown out, but please don't throw out the pages helping editors contemplating leaving Wikipedia altogether, or those providing support for sick or depressed editors. Marialadouce | parlami 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Accepting Messedrocker's cuppa tea. Lovely!

• Opinion - I'd like to see Esperanza kept but a couple of options, probably going to be pretty unpopular. Ban Esperanza members voting on a fellow Esperanza members RfA, instead, one comment from someone at Esperanza would be sufficent as I feel too much vote loading occurs. As soon as an Esperanzo member has an RfA, the votes pile on. From what I've looked at, Esperanzo members seem to get between 30% and 50% more votes than normal RfA candidates. I'm also concerned about the membership requirements and I really don't like the committee, why does Esperanza actually need bureaucrats and if Esperanza needs them, why doesn't Wikipedia need or want them in the same role ? I'd like to see the support and review features opened up to all Wikipedians, the admin coaching needs dumped right now, it's being used as a sneaky way to a successful RfA and again, leads to questions over vote loading. There are a huge number of really experienced users under the radar who could use the tools or who would like to be allowed to use the tools but admin coaching seems to allow a fast-track approach to adminship. I'd also like to see membership requirements abolished with all users with 1 edit being invited to join via their talk page. All existing Wikipedians who have never been invited should be invited.I'm not happy with the proposal to give Esperanza two weeks to overhaul itself. It needs outside intervention and a proper set of proposals need to be discussed by all interested users over the next few weeks before deciding what direction the project takes. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Slightly Reluctant Delete I've poked around and posted in the Coffee Lounge a bit, (not since the MfDs) but am not a member of Esperanza. The main problem I observed in the CL was not so much the absurdity as what I saw as the lack of acknowledgement of any connection with the Wikipedia project, beyond the bounds of Wiki-stress relief. And since I was observing a similiar process in RL, where a academic club I'm involved with has a large and autonomous committee whose members largely didn't even know they belonged to the actual club, seeing this dynamic in Esperanza was disturbing. In the RL example, honest and civil discussion helped solve the problem, but the leaders had to be willing to lead. I look to Esperanza's leaders for the same here. You are Wikipedians first. If nothing happens, the entire self-contained subculture is harmful and must be deleted for Wikipedia's good. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete When people here talk of a sense of community, they are talking about a sense of Esperanzian community...full of bureaucracy (featuring an "Administrator General" and "Councillors") but pretty empty of anything encylopedic. In fact the most active pages have the least to do with encylopedia creation. See WP:COFFEE for example. Admin coaching is a bad idea, becoming an admin should come as a natural result of editing and not a goal. We shouldn't have a insular community within a community in which not everyone is welcome. I'm sure enough members will come here to vote keep to protect their club but Esperanza gives new users the wrong idea of what being a Wikipedian is and pulls people away from why we are here. Rx StrangeLove 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I gotta tell you Esperanza people that when you basically have multiple people stating that this nomination is bad faith without even bothering to read what is said you are shooting yourself in the foot. I cannot help but state this again:

If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay home

--Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep...-It's a good program, I suppose.--SUIT^{What? 42} 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Call me a sentimental anti-encyclopedic Wikipedian if you must, but when I see Keep votes like Editor at Large's, I simply have to suspect that Esperanza must be doing something right. Yes, it does sound like there's some issues with the way some Esperanzan's act with the Wiki, (I read something about votes in RFA up above, and some general stuff about it not focusing on the project) but anybody can act against the project in Wikipedia, whether their in Esperanza or not. I don't really see how the actions of some editors in a single group doing something that might be construed as unconstructive automatically means the grouping should be deleted, why not give them the two weeks that the person below is talking about? Homestarmy 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, getting everyone back here who was here before would be difficult. Plus, who can gaurentee 2 weeks? Will YOU make the entire Esperanza project reform, refactor and reapply to MfD so we can revisit this process again? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It would only take a single person to nominate it for deletion again, and only a single person from Esperanza should be needed to defend the idea that it has been reformed. Homestarmy 13:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well i've seen a lot of XfD's, haven't seen a lot of massive overhauls/reforms. Show me: Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Esperanza is a very helpful part of the community, and I think it would be a bad idea to get rid of it. I think it would be a better idea to have a discussion of the specific problems it has, and try to fix them. I could understand listing individual Esperanza pages here, but the whole project...I think that's rediculous. I've seen people say that the Wikipedia community was fine before Esperanza and will be fine after. Didn't Wikipedia start Esperanza because of a need to help calm down users stressed out from the hassles of editing, and the incivility of some other users. I don't think the community is in the best shape right now, either. I constantly see new users leave, due to being punished to much for an honest mistake they made with good intentions. Back to the point, Esperanza has some very good projects. If we delete Esperanza, what happens to them? And if we keep them, what is the point of deleting Esperanza? Esperanza has too much potential to be completely obliterated. As mentioned below, I think it would be a better idea to give Esperanzians 2 weeks to make some major improvements to Esperanza. Like I've said before, deleting this whole project is not the best way to go to improve Wikipedia. With a makeover, this project can really help contributing to the encyclopedia.  Shardsofmetal  03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Though I like the fact that it encourages participation, I feel that it is non-encyclopedic and not really "needed" in the community. Though some of the projects that revolve around it are nice, I think it's irrelevant to have a coffee lounge in an encyclopedia. [wossi] 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah, I think that there is already a consensus to delete the Coffee lounge. I've made a suggestion to move it off Wikimedia servers at the overhaul page.  Shardsofmetal  04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it IS non-encyclopedic: this happens to violate the first pillar of WP:5P. You know, the big first one. I don't know what other criteria could trump this. There is no 'need' for Esperanza, people can talk by other means (talk pages or external wikis/forums). Some projects like admin coaching have representation under kosher ground (Wikipedia:Mentoring, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User). JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Lankiveil. --Howard the Duck 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 5

• As said by Ed on the Esperanza talk page, Esperanza needs a major overhaul. Give us two weeks for Esperanzians to discuss it and make it better, and see if you still think it should be deleted. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope you're right. But you'll have to understand my skepticism. I've heard promises of this sort before, the kind of promises that are made under fire and then quickly forgotten about once attention has shifted elsewhere. But you're right, of course; there's been way too much mission skew with Esperanza, and it barely even resembles what it was originally supposed to do. Some sort of realignment is in order. Getting rid of some of the nonsense subpages (like the coffee lounge and games) might help to realign it more closely with encyclopedic goals. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The eradication of undesirable material from Esperanza would take weeks. We have to achieve consensus, discuss the new plan for Esperanza, etc.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, do the right thing with as little bureaucracy as possible. -- SCZenz 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Like doing it through this MfD, or through subsequent, more targeted MfDs, on the specific topic. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please not I am not endorsing deletion or keeping. I just would like this discussion to continue, here or in another more targeted MfD. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - pardon my response above, but could you provide some examples of what exactly is wrong with Esperanza? Or provide an outlet somewhere where reforms could be discussed? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just created Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul for all Esperanza members to discuss everything about our organization.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you are Not a member... does that mean that we are out of the loop now? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We're on a wiki. Of course anyone can edit at their will.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

<drop indent for readability> I see... but that was not who you addressed it to... And how do we know that what is said on that page is going to get done?—— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This MfD already made its point to the entire community. Of course we have to follow through with our plans.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So assuming that we would do that... what would be the time line for changes? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:MFD/EA now redirects to this page. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Several comments, before I continue my defense:
  1. The original nominator made the nomination in good faith, I have no doubt about that.
  2. Many keep defenses are irrational because to many members of Esperenza, the idea of a nomination deleting an entire community within Wikipedia feels like a personal attack upon its members. This kind of feeling does not engender rational defenses, rather it engenders a fight-or-flight reflex which is what you are seeing here. You don't have to be a sociologists to understand that people ARE the communities they belong to, and thus proposing to remove the entire community IS considered by its members an inherantly personal and direct attack on them.

OK, now lets look at some of the effects of deleting and keeping Esperenza based on possible assumptions and outcomes:

• Assumption 1) Esperenza members would edit Wikipedia more if they spent less time on Esperenza related projects.
  • Response to assumption 1) Let me see if we can see the false analogy this comes from: "Employees would spend more time doing productive work if the spent less time screwing around". Does anyone see the problem here? Wikipedia editors are not employees, they are volunteers. Assumption 1) is based on the concept that if I have 2 hours to spend on wikipedia, I will edit for 2 hours if there are no other distractions, and the existence of Esperenza means that I will spend 1 hour on Esperenza and only 1 hour editing. It is equally as likely that if Esperenza goes away I will still only spend 1 hour editing, and 1 hour screwing around my house in other ways. Thus, I contend that deleting Esperenza will NOT increase the number of quality mainspace edits, at least by assumption 1.
• Assumption 2) The existance of Esperenza brings editors into wikipedia who are uninterested in editing, and such editors as persons are undesirables around here.
  • Response to assumption 2) More editors at wikipedia means more potential mainspace article edits. Editors cannot be considered undesirable if we assume good faith.
• Assumption 3) Esperenza is exclusive and cliqueish and exists only to keep others out and put its own members into positions of power.
  • Response to assumption 3) There is zero evidence of this. I have heard several arguements to this nature, and I feel it has no basis in reality. Please provide concrete evidence to back this up before making such personal attacks.
• Assumption 4) The functions of Esperenza could be better handled in other ways here.
  • Response to assumption 4) How? The fact that Esperenza is a coherant community means that its members are already keen on working with each other. That makes for quicker, more productive collaboration on projects, which is a more efficient way to work. If we just wait around for these projects to happen on their own, there is no "community togetherness" to make them happen. Familiarity, in this case, builds stronger working relationships.
• Assumption 5) Esperenza has a few good projects, but the bulk of Esperenza is simply an excuse for random people to chat and play games with each other.
  • Response to assumption 5) The games section has already been deleted. The main chat forum, the coffee lounge, could also be deletable. But the tutorial drive, admin coaching (WHICH IS NOT COACHING PEOPLE TO BECOME ADMINS. IT IS ASSIGNING ADMINS TO COACH NEW USERS IN HOW TO BE BETTER EDITORS), and the Collaboration of the Month are all worthwile ventures that increase the number of quality mainspace and project edits here. Again, Esperenzans, by virtue of familiarity, are able to more quickly form collaborational projects and go with them. So MfD the parts of Esperenza that are distracting and anti-wikipedian, but leave those parts that are EXPRESSLY and DIRECTLY related to making better editors and better articles.

In conclusion, if parts of Esperenza seem objectionable, MfD those parts. But don't delete the good projects (the Tutorial Drive, the Collaboration of the Month, etc.) simply to get rid of the bad ones. Setting off a bomb in a bus station may kill some criminals, but you take down a lot of innocents as well. --Jayron32 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• If I could add one argument to assumption #1: sometimes breaks are needed. If you've ever written a paper, done homework, or any other sort of work, you know that after a while, you lose your concentration and need a break. That is the case here too, I believe. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was once a member of Esperanza, joining soon after its establishment. I was drawn by its ambition to unite the Wikipedia community. I soon saw, however, that this mission was being ignored; instead of uniting the entire community, Esperanza was successfully separating itself from it, becoming insular. I saw a succession of users fail to change its direction. So I left. I believe Esperanza is now a divisive organisation. Time and again, I see its members perpetrate that fatal “us and them” mentality. I do no for a second lege that this a view held by each and every member; however, I do think that is held by a significant enough number to make Esperanza inimical to the interests of Wikipedia. It cannot be reformed. Therefore, I say delete. I also second the arguments put by the nominator and Elaragirl.--cj | talk 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

  "It, more than anything else, gives new users the idea that Wikipedia place for socializing rather than working on an encyclopedia. Before people comment on this nomination, I'd like to ask them to browse through the Coffee lounge, talk pages, and archives. Note that many of the people involved with Esperanza are relatively new users, and ask yourself if we are doing the project or these new users a service by presenting them with the notion that this is what Wikipedia is about--and I submit that people most certainly are getting that notion." --Robth

  This seems to be one of the nominator's main arguments, or at least part of it. I would like to explain/mention a very important fact: many of the past frequent users of the Coffee Lounge and most enthusiastic members of Esperanza were new or new-ish users at the time, and as they gained experience and knowledge they moved on to more serious encyclopedia-building. Esperanza and the Coffee Lounge are a good place to get grounded in the community, make friends whom you aren't afraid to ask for help, and become more familiar with policy, procedure, etc. in a friendly environment. If you look through the Coffee Lounge archives you'll see that many of the older contributors no longer write there often and are more focused on the encyclopedia. It's certainly that way with me, and I'm sure it was and is the same for many other users. — Editor at Large^(speak) 03:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't keep, don't delete, scale down. It's my belief that a) Esperanza in its purest form is very good for Wikipedia, and b) Esperanza in its current form is rather distracting for Wikipedia (and does turn it into more of a social lounge than anything). Therefore, I can only suggest that Esperanza be reformed and cut down significantly. In particular, social items that add nothing to the encyclopaedia should be cut. The perfect Esperanza would take in newbies and churn out Wikipedians who are familiar with the policies, goals, and culture of Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, can someone please clean this discussion up? theProject 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly recommend against "cleaning this discussion up," because refactoring tends to ruin these kinds of discussions, rather than making them easier to read. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, other then formatting fixes, and re-organization (according to time or whatever, keep the refactoring away. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP although there may be criticisms, that is true of any organization with diverse members. Deleting the entire project is not the answer. In fact I find this proposal to delete such a group that has such wide participation from respected editors to be the wrong approach to propose change on Wikipedia. --Trödel 04:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms? You mean like violating the first pillar of WP:5P? Esperanza is not encyclopedic, and should go. Deleting it now and reviving COTM etc. later (which is easy, it'd take 1/2hr) would save beaurocratic process. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a group that encourages "respect [for] fellow Wikipedians;" urges parties to remain "be [[[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]];" provides a place where people can "stay cool when the editing gets hot;" favors 1RR to "avoid edit wars [instead of] the three-revert rule;" and is very "open and welcoming" violates WP:5P. In fact - that would seem to be completely in support of one of the pillars. --Trödel 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A group can encourage whatever it wants, but it's support for the other pillars like the 4th one doesn't change the fact that it violates the first. Hell, I support the 4th, but the moment I start adding lots of articles about my garage band around here, I'll get blocked. Same for Esperanza. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, I will imply WP:IAR here. This project is beneficial to the encyclopedia, and deleting the project is bad. Esperanza has helped many users when they were new, and has lots of activities to benefit the encyclopedia such as the COTM, admin coaching. Esperanza helps people when they are in trouble and its aim is to reach out to Wikipedians. Most of the pages give benefit to the encyclopedia. This should be kept, as it has encyclopedic benefits. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching and COTM can be done without Esperanza. You can be friendly and helpful other wikipedians without Esperanza.JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. While there are certain things in the project I do not entirely agree with, I see some great value in some of their projects, such as the Admin coaching. I have no affiliation, but constantly see the fruits of this group, as little as I am around. --525252a 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin coaching can be moved to wikipedia namespace Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:Mentoring and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Strong!--Tdxiang 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)--Tdxiang 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For both of you above, This is not a vote this is a discussion, why keep? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will second that, I doubt the closer will bother to !count votes, as the closer has enough to read as it is! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT and the uncivil comments of Esperanza members on this very page. —Mira 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though I am not a member of Esperanza, I advise you to please assume good faith, as very few Esperanza members have intentionally tried to be uncivil in this discussion.--TBCΦtalk? 05:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • By no means did I intend to include every member in my statement. I apologize if I chose poor wording. —Mira 05:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Immediate Keep This whole nomination against a project dedicated to kindness is, frankly, a very poor joke. "Canned good cheer" still requires someone to care enough to dish it out, and in the Internet age, even the few keystrokes needed to do it are sometimes considered a burden, so having it done is still a blessing. This nomination reeks of a WP:NCR violation. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• With out WP:ESP what would we be? A soulless coldhearted group of people. Esperanza may not be directly contributing to wiki but it is lifting the spirits of alot of wikipedians. Its spices things up around here. It makes us a big community. It brings out the spirit of inclusionism and friendship. As a whole we need these qualities and there is no better way to bring them out in people than Esperanza. The coffee lounge is a perfect example of this. It makes things fun. I am sure there are editors that feel that WP:ESP/CL has made this a brighter place. Culverin? ^Talk 05:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This nomination sounds a lot like my high school principle who banned pep rallies because they didn't serve an academic purpose. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, but there is a social aspect to every organization, and Wikipedia is no exception to that. To me, Esperanza reflects the social aspect that is present in most businesses, like the water cooler talk or the annual Christmas party. Sure, it may not contribute to the goals of the encyclopedia directly, but it still ultimately benefits the project in the way that it encourages editors and provides them with a social connection to Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Esperanza has some problems, many of which have been addressed, but I still think that there is a place for it on Wikipedia. —Cswrye 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but wikipedia is not your highschool, and does not have to be happy-funtime-land for everyone. The 'watercooler' effect can be achieved with external forum locations. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it has to be "happy-funtime-land", only that there is a social aspect to Wikipedia that can't be ignored completely. Having a social connection to an organization is one thing that keeps people attatched to it. Sure, the elements of Esperanza that are purely social should go, but there are elements of community-building that still help build the encyclopedia. —Cswrye 15:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't have to be ignored at all. You can socialize all you want, it just can't be done around here when it violates WP:NOT. External forums or Wikia would be perfect for this; they don't have policies against social networks. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 6

• Comment WHY do some of the people wanting it kept feel the need to label people who disagree AGAINST KINDNESS? This is not an election, go leave political mudslinging somewhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Those in favor of keeping the project seem to be citing WP:IAR and many (though not all) of them are failing to provide evidence that the deletion of Esperanza prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The behavior of some of the members on this page seems to indicate that of a cliquish group sticking together. I believe the group was founded with good intentions to provide stress relief for established Wikipedians, but it is my impression that the group instead attracts a certain demographic of users who are more interested in social networking than contributing to an encyclopedia. If the project is kept, the membership requirements should be increased significantly, and the coffee lounge should be deleted. Khatru2 05:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak move I think that the two sides' arguments are growing clear. I would like to see more discussion of potential remedies - particularly by the "keep" side of the potential harm, if any, of leaving stubs and redirects and everything that directly relates to improving articles, but moving everything else (barnstar brigade discussions and destress and sig coaching and intra-esperanza bureaucracy etc.) to some allied wiki. Also a note on the discussion here: while there is respectable "signal" on both sides, the "noise" (defensiveness and failure to assume good faith) is almost all on the "keep" side. It is not very hard to just read past the noise - but it's still a waste of time and thus a detriment to this discussion. As someone for whom this discussion is the first I've heard of Esperanza, I have a hard time not extending the impression that gives me to all of it. --Homunq 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  I like your signal-to-noise analogy. I think the "keep" supporters that are only creating noise would do well to heed the perception they are creating for the entire "keep" side of the discussion. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nuanced Delete. Esperanza, unlike CVU, has some programmes that seem very helpful to the project (e.g. Admin coaching) - I don't know if they're used, but they're well intentioned and we need functional things of that sort. Perhaps those programmes can happen outside the banner of Esperanza. There are some obvious issues with Esperanza - it attempts to create a separate, deep culture outside of Wikipedia, with values that need to be both reviewed and part of Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot afford to lose some of these projects, or have them fail -- one of the biggest issues facing the English Wikipedia right now is that our community (especially the admins) is rotting, both because people feel entitled to join the ranks of the admins and because we're failing to educate people about what the project is about before they join policy discussions. Esperanza is, sadly, focused more on drawing people in than educating them, and tosses project focus to the wind to do so. We need to absorb what's useful in Esperanza into Wikipedia at large, and delete the rest. To do only one would be really unfortunate. --Improv 05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete (keep some sub-projects). I had to think for quite a while on what I really thought, and this is what I came up with. Obviously, admin coaching, the welcoming committee, and the like should be kept. But the existence of the project as a whole only seems to encourage the attitude of "Esperanza is cool, you're not cool if you're not in it". Witness Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where many people seem to think membership in Esperanza should be a prerequisite for any program like this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  The thing is, the Wikipedia:Esperanza page says clearly that being in Esperanza gives no special privileges... does anyone know why poeple are so confused? -- SCZenz 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It's probably interpreted as "You don't get admin priveleges, but you should still be treated better than everyone else, because you're helping make us friendly." -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This discussion is getting very long (currently at 187 kilobytes), so should we move it to a seperate page?--TBCΦtalk? 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Should continue on a new page perhaps? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, it's no longer transcluded on the MfD page.--TBCΦtalk? 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP!, deleting this would be like deleting Wikipedia:Community Portal, since CP isn't part of an encyclopedia.--Rayc 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note The community portal assists the encyclopedia, it allows a common location for posting things that need done ect. What happens here will not affect the community portal. The merits or lackthereof of one thing do not speak of the merits or lack thereof of another. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The community portal is not the issue here. Lets stick to assessing ONE thing for MfD at a time, no strawman arguments by comparing it to other commonplace elements of wikipedia. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • You talk like the Community Portal is a big todo list. If a page dedicated to community, that links to a bunch of projects that helps the encyclopedia is deleted, how could that not apply to the Community Portal?--Rayc 06:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand me, the community portal is a signpost board for what is happening on wikipedia, links to useful processes ect. The community portal is not a group of people, it is a place on wikipedia. The community portal has no such thing as "programs". The community portal is totally irrelevant to this debate. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Then I must be confused at the purpose of this MfD (and I also used a bad example). Why Esperanza, and not Wikipedia:Concordia, Wikipedia:Department of Fun, Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates?--Rayc 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Because every one of those (except DoF, many of whose pages are up for deletion) has a direct link to the editing of articles, rather than serving as a distracting community unto itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
            • AMA focuses advocating, Concordia on civility, DoF on fun. ...Harmonious editing club... well, another bad example. But my question is, if a group isn't focused on editing, then it's to be deleted?--Rayc 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Concordia, AMA, and HEC are all devoted to resolving editing disputes, and DoF is up for deletion, as I said. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Bring em all out. I have no problem with discussing their validity on their own merits, but please don't resort to dragging other things in like that. "Oh, similar projects exist, nix one you nix em all" is not a valid argument for keep. That very well may happen, but that is for later to decide. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is not myspace-pedia. Useful things (Admin coaching, etc) can be moved to "regular" wikipedia space. -- Chuq 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I have often doubted Esperanza, but everytime I try to find fault, the good things the organisation does shines through. I don't like the Coffee Lounge, I don't go there, it's one subpage among many. Nominate that, the subpages you have issue with, if you wish. It seems the prevailing viewpoint is that we should just move everything Esperanza is doing right and then delete the whole organisation...I don't get that. New ideas, some bad, some potentially really good, are coming along all the time. I do however appreciate that the nomination was done civily and in good faith. :) -- Banes 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD Esperanza and move the small parts you like (COTM? Admin Coaching?) to regular WP space. Wikipedia:Mentoring and Wikipedia:Peer Review do just fine. This way, we save weeks and weeks of beauractic shtick. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well howabout doing it differently, mfd the small parts you don't like and leave the rest of the organisation as it is? I personally think there are more good programs in Esperanza besides those two, and that the bad ones are outnumbered by the good. Why not just delete the trash and leave the rest intact? This way you are less likely to annoy a number of the 700+ members (not that the number of members has a bearing on this discussion). I'm on the esperanza leadership thingy and I will say straight out that there are parts of Esperanza which are unencyclopedic and should be deleted, they don't bother me much though so I just ignore them. The other projects, like admin coaching, are running smoothly along right where they are and I can't see how moving them is going to improve the state of things. -- Banes 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Err... can I ask what other parts of it that you see are good? Though your solution sounds like a good idea. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Esperanza has supported many editors in their time of need, and without Esperanza, many people may have left the project because they are too stressed. With more than 700 members, Esperanza is a major part of the Wikipedian community. Perhaps parts of Esperanza need to go, like the Coffee Lounge for example, it could be moved to Wikia, but the whole project cannot be deleted. Without Esperanza, I would feel like there is no-one to turn to on Wikipedia. Esperanza is an important part of the community that offers so much support to all, especially those who need it most. Jam01 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • This is an encyclopedia, not a stress-free-therapy session. No matter how many members it has, Esperanza is nonencyclopedic (violates 1st pillar of WP:5P). There are plenty of people you know who you could just use their user_talk page. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And the point I'm trying to make about is if the argument for deletion is "nonencyclopedic", then every page that does not directly have encyclopedic content on it, even those that have links to pages that help the encyclopdia, could be deleted on this logic. Another argument is that it's not focused on editing. So are alot of other groups. Should they be deleated? I'm trying to find an argument for delete that doesn't have mass ramifications--Rayc 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't be afraid of mass ramifications; it'll all be worked out. That is what consensus is about. In the end, it'll all be fine. As per deming things 'nonencyclopedic', if it isn't directly related to wikipedia, if it violates WP:NOT - being a social network - then it should go. Thats Esperanza. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So if this was Wikiproject:Promoting Wikipedia Community, it would be ok? Sorry about this, I'm not usually this debative, but this seems like a very drastic meassure for something I don't see as a problem. Guess I've been hanging around Wikiversity to much were we are perpetually pushing "learning communities", to see a community over here deleted... It like if Wikiveristy deleted a bunch of featured articles saying "That's not part of our goal".--Rayc 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If wikiproject:promoting wikipedia community didn't involve editing encyclopedic articles to be better, i'd say it should go. Don't worry about being debative - this is consensus building, its what is expected! :) And, we're not 'deleting a community'; the community can exist just fine on an external wikia/forum, or even talkpages right here on wikipedia. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the project itself and all subpages relating to social networking, socializing, user page awards, and "stress relief", as per WP:NOT; keep those pages directly related to improving articles and project pages (Tutorial Drive, Collaboration of the Month) but remove the "Esperanza" branding. There's no reason we need to have a separate named group within Wikipedia for overseeing collaborations and tutorials, unless that group is dedicated to a particular topic. The WikiProjects are useful because they allow editors with common interest or knowledge in a particular encyclopedia topic to write, organize, and assess articles on that topic. A general-purpose collaboration group like Esperanza lacks such focus and has the danger of existing more to serve its members (and their agenda) than the encyclopedia. Judging from some of the comments in this MfD, it seems many editors believe that this danger has already been realized. —Psychonaut 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I am becoming reather dismayed at the current trend of suggesting to arbitrarily delete all things which have to do with community-building. Yes, we are an encyclopedia. But at the same time, we are a community of encyclopedists. And any project on Wikipedia which embraces, supports, and teaches by example, the five pillars, should be KEPT. As often as one hears the cry of "Ignore all rules" misapplied, this would seem to be the spirit of the 5th pillar. Rules, which are applied in such ways as they would be deterimental to the community and the encyclopedia should be IGNORED. - jc37 07:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, this is definitely not an arbitrary suggestion of deletion. See the size of this bad-boy discussion (its like 200k by now)? The community of encyclopedists can exist just fine in other capacities, like Wikia, a forum, talkpages...anything. I've seen the enthusiasm, and I'm impressed. If Esperanza was deleted, I'm sure this would all get channeled to another place. Otherwise, I think we've overestimated it's importance. As it stands it violates the 1st pillar, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: Esperanza, is not. Throwing around IAR shouldn't be used because some people really really really like esperanza. The esperanzian community is about 700 editors, and i don't think we should break the 1st pillar with the 5th just for their exception. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The Coffee Lounge does indeed violate WP:NOT Policy, but Esperanza as a whole, does not. If we were to delete Esperanza based upon the rule "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" then wouldn't other Wikipedian communities like Concordia and the Kindness Campaign need to be deleted? I am a bit confused. Jam01 07:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but let them be judged on their own merits; we don't want make this an MfD for more than one thing. We're looking at Esperanza, and if we start critiquing other boxes of puppies, things get muddled. ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; although I'd be willing to lose the Coffee Lounge and User Page Contests. Some very valuable schemes (stress-busters, admin coaching, To-do list, tutorial drive etc.) have all come from Esperanza, and I'm not sure that losing those would benefit the encyclopedia; if stress-busters prevents even one user from leaving over stress, then it has helped in writing the encyclopedia (albeit not directly) and is therefore a valuable part of Wikipedia. I'm less sure about CL and UPC, but those would have be MfD'd separately. Laïka 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, firstly Wikipedia is NOT a place to get a stress-therapy-sesh. It is an encyclopedia, and shouldn't start growing arms and legs that massage your back and play calm music. To-do lists are userpage simple tasks. Tutorials can be incorporated into the help sections of wikipedia. Admin coaching exists with Wikipedia:Mentoring and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What I'm saying is that if an editor leaves over stress, then that has harmed writing the encyclopedia. If Esperanza persuedes them to stay, then Esperanza has helped writing the encyclopedia. As I am certain that at least one editor has been persueded to stay in part by Esperanza, Esperanza has been conducive to writing an encyclopedia. Splitting the project into half-a-dozen subprojects scattered around the Wikipedia:, Help:, Talk: and User: spaces would decrease the amount of collaboration which could take place, and decrease drastically the effectiveness of the projects. Laïka 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think wikipedians leave over stress all the time. It's probably a good thing; working on an encyclopedia can require some breaks. I'm sure Esperanza has some truly lauded success stories, but that doesn't change the tired fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thats it. Possibly reincorporating elements into Wikipedia:, Help:, Talk: and User: has worked just fine since wikipedia's existence, I doubt it would fragment anything. It is how much effort you put behind something that makes it work, not its shinny locale. I think the Esperanza community can do it and still keep the WP:5P in tact. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm not involved with Esperanza and it's not my cup of tea, however, I don't see the reason to rush out and delete something that is clearly of value to many other editors. I suggest further discussion outside the forum of an MfD. MfD seems a bit radical -- sort of like "if we don't like these behaviors, we should delete the Esperanza initiative and implicitly rebuke its members." Perhaps something short of this proposed amputation/execution might make a more appropriate next step. --A. B. 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason it should be deleted is because it violates the 1st pillar of WP:5P and WP:NOT. (i don't know why you used the word 'rushed', this can take as long as need be to discuss). I don't think this is radical or amputative; everything that is taken away that can be re-incorporated in a legit fashion (rather easy to do btw, it is a wiki) will be restored. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, the reason why I used the word "rushed" comes straight from the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion; the initiator of this MfD set a 5-day clock ticking:

"Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept."

I think your definition of 'rushed' is different than mine. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly. --A. B. 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and reform - Seeing this brought straight to MfD, without very little prior consultation with people in Esperanza or the broader community (and yes, I've seen the talkpage, I've even offered to take part in CotM), worries me. MfD is not a toy, and Esperanza is not a trivial organisation. Some of our best contributors are heavily involved in Esperanza, and I don't see that affecting their work at all. Yes, Esperanza has its weaknesses. So does any organisation which promotes itself as a place for a community to bond - there will always be people who misread its intentions. Esperanza needs to work on its charter, definitely. We need to set out clearer rules about what we do and do not want to see from an Esperanzian. We do not need to dump it because it's not working. Esperanza needs to move away from hangman and caption competitions towards becoming a nurturing environment for new contributors to learn the ropes and settle in. But we shouldn't abandon ship altogether. Programs like admin-school are at the other end of the spectrum, obviously... we need to find a comfortable middle ground, where we're not trying too hard, but we are trying, to work to better this encyclopedia. And making Wikipedia better should be at the forefront of all our minds, regardless of whether we're Esperanzians, Concordians, CVU members or unaffiliated with any organisation. riana_dzasta 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is an MfD, not suitable? Is Esperanza above that? As long as the MfD brings out the issues, then I see no problem with the MfD. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey Eagle, I don' think it's above MfD - I just think that these issues should have been explored more deeply first. MfD just seems a little radical. I could be looking at it the wrong way, of course. riana_dzasta 08:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, no problem, but no better way to focus the community's attention on an issue then an MfD. My point is proven by the sheer size of this debate.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • (ec)Fair point. I have struck that part of my argument in response to that. riana_dzasta 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a member, but I feel that to remove the community side of wikipedia could bring down the rest. I'm been involved in real world project which solely focued on the task and did not value the social side, there it has been a recipe for disaster, and the same could happen here. All the WP:NOT arguments arguments do not impress me a puritan ethic which if it caught hold would mean that I would have to leave. The one thing which does worry me is claims that esperanze members vote for each other in various elections, I think that this is worth some investigation but the MfD is not the place to do that. --Salix alba (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I noted somewhere in this debate, that MfD was the perfect location for this debate. We have over 210Kb of conversation. How is that bad?—— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Any reason why removing Esperanza would be removing the community side of wikipedia? Community at large has existed with wikipedia for quite a while, long before esperanza too i might add. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It would remove a large aspect of the existing community, its shows that some are not happy for others parts of the community to exist, incredibly distructive. --Salix alba (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • 'Large aspect'? I believe the Esperanza's userbase is like 700, we have over a million wikipedia users for English alone. Who says I'm happy or not happy about its existence? I'm all for it being around and being thriving. It just can't do it over on Wikipedia: wikia, forums, IRC, talkpages - take your pick, they'll all work for me. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An important alternative to official complaints and action by the admin or an arbitration comittee. Also a good source of advice for users needing advice or feeling bruised by other users and needing somewhere to go for advice or information on what to do next. I'd wager that a lot of the users who want it deleted are the kind o users that people come here because of. perfectblue 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We have redundant things that do what you have mentioned. WP:MEDCAB is very good at resolving disputes. If a user has a question all they need do is add the {{helpme}} tag and #wikipedia-bootcamp will come to their aid in minutes. (I am a member of #wikipedia-bootcamp). Also, what is up with the wager? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's still official action. This is much better for users who might need some generic friendly advice. WP:MEDCAB is where this might advise you to go, or might advise you that it would inflame things. perfectblue 11:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you are mistaking WP:MEDCAB for WP:MEDCOM. MEDCAB is specifically a non-official and informal mediation approach. -- Ned Scott 11:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We can't expect Esperanza to be a utopian organisation. Just because of a few issues like the coffee lounge we can't immediately delete the whole program. It's like throwing out a shirt because you can't get a crease out of it. If you just iron out the bumps and creases over time, it will become good again. It's the same with Esperanza. We acknowledge that, as an organization, we aren't perfect. There are issues that Esperanza needs to deal with. That's why the Eszperanza Overhaul page was created. Give us time and we will improve. Jam01 08:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So? Esperanza is not above an MfD. The way I see it is that you guys (Esperanza) have gotten maximum suggestions for improvement. Make this page your "overhaul page". Please tell me what the Overhaul page was started because of? If the Coffee Lounge is faulty, then it will be removed as part of this MfD, or as part of a future MfD (for individual parts of Esperanza as mentioned somewhere in this huge debate.) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 7

• transwiki, move off site, or someone propose some good reform Instead of looking at this as a "delete" nomination lets look at it this way: should Esperanza stay on Wikipedia or not? I've been doing some stuff with WikiProjects lately and really want to encourage the idea that they are places of collaboration first and groups of people second. Ironically, Esperanza sets a bad example for these kinds of efforts. It makes it sound like if you are not apart of something like this, then you are anti-community or even not in the community. I understand what they're trying to do, but as others have pointed out... they need to get back on track or go somewhere else. Personally, I think Esperanza would actually be more successful as an off-site effort than an on-site one. If people really want to keep Esperanza here then we need to see some reform. You can have fun and have a community, but there's more than one way to do it. Esperanza, as it is now, is not the best way to do it. If it can be saved and improved on, great. If not, then it needs to go somewhere else. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep if redone. I think a major overhaul is necessary, and Esperanza needs to rethink its role within the Wikipedia community. To fulfill its mission, it needs to attempt to reach out to all of us, and not appear like a chat club for teenage Wikipedians with obnoxious signatures. If Esperanza appears like a special club, it has divided the Wikipedia community and failed in its mission. Reform is needed, and some parts might need to go. However, happy Wikipedians write a better encyclopedia, and if Esperanza keeps more Wikipedians happy and working than it makes unhappy and ready to leave, it is doing something good. There is probably still hope for Esperanza. Kusma (討論) 09:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reform sounds like the best idea to me. The ideal solution would of course be to integrate important functions to core Wikipedia. For example, community discussions could be moved to Village Pump, etc. If there are some functions that are essential in building an encyclopedia and cannot be integrated, then they could stay as their own program. I must give credit for the program because it has already improved its structure a lot recently. --Jannex 09:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep This is simply ridulcious. Why are we trying to delete something that is not hurting Wikipedia but could very well hurt it if we go thought and delete this. Frankly, I think this is Wikilawring, delete something just because it isn't following the "rules" of Wikipedia. Are the rules even that important that we have to follow them at all costs. NO THEY ARE NOT. It is discussions like this that are starting to kill Wikipedia, because their seems to be a growing crowd that only wants really serious editors who edit ten time a day and spend half their time in nitty-gritty tasks. What about any editors who spend most of their time on Esperanza but still make 2-3 edits a day in the main encyclopedia. Doesn't Wikipedia want them anymore? --Aussie King Pin 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I have also argued to keep, this is the sort of argument I was afraid of seeing. No, we do not want to see editors who spend most of their time on Esperanza. We are an encyclopedia, first and foremost. If there are users who are making social networking their primary aim, their interests should be diverted towards collaboration that will actually build the encyclopedia. riana_dzasta 09:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Or they can leave the project if their primary interest is in a social forum. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have people go away that aren't contributing. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I am back thanks to Hildanknight to let me know about this. See, I reckon the idea of "distracting users from editing the mainspace" is a bit "not-good". Don't you think userpage can also distract users from editing the mainspace? And their subpages? And decorations on talk pages? And decorations on project pages? There will always stuff exist out there that would distract someone from editing Wikipedia, and build encyclopedia. And again, I want to emphasize other users' point, that Wikipedia is really a community based encyclopedia. In addition, I admit I have searched a video on youtube about Wikipedia (me = nerds :P) and I found an interesting video. That Jimmy said Wikipedia is different from previous projects because it is based on community. WP:ESP is a way to make this happen, and I can't see why it should be deleted. Relating to my first point, there is always something that may distract users from editing, we just need to control ourself. WP:ESP can provide, but people can choose whether they should or should not participate in. Regards -- Imoeng 09:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why most keeps have admitted that Esperanza has some core bad elements. It doesn't defuse any objections. Anyways, if you want to discuss the merits of Esperanza this is the place, it is not for userpage and talkpage critiques; let Esperanza stand on its own value. You can draw up the MfD for those if you'd like. You're right, wikipedia IS a community, and one that has, is, and will exist without Esperanza just fine. Something that provides distractions can be done by another website, unless you want to step over to the CP and hit up 'Things to do'. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep: Will WP:MEET be banned as well?? It seems the main argument that wikipedia is not a socialising forum. I should stress the point that it doesn't go well with the delete argument, folks. It may be one of the foundation pillars, but there are a lot of occasions in Wikipedia where it is circumvented. However, I'm not in support of the outrageous keep arguments as well. I'll like to support Rayc's argument. If we're going to dismantle the esperanzian community, it sure means that a lot other communities should go as well. People may argue saying, just argue on what is being argued about here. But, this MfD raises a whole lot of questions. Yes, as a rational Esperanzian, I agree that it is not above a MfD. But, it should also be noted that we're not here to, and we cannot really smoke everything out of the hole! Practically speaking, we simply can't ban the Wikipedia Meetups and Wikimanias from happening, even if we ban them bringing out a policy on that. We can't ban Jimmy from meeting fellow wikipedians around the world. Are those people building a wikipedia or socialising?? The point is, there is a fine line between both. You and me having a chat over a cupacoffee after we've met in wikipedia isn't that bad really. A strong community is a performing community. The path that is taken to build such a community may be different. Personally, if you ask me, if things are screwed up so badly, just tear the page and write a new one! It will bring in fresh ideas. I like it that way. But, it doesn't work in a dynamic environment, where so many volunteers (read, volunteers) collaborate, interact and build an encyclopedia. This MfD has raised a lot of questions, on the basic understanding on what wikipedia is in itself. I've learnt a lot from the Wikipedian community, especially WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF which shaped my character in real life as well. One cannot simply deface the socialising aspect of the community. I'm strongly against that POV. If we accept that the sense of community is what keeps Wikipedia going, then Esperanza cannot be made to disappear just like that. Esperanza has outgrown. I'm not insane. And I'm saying keep, because I wanted to take a defining stance rather than just commenting. IMHO, keep seems more rational than delete. Hope the better comes of out of this debate. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 10:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Come now, the reason we're saying argue just about what is being argued here is because people are dragging in WP:MEET, Wikimania, Wikipedia:Community Portal and talkpages...it just gets more and more ridiculous. It's trying to win an argument by finding something people value a whole lot and then threatening it too. Its draconian really. Esperanza does not, nay, probably will not go away if they loose their mainspace on Wikipedia. External wikis like Wikia, forums or user talkpages could work just fine to keep Esperanza around. If people just use all the determination I've been seeing around here towards that aim, there'd be 3 times the Esperanza at Wikia. No one is 'defacing' anything. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WikiProjects are a much better way to build and foster a sense of community because of their inherent emphasis on contributing encyclopedic content. Keep some good parts, such as Admin coaching, but do away with the overemphasis on community-building for its own sake. Since its start, Esperanza has been gravitating towards a Myspace-like meetingplace and that's not a good thing. — mark ✎ 10:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Although Esperanza doesn't improve articles directly, it does help those who improve the article. My argument is that some Wikipedians would like something like this, some place to dicuss something on Wikipedia that isn't something to do with Wikipedia, it's a nice and effective way of "cooling down" Wikipedians and that can be seen in articles.--Skully Collins ^Edits 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well like you said, since Esperanza doesn't improve articles directly, it breaks the first pillar of the five pillars (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). If all wikipedians need is another place to talk about stuff, an external forum would suite em just fine. Wikipedia's job isn't to 'cool down' anyone. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As a collaborative project, Wikipedia's growth and success is totally dependent on the contributions of its community. We must remember that people will only contribute if they wish to, and if they don't wish to, Wikipedia will collapse. Many websites have succeeded or failed not because of the features they provide, but because of their user community. A strong sense of community creates a positive environment where people will want to contribute. For example, awarding a barnstar to someone shows you appreciate their work, and this may inspire them to contribute further. Happy Wikipedians will make better contributors, and are less likely to get into conflicts. Unfortunately, for various reasons, contributing to Wikipedia can be stressful. Such stress leads to conflicts, assumption of bad faith, incivility and personal attacks, which disrupt encyclopedia-building, and the departure of valued contributors, which harms the project. Esperanza lends support to stressed editors, and has decreased contributor turnover as a result. If Esperanza did not exist, the stress would have overwhelmed me long ago, and I would have left. While I agree that Esperanza is starting to lose its focus, the solution is not to delete it, but to reform it. Having recently joined Esperanza after being the beneficiary of its programs for months, I am willing to participate in and support such reforms. In fact, if Esperanza is deleted, I suspect that many Wikipedians will leave and form a fork - the situation Esperanza intended to prevent. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

People need to stop claiming that without Esperanza wikipedia would collapse, and without Esperanza there would be no community. There are strong senses of community and positive environments all around Wikipedia (wikiprojects, portals) that have been around for a long, long time, without Esperanza. We're not holding a knife to wikipedia's throat here. There are no studies showing that less happy Wikipedians make worse contributions, and that stress leads to beaucoup incivility, ABF, and conflicts (maybe they were just assholes). There are no studies that show Esperanza has decreased 'contributor turnover' - last I checked wikipedia had a whole TON of users and was doing fine on that front. If wikipedian's leave and form a 'fork' ignoring wikipedia here as you say, then they probably weren't interested in editing over here anyways. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I see several comments to the effect that social networking is essential, and Wikipedia will fall apart if Esperanza is deleted. I, for one, am not at all convinced that even within the realm of social networking that Esperanza is a net positive. I have seen Esperanzan's flock to votes on FA and RfA and here with many of them having apparently little original input. I see this voting block mentality as a decidely bad thing. It alienates and divides the community and is a decidely negative influence on the health of the community. I also have to say that the melodramatic predictions regarding the demise of Wikipedia should Esperanza be deleted are at best irrational and humorous and likely further undermining the rational arguments to "keep". —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said. No offense to anyone, but the world, and Wikipedia, will not end if Esperanza is not there. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of editors and readers won't even notice. -- Ned Scott 11:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think some amount of social networking is useful (much of the useful networking probably goes on at WikiProject talk pages or similar places) but agree that if Esperanza looks like a strong subcommunity instead of an organization that strengthens the community as a whole it should be deleted as being detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. Deleting Esperanza will not destroy Wikipedia, but getting rid of all social aspects of Wikipedia would be pretty harmful. Kusma (討論) 11:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if reformed per Kusma. If there is a major overhaul and Esperanza promotes equality instead of being divisive, then it should be allowed to stay. Consider this MfD a final warning... Addhoc 11:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• I see many mentions of "social networking". Esperanza wasn't intended to encourage excessive social networking when it started, but it's become rather corrupt. Redesign it, don't wipe it off the face of the Internet. --Gray Porpoise^{Is this overformatted?} 11:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons given by SCZens and others. I don't have the be-nice attitude of SCZens to vote neutral in view if his analysis. Anyway, I fear that Esperanza, for the same issue of block-voting which it is accused of, is undeletable if not Jimbo can be bothered to intervene. --Pjacobi 11:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, given the way some supporters of Esperanza have been citing WP:IAR as a reason to keep Esperanza, it is possible that WP:IAR will be used to ignore the failure to reach a consensus here, and hence support an out-of-process deletion under WP:NOT. Carcharoth 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, this isn't a place for scaretactics. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - I really believe Esperanza does a good job on monitoring the community and promoting good will and wikilove. I also believe its goals are noble and it deserves to stay on that basis alone. There are a lot of politics in this place and it's tearing this place apart. I am deeply saddened by this MfD, I would much rather see the ArbComm nominated for deletion. Cedars 12:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment if Esperanza aimed to serve the community instead of monitoring it, then this MfD wouldn't have happened. Contary to various Esperanza members in denial, this isn't random, for example, Concordia hasn't been nominated. Addhoc 12:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment (2x edit conflict) "Monitoring the community" sounds a bit ominous. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  I meant in terms of its stress alert and barnstar brigade programmes. Monitoring is caring. Cedars 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Lets keep ArbComm and any other box of puppies out of this, for their own MfD if you'd like. We're here to talk about Esperanza's merits and demerits and none other than that. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- While I find the project a bit silly, there will never be a consensus on deleting it. With that in mind, this MfD is serving no other purpose than to provide a forum for some wikipedians to express their dislike for other wikipedians. Move along, nothing to see here. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment yet more bad faith comments from Esperanza members. Addhoc 12:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Come on Addhoc, you haven't exactly been 100% civil yourself. And Johnny isn't an Esperanza Member. I guess he just likes green ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment (2x edit conflict) Actually, I didn't see that comment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a comment to that effect, but where did you see one Wikipedian expressing dislike for other Wikipedians? All I've seen is a discussion of organizations, not individuals. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I must say that I find it strange that you choose to vote here if you know that there isn't going to be a consensus. — mark ✎ 12:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not an esperanzan. There have been comments on both esparanzans as well as esparanza itself, along the lines that this is a community with bad habits and perhaps serves primarily to encourage more bad habits (fancy signatures, admin coaching, etc.). They might go overboard on a lot of things (too pep-squaddish for my taste), but clearly there are some wikipedians who find it a good tool for learning and teaching ways of being a good contributor to wikipedia. My vote here is to keep the project and close the MfD, since it's not productive, and in general because I think we don't need to be always on a witch-hunt for these sorts of communities. This came up recently with the CVU, and I think WP:WPSPAM was a target as well, though I may be remembering incorrectly. My impression of the esperanzans is that they're a community of wikipedians who desire the support of a community of wikipedians. We don't print wikimoney anymore, so we can at least give them the benefit of an outlet they clearly find valuable. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  This isn't a witch-hunt. They are no different from anything else that comes into XfD. I'm not for 'taking their community' or 'taking their support' - i think their _space_ here at wikipedia needs to be moved to an external source and what can be refactored legitly back in wikipedia space should be. Thats all.JoeSmack ^Talk 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep The Coffee Lounge should be deleted, I admit. But the rest of it is alright! Why should they delete the whole of Esperanza when only one part of it is bad? Esperanza helps other users and aids in running Wikipedia! If there is a problem about letting too many new members joining, then we can fix it! Therefore, I say no Esperanza's deletion! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Most people aren't saying that 'only one part of it is bad'; many of them fault its overemphasis on community-building for its own sake, which pervades all of Esperanza and not just the Coffee Lounge. — mark ✎ 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break 8

• Keep; agree with EWS23. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Why do wikipedians need an on site place to relax or chat. This does not meat the goals of wikipedia. Nowhere does it say that wikipedia is a place to relax. I also find it interesting that the tutorial drive and collaboration of the month were just created on the 11th. If people need to relax and take a break, their is a whole internet to explore beyond wikipedia with actual games and social networking features. BTW, ways does WP:HOPE link to ezperanza? Cnriaczoy42 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:HOPE links to Esperanza because 'Esperanza' is the Spanish word for 'hope'. The original aim of Esperanza was just that - to provide a little light for people feeling down-hearted by events on the site, and to encourage them to keep contributing. And the tutorial drive and the COTM were created on the 11th in response to ongoing discussion on WT:EA, 3 days before this MfD. riana_dzasta 14:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd like to stress what has just been said here. In the past three months, and particularly in the past month, Esperanza has been more focused than ever on becoming more encyclopedic and creating new programs in direct support of the encyclopedia, which is why I find the timing of this MfD somewhat ironic. Hopefully this MfD will serve to accelerate that process, which had already begun well before this MfD came into being. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Show us: Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul. Cause i don't think everyone believes it (see Cnriaczoy42 above). JoeSmack ^Talk 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - While I agree that Esperanza has a place in wikipedia, I also concur that it has become in a sense almost an entity in its own right, and one that does not particularly strongly contribute to the development of an encyclopedia. I note the recent effort toward a Esperanza collaboration effort for otherwise orphan articles and other recent developments which indicate to me that many of the members of Esperanza are themselves aware of the tenuous position they had been in, and think that they had better act to change that. I have no objections to the removal of all the games pages (simple links to them on the web would do the same thing), but think that it is way to premature to call for total deletion. Badbilltucker 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - does the existence of WikiProjects improve the encyclopedia? Does WP:AN or or WP:BN or WP:ANI? As a collaborative project, it makes sense to me to provide mechanism to encourage collaboration, and that includes a degree of socialisation and mutual support. I don't participate in Esperanza, and it should be deleted if it become harmful, but I don't see any evidence of that being required yet. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • "does the existence of WikiProjects improve the encyclopedia?" Well yes, naturally. A majority of the WikiProjects purely are for encyclopedia-improving tasks and not for socialising. For example, WikiProject Football has helped a great lot in increasing the number of featured articles and lists from one (1) to twenty (20) since it was created a year ago. – Elisson • T • C • 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • lets keep the focus here on Esperanza and leave boxes of puppies out of the debate please. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all social networking pages, keep useful encyclopedia improving pages. Isn't Wikipedia a good enough community by itself? Having membership requirements (no matter how trivial they may be), even having a "membership" thingie at all, for a project that is supposed to increase the sense of community, I don't see the logic in that. Associations like that tend to, rather than increase the sense of community, decrease it, as people are either not good enough to become members, or do not feel that the association gives anything unless you are a member. And then again, all users are Wikipedia members, so wouldn't Wikipedia and its pages increase the sense of community good enough? I have been here for a while, and except for seeing green letters in signatures here and there, Esperanza has yet to improve my sense of community. – Elisson • T • C • 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for all the reasons expressed above. Actually, it was reading many of the keep votes that made me decide that it needed to be deleted. Iff kept, it definately needs to be reformed based upon many of the comments on this page. ^BlankVerse 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like to remind everyone (and please take this seriously), that not all users with fancy signatures or the color green in their signatures are members of Esperanza.--TBCΦtalk? 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment And by the same token, not all Esperanzians have fancy signatures, or green e's... riana_dzasta 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep,That is because Esperanza is hope in Spanish. Esperanza is a place for a user to contact other users, a place filled with friendship, where users can find solitude and bond with each other. Thus the name Hope/Esperanza. It is not only a place for users to relax in, it is also an association whose members help other users. Esperanza helps Wikipedia in such a way. What is that called, if it is not called helping? Why are people complaining about Esperanza's good deeds? Esperanza members group together to solve the problems of other users, strive to recognize situations where Wikipedians need help, hope, or reassurance, and try to match those who desire help with those who offer it. Esperanza members are bound together by one common goal: to give help to those who need it. Wikipedians can look for help in Esperanza, and thus , can relax, for they can share their burden with others. By deleting Esperanza, Wikipedia is just removing the source of relaxation in Wikipedia. I propose that Esperanza is given some time to prove itself as a group of users who help other users, about 1 month. What say you all who wants Esperanza to be removed? Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 15:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fun fun. More "You evil deletionists are AGAINST GOODNESS!" stuff. This is really annoying. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  To answer Zachary's statements, I would say this. First, you are not addressing the concerns mentioned in this MfD, at all. You are basically stating we are all wrong, that what we think is wrong, and that what you think Esperanza does is right. Second, we are not complaining about your so-called "good deeds" but the actions and reactions of many of your members, your continuing focus on vague ideas of "community" and "membership", and your near bad-faith insistance that anyone who is against you is somehow hateful, or acting in bad faith, or committed to destroying "relaxation". Three, the things you state Esperanza does such as relaxation, community, etc, can be handled by WITHOUT ESPERANZA. Finally, yet again, we are asked to let Esperanza slip by the rules as an exception, without any real rationale for why. Wikipedians can look for help ANYWHERE, and quite frankly you people need to have Concordia lecture you for a long while on how to behave. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but with some reservations. I say with reservations because I think that the people who want to delete Esperanza altogether have a point. I agree that some aspects of Esperanza do little if anything to build the encyclopedia as a whole. The Coffee Lounge is the most egregious example of that. At the same time, I believe that other aspects of Esperanza, notably the Stress alerts page, do much to help retain editors who are feeling stressed and tempted to leave the project or otherwise. I realise that I may be biased because I'm a frequent benificiary of that page, and I also know that Wikipedia is no substitute for professional help. Think of Esperanza (or at least parts of it) as analagous to the Human Resources department of any large corporation. What does HR do in terms of improving profitability? Strictly speaking, nothing at all in terms of its direct actions, and it can even be seen as an expense or liability. However, HR indirectly improves the productivity of the company by acting as a resource for employees in need. And so it is with Esperanza, indirectly building Wikipedia by helping to retain people who can contribute towards the encyclopedia. Could Esperanza be improved? Certainly. Could Esperanza do more towards directly building Wikipedia? Most definitely. I recently suggested that Esperanza should encourage newcomers to make known some of their interests and areas of expertise, so that they could be directed towards relevant Wikiprojects. Yes, Esperanza is imperfect and needs improvement. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Kyoko 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In most companies, HR is responsible for setting policies, weeding out bad employees, creating codes of conduct that employees must follow, and generally enforcing employee discipline. If an employee is bad or of no value to the organization, then HR gets involved. If an employee is doing a good job, then who cares? I don't see Esperanza doing any of the messy discipline work that HR does in most organizations. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but we have admins for that. --Kyoko 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. But do acknowledge that some trimming needs to be done. One thing I am alarmed about is that many of the other members see Admin-ship as a trophy. I am a member of Esperanza but haven't been as active as I was because of some of the problems. Perhaps some sort of internal Esperanza discussion needs to take place i which serious members cut out the oversocializing and unhealthy(in terms of the entire WP project) parts of Esperanza. Jcam 15:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the result may be a No consensus when this MFD ends. --SunStar Net 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the outcome, we'd love it if you would join the discussion. Comments like this don't say too much towards it. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - While looking at Esperanza again, I found Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza#Random_Smiley_Award_Project, which made me sob in frustration. Particularly this bit here: "If several volunteers each add 5 - 10 Smileys per day, before long Wikipedia will be teaming with the bright yellow faces. It will be a happier, sunnier place in which to work." - if only. Actual interaction, rather than random vacuous smily faces, is what will increase the sense of community. Carcharoth 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And most of the people at Esperanza agree. Something similar to this was a proposed program a few months ago, and was not accepted by the community as a whole. While it was agreed that giving smile templates to people once in a blue moon or for a specific purpose might cheer them up, doing it in mass was too impersonal and too much like spam to be productive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You see what gets left behind when we all just decide to MfD the coffee lounge and go home? Delete esperanza and recreate the structures that were encyclopedic. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but cleanup - I believe that the underlying idea is the good in Esperanza, but it's been forged into something otherwise. I say we keep it, but clean it up so the underlying idea in esperanza has more emphasis. And I agree with EWS23, the smilies became to numerous. Phones of the Head 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we would be no worse off without this. There's always Friendster for socializing. Kimchi.sg 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Section Break 9

• Comment this thing is a monster. Just a quick scan shows more than one person who has commented Keep (or delete) more than once. Can we not do that please? thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Esperanza is a noble endeavor but has lost sight of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If its programs reform into becoming less about socializing and more about expanding Wikipedia, I have no problem with it what-so-ever. It would be a shame to just recklessly rid Wikipedia of the project all together. Discussions like this can motivate a Wiki-Project like Esperanza to make the necessary improvements.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we'd be 'riding' wikipedia of Esperanza; i'm all for it, just as an external place. The community will still exist and intact for all to enjoy. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• my second comment: Esperanza is good, but much of it is not encyclopedic. I would be sad if it disappeared (or if it stopped having a relationship with Wikipedia, which is the same thing). But there is no reason it belongs on wikipedia. Would it be possible to create a spinoff site which preserved usernames and userpages and transcluded watchlists? Can we please have more discussion by some pro-Esperanza people of the pros and/or cons of such a remedy? It seems as if the "keep" and "delete" people are just arguing with each other, and the "move" and "reform" ideas are strong but ignored by the other people in this debate.--Homunq 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

People would still be able to have their userpages, and their /Esperanza subpages in their userspaces. It's just the concept of Esperanza as a centralised place for overdoing the socialising side of things that is the main objections here. Socialising through other Wikipedia means, such as talking on user pages, would still be OK, but would be harder to do, which is kind of the point (the main point is editing the encyclopedia). If you make socialising too easy, too many people do it too much of the time. Not many people have the discipline to scoialise for a bit and then say to themselves "oops, I spent too long chatting there, I should go and edit something". To be fair to Esperanza, a lot of Wikipedia editors probably socialise more than they edit (IRC is a case in point), but it is not so visible as Esperanza. Carcharoth 18:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the socialising part being a distraction from the encyclopedia. However, your phrase "oops, I spent too long chatting there, I should go and edit something" makes it sound like everyone here is an employee of Wikipedia, not a volunteer, and that we are meant to spend as much time as possible editing. We are all, after all, volunteers, and I don't think anyone should be made to feel otherwise. Cordially, Marialadouce | parlami 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) No offence meant! Just pointing out a curious choice of words.

well to be honest, you can feel whatever you like. i really, really do hear 'i've been chatting too much, i should go and edit something' all the friggin time on IRC. it's not because we're 'employees' (i don't know where you got that notion), it's because we all know the point of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia and not chat it up all the time. and it seems to me like people are more than happy to volunteer to do that. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete What I'm seeing now reminds me too much of the Userbox Project. The Userbox Project involved great expenditures of energy on things that did not help building an encyclopedia, seduced editors into thinking that their project was more important than the encyclopedia, and ended up causing great conflict among Wikipedians. I'm here to help write an encyclopedia, and the longer I edit here, the less patience I have for fluff and games. -- Donald Albury 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for obvious reasons. What the heck is going on? - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Saying things like 'for obvious reasons' and 'what the heck is going on' doesn't really add to the discussion. We're building consensus, not voting. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-sheesh, this sure is a long xfd! Anyway, I want to apologize for accusations of bad faith earlier; if anyone was offended, and they happen to see this comment among this multiltude of votes, please accept my apologies. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• WP:100 Delete as UE - crz crztalk 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most. (Sorry, I hate making a suggestion that couldn't actually be implemented even if everyone agreed, but it's complicated.) Save a few of the projects which aid production of the encyclopedia or allowed users to edit calmly, but delete most, delete the created beauracracy, delete the green e's (per User:Cyde; one of the few things I agree with him on), delete the spammed newsletters, etc. Save only those subprojects which have an affirmative concensus for keeping. Specifics:
  • Keep Stress Alerts if reformed (there are a number of !votes which suggest that it may contributed to people leaving)
  • Rename Admin Coaching and keep if otherwise acceptable. (It's not coaching for admins, according to the page, it's coaching by admins. If it were coaching for prospective admins, delete with prejudice.)
  • Quickly delete (can be restored off-wiki if desired) Coffee Lounge.
  • Quickly move off-Wiki Calendar.
  • etc.
• — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Esperanza encourages some users to continue contributing to Wikipedia, and has succeeded in getting users to associate with one another. In addition, all Esperanzians must have made (to join) at least 150 reasonable edits. Any user who has made 150 edits is likely to continue contributing, especially as a member of Esperanza. By retaining editors who might otherwise leave the project, Esperanza is a positive influence within Wikipedia. It follows that Esperanza should not be deleted. Nihiltres 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point. "All Esperanzians must have 150 reasonable edits". "Any user who has made 150 edits is likely to continue contributing". From this follows that "all Esperanzians were likely to continue contributing even before they joined Esperanza". Or do a lot of newbie editors that do not wish to continue contributing sign up for Esperanza and get turned back to contributing? I haven't followed Esperanza closely so I actually do not know. Please explain to me. – Elisson • T • C • 19:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vapid puerile nonsense. — Dan | talk 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please, this is not a vote. It is a discussion about keeping or deleting Esperanza. Saying it is 'vapid puerile nonsense' does not add anything; we're trying to build consensus here. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It adds my opinion, which (I had been accustomed to believe) is part of a consensus. This club, despite its high and mighty vision statements (which nevertheless sound like extracts from a pamphlet for recovering alcoholics), has no meaningful content (hence vapid) and is a breeding ground for infantility (hence puerile). And the name -- what a bloody farce. "Hope", as though any of these kids have ever undergone suffering or adversity in the course of their Wikipedia participation. This whole business is an embarrassment to the project. — Dan | talk 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - It's not vapid. They spent a lot of time and hard work putting it all together and they had good reasons, and I can understand them being upset. But it should go. Please try to (no matter where you vote) put a rationale AND a policy with your vote. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 19:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear me, I wish I had seen this sooner, as I fear these comments will be lost to the ages just as quickly as they are posted. But ah well, nothing if not for trying, eh? I very much approve of ONUnicorn's analysis of Wikipedia as the workplace and its need for human resources. I also very much agree that Esperanza doesn't fit the role that was prescribed to it. What to do about that? Honestly, I'm not sure.

I do want to say that it struck me as very clear, before I even read this page, that no possible delete consensus would emerge. In the future, I recommend straw polling for this kind of thing, as it will bring the same ends and be less provocative. I'm not implying that the nom or anyone who agreed with him was intentionally provocative; I just think straw polling would be a better way to bring up an issue that will necessarily divide community loyalties.

It is clear to me, of course, that Wikipedia has its problems. Esperanza was, as I understand it, created to help assuage some of those problems. I placed my name on the Esperanza membership list because I believe, as I state on my talk page, that "community is an inexorable part of Wikipedia", and I agreed with the idea of a group which attempts to address some issues related to said community.

It saddens me, therefore, to see so many problems grow out of such an idea. It seems to me that the existence of Esperanza is a larger divider than the group itself. There has been a startling and quite frankly inexcusable amount of hostility, childish behavior, and offensive attitude on both sides of the aisle in relation to Esperanza. This is unacceptable, and it comes from both sides. This is a problem.

Regardless of the fate of Esperanza, I would like to propose something which may be radical: I would like to start a memberless WikiProject focused on community. This would be similar to the stated "secondary goals" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Community, but its sole purpose would be to facilitate the Wikipedia community as a mode for effective, constructive, and supportive vehicle for encyclopedia building. The catch is that there is no members list: everyone is a member of the Wikipedia community, and anyone is free to comment, question, support, oppose, or ignore as they please. There is no face-off, no clique, no us-vs-them attitude. If anyone would be interested in helping me with such a thing, please drop me a line on my talk page.

I want to thank everyone who has taken civil and reasonable part in this conversation for being model Wikipedians, and thank everyone who momentarily misplaced their better judgment for trying anyway.

Peace to all - Che Nuevara 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah, you're so civil I almost feel bad. In any event, wouldn't something similar to Concordia work? --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make anyone feel bad -- editors are more productive when they feel good ;)

With no disrespect to the current Concordia members, CC has some history that turns a lot of Wikipedians off. I do like some of the things that CC has going on right now, although I (perhaps naively or idealistically) envision my idea taking on a life of its own and becoming tacitly pervasive in the Wikipedia community. And, like I said, I don't want to encourage Wikipedians to subscribe their names to a list: I want to create something that represents Wikipedia, not a subset thereof.

Peace - Che Nuevara 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people feel how you feel about Concordia but feel it about Esperanza. Does that change your views at all? Why or why not? JoeSmack ^Talk 20:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any particular feelings at all on Concordia, as I wasn't around for the problems, but I understand what you're trying to say. And, like I said above, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about Esperanza -- I think that the mission statement is a good mission, and I recognize that the implementation of Esperanza does not fulfill the Platonic mission, and I don't really know how to feel or what to do about that. All I know is that it's unfortunate.

I'm sure that your feelings on Esperanza are completely justified. But in terms of the future or Esperanza, I don't know what to do about those feelings. I'm not here to support or oppose, just comment. - Che Nuevara 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep mostly harmless --Doc^g 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Uh...care to expand? This is a discussion, not a brevity contest! ;) We're building consensus here, and I'm afraid it is kinda hard to gleam the rationale for your statement. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Section Break 10

• Delete per nomination. Btw, I predicted this is going to happen. Wierd... - Tutmosis 20:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please explain further - this is not a vote but an attempt to reach consensus. Please elaborate if you wish to add to this discussion. Cheers! ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment This MfD is not going anywhere unless both sides can examine the issues. And yes, you did predict it would happen, but that shouldn't make anyone very happy it's happening. At least I hope not. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in the program but it does violate WP:NOT by mostly encouraging 'social networking' among wikipedians. There is nothing I can do but vote delete, it violates policy. - Tutmosis 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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.