Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be lazy

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 Deleted by User:Royboycrashfan with the reason "G7" (author request). - Bobet 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't be lazy

Essay used only to make personal attacks against people on AFDs. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete (per db-author) - After much consideration, I have decided that a re-name would be appropriate. I would hope my fellow editors would assume good faith in my actions in the future. I have moved the essential aspects of the essay to a new location and removed all and any aspects that could be construed as a personal attack, as well as acknolwedge in the essay that editors need to be responsible when creating new articles. However, the point of the essay now, as it always has been, is on the subject of editors who target articles for deletion when they could instead put in a little work to meet the guidelines Wikipedia policy sets out for them. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

:Can you provide a criteria for deletion that actually fits the guidelines? I could point to the WP:INTEREST essay and say it is only used to make personal attacks against people on AFDs. That doesn't make it so. You are assuming bad faith in the author of this essay, and as that individual, I have clearly stated that the essay is not "used only to make personal attacks." Any essay could be used for such a purpose, I suppose, but since it should be clear that this is not "only" for that, I would ask you come up with a better criteria for deletion, or withdraw your nomination. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for the assumption of good or bad faith when personal attacks are actually demonstrated, both in the very text of the essay ("don't be lazy", "don't be an ostrich", "don't be a sloth") and when you yourself have already used it for the purposes of personal attacks in two AfD discussions as cited below. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I ask... if I direct you to WP:BITE, am I calling you a vampire or a cannibal? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, if you ask someone "Being a little lazy here, or just a bit of a snob?", are you accusing them of being lazy and a snob? — Mike (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See new prologue to essay. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep or Re-name - I wrote this essay and used actual Wikipedia guidelines. It is intended with the same good faith and humor as the proverb Don't bite the newcomers (or even Don't climb the Reichstag). Also details a legitimate problem on Wikipedia, of editors not putting in a little simple research before targeting an article for deletion. However, if people find what was intended as good humor (i.e. the pictures of ostriches and sloths) to be "a personal attack"... which I disagree with, since the essay isn't about any editor, and is in the spirit of WP:TIGER and WP:SPIDER... I am open to a re-name. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the essay itself is not an attack on anyone, and seems like fairly sound advice. If people link to it as part of a personal attack feel free to tell them to behave, lauch a RFC or whatever else seems apropriate, but don't blame the essay for people linking to it as part of an abusive comment. Focus why you feel the content of the essay is inapropriate or does not belong. As far as I know we generaly don't delete content based on how it's linked to. --Sherool (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any attack here since no one is named in the essay. Shows far more good sense than a nasty, antagonistic essay such as WP:NG. --JJay 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you feel it's written in a hostile tone, why not rewrite it? It's basic message is important. WilyD 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep per all --Striver 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong delete.
  1. First, and most importantly, the title of the essay, and its shortcuts, are civility violations that comprise personal attacks by the very terminology used ("lazy", "sloth", "snob", "ostrich", etc.), and also assume bad faith on the part of the editors to whom they are being directed. This is supported by two examples where the essay's creator personally attacked other editors using links to his essay, specifically in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usurp Synapse ("Being a little lazy here, or just a bit of a snob?") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Bush ("Either way, if you WERE serious, it'd be a prime example of laziness, when the info is on this very site.").
  2. Second, the essay also contains assumptions that run counter to policy, such as only those "properly know and/or understand the topic of the article" can properly delete it — when, in fact, those who "properly know and/or understand the topic" are responsible for very heavy accumulations of fancruft on Wikipedia that completely and entirely disregard notability or WP:NOT requirements for Wikipedia, such as my current favorite, "List of minor Star Wars organizations." Neither people nor WikiProjects own articles, but this essay seems to imply that you shouldn't subject an article to community consensus regarding its deletion unless you know the subject — which contradicts Wikipedia's instructions to its editors to be bold.
  3. The essay's creator self-identifies as inclusionist, which illustrates a problem with the essay's premise: if editors are to leave a subject alone unless they're conversant in it, can we trust those conversant in it to be unbiased enough to be willing to nominate it and subject it for deletion if it does not match Wikipedia guidelines — especially if they proclaim themselves to be inclusionists? The point is moot since Wikipedia does not require this of its editors, but the answer is viewable in nearly any AfD of an article set in a fictional universe that has a fan following: no matter how minute the subject, it will receive a number of keep votes that make no reference to Wikipedia notability standards, simply saying that they find it interesting or of use in their appreciation of the subject matter.
  4. Finally, when considering this matter, it may be educational to take a look at these AfD votes: Brodie Foster Hubbard, Outlaw indie rock, and Andrew Jackson Jihad, as well as two notes the essay's creator left on my talk page following that vote.
  5. An essay has no power to contradict any of the above-mentioned policies, but it has the potential to confuse newbies, given that quoting essay acronyms in AfD discussions is an extremely common practice. — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would ask this editor to please refrain from personal attacks. I would also like to remind this editor that your continuous targeting of my articles for deletion may be construed by some (certainly, by me) as harassment. Finally, I would like to remind said editor that vote canvassing is frowned upon by some (certainly, by me). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've responded to the essay's creator's concerns regarding personal attacks, wikistalking, and vote canvassing on my talk page; for efficiency's sake, I'll let any desired future conversation proceed there so as to avoid duplication. However, for the purposes of removing my comments per {{RPA}}, I would note that I do not feel such an action is supported, as "[d]isagreements about content" and "civil language used to describe an editor's actions" are specifically denoted as not personal attacks in WP:NPA. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, worthless article and possible WP:POINT violation. Catamorphism 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To say "worthless" seems a bit uncivil to me. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Uncivil? The comment is not directed at any one editor or author. She (er... they?) is simply giving an opinion about the essay. -MrFizyx 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - interesting how some need to write a whole essay to explain and/or justify themselves, yet apparently desire to deny that right to others, especially when the essay under discussion here presents some very sound and rationally presented advice. MikeWazowski 04:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response And the supportive policy for your vote to keep is ... ? The rebuttal to any of those points is ... ? Your specific problems with the WP:INTEREST essay are ... ? — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Mike W. is not required to present a rebuttal to your delete "vote" (not an actual vote, per Wiki policy, but using the term for lack of a better term), merely state his reasons for keeping the essay, which he states as "present(ing) some very sound and rationally presented advice." PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The deletion process is not a direct headcount, but is instead a presentation of arguments before a closing administrator. As such, it's acceptable for editors to ask for clarification regarding and/or point out what they believe to be the lack of supporting policy behind fellow editors' votes. Mike of course need not respond if he does not desire to, but it is acceptable for me to make the query. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a platform for name calling and personal attacks. This is what you want AfDs to degrade into????????? Did WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA recently get cancelled? Weregerbil 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: your AfD comment - Because they're so civil now? ;) But seriously, if I trounce on a new editor, and you point me towards WP:BITE, does that constitute a personal attack? Are you calling me a vampire? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, politely telling someone not to WP:BITE is not calling people "lazy" and "snob". This is just pure personal attack. Weregerbil 08:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete platform for personal attacks. Just mentioning this in an AFD in reference to another editor would likely be uncivil. More informative just to refer people to the policies. RN 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay puts forward a common misconception, that articles are innocent until proven guilty, and that nominators have to build a case against them to justify deletion. In fact, the onus is on articles' authors (or those arguing to keep them) to demonstrate and verify that the subjects are notable, not on those nominating them for deletion to prove that they aren't. If notability is not asserted and/or verified, then "nn (person/company/brand of pogo stick, delete" is a perfectly fine case, if somewhat obliquely expressed. If we're talking "laziness", as an AfD closer I see far more lack of thought from 'keep' proponents, usually along the lines of "keep and cleanup", "keep and find sources" (!!!), "merge an unspecified amount of barely salvagable content into a high-quality article on a subject of far greater scope", "transwiki into a sister project whose policies this article also violates", etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, even though it's utterly foolish and misguided. Edit it as needed, but there's no reason to delete it- it could serve as an example of a bad wikipedia essay. Userfy if neccessary. Friday (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there an official policy on Wikipedia about sarcasm? You would have helped the essay stay more by not voting at all! ;) PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you think it's "foolish and misguided" (I agree with you, of course, see above), don't you think the {{essay}} tag would need to be changed or removed? It says "While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines..." and as that article is entirely misleading in that regard (see my delete reasoning above), it doesn't belong. However, whereas {{rejected}} can be put on pages that don't get {{policy}} or {{guideline}}, I don't think there's an equivalent for essays. I can't see how there would be: "This is a viewpoint which most people consider wrong" isn't really something you can add to the top of a page. Let's just get rid of it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you read the article? The bulk of it is Wiki policies, word-for-word. I am wondering what part of my original contribution at the beginning of the article is so unreasonable. I am also curious where you got the impression that "most people" disagree with what is in the essay. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:LAZY seems to be largely based on the idea that AfD nominators are responsible for researching the subject's notability. Please see WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, etc for who must assert and document the importance of the subject matter. It's not the AfD nominator, the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets notability criteria (that wording is from WP:WEB.) In addition to being (and being used as) a platform for personal attacks WP:LAZY is not "Wiki policies word-for-word", quite the opposite in fact! Weregerbil 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. I don't really see how this essay is much worse than WP:BALLS, WP:HOLE, or WP:VSCA, all of which I believe have been used in unexplicable ways by the very nominator of this MfD. I do agree, however, that these sorts of commentaries tend to lower the quality and civility of deletion discussions in general. If having the essay has helped PT work out some frustrations and share his personal philosophy then why not allow him make it a subpage of his own userpage? -MrFizyx 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since I've claimed that Stifle himself has made curious use of similar essays, perhaps I should offer examples:[1],[2]. My little questions never did receive answers, but now I'm getting off on a tangent. Sorry. -MrFizyx 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have never used the essays to make personal attacks, though. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • So an essay CAN be used without making a personal attack, huh? So, there's no point in deleting those essays, right?PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • First, it is true that I have never seen Stifle make personal attacks. He is a civil editor and is very rarely even sarcastic. Second, I suppose that one could argue that as crude as the above mentioned essays are, they address content issues rather than editors directly (although there is always someone behind the content and we are splitting hairs here a bit). I think the question is, "How do you say, 'don't be lazy,' without attacking an individual?" Is it possible to write the essay and reference it in a way that suggests a nomination or a vote is uninformed without issuing a direct attack on the individual? -MrFizyx 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I was trying to think where I've seen an essay that does this sort of thing, well heck, its: User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable, not bad for a self-affirmed deletionist. -MrFizyx 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is too full of content, I feel that most of it should be deleted, and this sinister bit of essay stands in my way! My Dream: A completly blank wikipedia, may it some day be realized--152.163.101.6 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per concerns about civility and personal attacks. --Muchness 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; there are plenty of essays and even guidelines that insult certain people (especially one particular rude version of WP:NOT that places it in large font and yells "thank you for your time"). As this is an essay, I see no reason to delete it for a few strong statements. — Deckiller 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC) I have decided to be neutral for this one because of solid points from both sides. — Deckiller 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As a pure personal attack platform. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's nothing policy to support deleting this article. If it is offensive, the offended should edit the article. However, the article is very poor for the stated reasons above. Should be renamed as it is misleading. --Ephilei 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While soliciting others' opinions is not, strictly speaking, against Wikipedia rules, it might be of interest that Ephilei was asked to give his opinion by Parsssseltongue. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep important rules that are missing right now in wikipedia. Will not be used for personal attacks - and if yes - it certanly wont cause them, and they can be delt with aside from these rules exsist. --Marina T. 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While soliciting others' opinions is not, strictly speaking, against Wikipedia rules, it might be of interest that Marina T. was asked to give his opinion by Parsssseltongue. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, consists of good and helpful advice to people who nominate stuff for AfD. I don't see any problems with this article that couldn't be fixed by a bit of a rewrite. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While soliciting others' opinions is not, strictly speaking, against Wikipedia rules, it might be of interest that JYolkowski was asked to give his opinion by Parsssseltongue. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I merely left a comment on the user's page that this article may be of interest. I did not ask for a vote for or against. If the user is compelled to voice his or her opinion, that is their choice. I am not acting any differently than WCityMike did when he gave people a "heads up" about this MfD. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see that as particularly relevant either. I haven't ran into this user before so there isn't any sort of collusion going on here. Personally, I'm rather glad that he pointed this page out to me because it's something that I'd really like to see on Wikipedia in some form. JYolkowski // talk 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I didn't like it when WCityMike gave the "heads up" to one or two. You have contacted fifteen? Take a look at WP:VS, you are walking on thin ice my friend. -MrFizyx 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the link. In the interest of adhering to policy, I will mention here... due to all the talk of "inclusionism," and due to some of the editors responsible for nomination of this essay for deletion giving other editors a "heads up," I contacted the participants of Project Inclusion, as well as some other editors that Mike has had debates with (since he was kind enough to inform editors who have had disagreements with me in AfDs about this essay and its nomination). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• If the page is not renamed appropriately, delete. Much in the vein of m:Don't be a dick, the title means that it's basically impossible to refer to the page except as a personal attack. However, if the insulting phraseology ("good humor" or not) is removed, I would note that neither I nor most of the deleters here would think it deserved deletion, so probably Mr. Parsssseltongue could save his essay by renaming it.

  And by the way, my opinion on this was solicited by the page's author. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I will take suggestions for re-naming. Also, why assume I'm a "Mr."? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per all Shmila 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing in here that's a personal attack: no names are mentioned nor are there any allusions to specific persons. Morevover, I don't see much evidence of an attack: the article uses common animal metaphors to explain how Wikipedians should handle the AfD process. I"ve compared the current version with that which existed right before the article was tagged for deletion. In neither case do I find evidence for attacks, personal or impersonal. Interlingua ^{talk email} 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When are we debating "Don't be a dick"? — Philwelch t 00:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a ploy for PT (and others) to use it as an insult/reminder. See Here. Remember WikiLove? This isn't it. AdamBiswanger1 01:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite if necessary. Most of it is good advice, IMO, and as it stands I don't see any personal attacks. Though it can certainly be used to make them, a rename would not be remiss. Eluchil404 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was solicited to comment here. I decline to comment except to say that linking this essay in response to anyone doing anything should be a blockable offence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an essay, nothing more. Quite good humoured and with many valid points. Let's worry about personal attacks when they are made against a person, not when general principles are illustrated in a mildly tongue in cheek fashion. Martinp 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am resolving to suspend any further comment on this matter until the resolution of Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/PT_and_WCityMike, requesting same of user:WCityMike. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although my understanding is that PT does not object to it continuing to proceed, and its eventual resolution, without our input. — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia-space. (Can be moved to User's subpage) I would be in favour of (re)moving all such essays, written by single individuals to deal with their own concerns/views/concepts, of which there has been an explosion in recent months. Such essays should more rightly be kept only in User-space. By this token, I would also suggest move of WCityMike's similar personal essay, WP:DCEATCTAITWP. Although denoting their "non-official" status, these essays have all the appearance of community acceptance, although they are written principally by single editors as an expression of personal opinion. Work on them in User-space first, and propose them for additions to WP-space before trying to slip them into the mainstream. --Leflyman^Talk 06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per PT and Martinp. Spacepotato 07:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless, divisive essays. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as a nominator of an article in which this essay was used as a direct response to my nomination by PT, I have to say my first response (spoken to myself) after reading the essay was "shut-up, you need to re-read WP:MUSIC yourself." My second response, which began as an edit response, but I did not save, was to quote to PT the civil policy/guideline. I agree that the content itself is not a personal attack, but it has been used against me specifically, and examples above show other times where it has been.--Gay Cdn 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as offended victim of a P.A. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky Fried Cruelty.com - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attackish essay. TomTheHand 17:35, 13 July 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.