Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Silensor/Schools

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Silensor/Schools

Duplicate content copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, which is an essay. Despite its uses in AFDs, I'm mainly proposing this because I'm not sure redirecting it to the correct place is feasible, and duplicate content is frowned upon. Coredesat 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I don't think this has got much to do with the school notability debate, but rather the issues of duplication and purpose. I feel that the subpage does not really fulfill any purpose; the owner can simply cite the original essay to explain his reasoning in AfDs or other discussions. - SpLoT // 05:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why exactly is cut-down content stored in User space frowned upon? The cut down version is the subset of the original which are referred to by this person. Copy and pasted content is allowed as long as the contribution history survives somewhere so there is no problem there. Ansell 08:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Editors have been known to keep duplicates of essays/articles in their user space either to have a record if the original is deleted or to work on alternative arrangements at their leisure before reposting. In any event, this is not taking up much space and is harmless. bd2412 T 08:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Their is no need for a question and answer page to be a user sub page and especially when most of it is covered in Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep User:Silensor/Schools is in user space. User's are normally given great lattitude in what they have there. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments is in project space, and is subject to substantial editing, by other user's. It actually makes sense for Silensor to do this. Sometimes this is linked to in various discussions. Now, a *major* problem with linking to project space pages, is those pages are changed fundamentally by other editors. Often, the meaning of what somebody says in a discussion is changed retroactively, because something they linked to has been changed fundamentally. Sometimes entirely new content, is slapped as replacement of something, with old content moved elsewhere. As an example with something else, we've seen many people in discussions about schools say they strongly support, or strongly oppose, something like Wikipedia:Schools, even though the meaning of that has changed 180 degrees multiple times. There have, in the past, been attempts to substantially change parts of Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, and was even a serioius attempt at blanking almost of it. So, it just makes sense that Silensor, wishes to references an essay' who's content, he can have confidence in. --Rob 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Its in an established editor's user space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Spartaz, Rob, BD. Additionally, I don't like the essay and have written a response at User:JoshuaZ/Schools but none of those are reasons to delete it. JoshuaZ 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What with the repeated bastardization of proposed WP:SCHOOL guidelines, it should be pretty obvious why I elect to keep this in my user space. Silensor 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob's arguments. Wikipedia:Schools has had such repeated and contentious reworking that it's not practical to link to it (nor to a section that is likely to be removed before an AfD has run its course) as a way of providing reasoning for a discussion. While I disagree with some of the positions taken in this essay, it's clearly a legitimate explanation of why someone might argue for a certain debate outcome, and it isn't an attempt to promote expression of a POV in article-space. Given the lack of consensus on the topic, it seems actually better to have this essay (and JoshuaZ's responsive essay) in userspace rather than in Policy > Guideline > Essay projectspace, where other editors are tempted to point to it as if it were policy. AfD discussions sometimes break down to "Keep because SCHOOLS2 says so"/"No, delete because SCHOOLS3 says so", which provides virtually no help in evaluating the actual merits of the article or the potential merits of the subject. Barno 19:15, 14 March 2007 (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.