Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reach out

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. "esparanzaishy" is being tossed around way to much right now, if this page starts to get out of hand, try talking about it first before renominating. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reach out

Very esparanzaishy. It looks like a good (and kind) idea, but I'm not sure an encyclopaedia is the place for it. yandman 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I like this project. I intend to participate when appropriate. Much better to head off trouble. Fred Bauder 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete then take a look at other wikiprojects that are social networking groups. Kyaa the Catlord 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the demise of Esparanza, this is the first I've come across. Do you know of any others? yandman 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

None come to mind right away, to be honest, just a "these things shouldn't be here". Kyaa the Catlord 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALERT comes to mind now. Kyaa the Catlord 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No matter how good the intention, WP:NOT a social networking site. The Kinslayer 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  How exactly is a "kindness board"f sorts social networking? Is anything remotley non-encyclopedia "social networking"? -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t) 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

  _{WP is NOT a message board. Kyaa the Catlord 10:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{Mesage boards are meant for idle chitchat. This isn't. Basically, Wikipedia itself is a social network. By your definition we should delete the entire project. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Keep but monitor - Done right, this would solve Experienced User Problems. Done wrong it is a chat page. I intend to monitor it to avoid chatting, now that I know it exists. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Keep but monitor As a teacher I've learned that personality type definitely has a role in performance, and that some people need a warm social environment like the rest of us need food, shelter and air. Could be a useful support system for editors who need that sort of thing. As others have said needs to be monitored to prevent it becoming just another chat room. Raymond Arritt 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Eh, Keep. No bureaucracy, no membership, no networking, no evil. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Weak keep - lets let this play out before striking it down. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Keep - I don't know how Reach Out differs from Stress Alerts, or whether it's a good idea, but I'd give it until about March to shake itself out and decide where it's going before voting to delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Delete - fails WP:V and WP:RS. Keep - premature nomination. I'm not sure what value this has and perhaps embodies a faulty way of thinking but give it some time to sort itself out. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Keep. Don't delete potential projects less than a week before they get off the ground. This is absolutely silly. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{A week? The first post is from March 2006! And try to Assume Moderate Intelligence, please. If it was "absolutely silly" I wouldn't have done it. yandman 10:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{The project was part of Esperanza before this. Look at the talk page: this project has only existed separately for a very short period of time, and is just getting started. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 14:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Keep, but monitor per above and: Learning to deal with Wikipedia problems can help people become better editors and will definetley steer them far away from becoming trolls or vandals. Good idea, but keep an eye out. - Kevin ^(TALK) 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Strongest Possible Keep Usually, I dislike Esperanzish (Esperanzian? Esperanzanesque?) pages because they promote a sort of cabalism. This has no bureaucracy, and I think would be really beneficial to Wikipedia. If not, well, we can just delete it later. No reason to kill it before it has a chance to prove itself. .V. (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Delete per Kyaa the Catlord and Kinslayer. Yzak Jule 06:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Strong keep - Oh please. I hated the unnecessary social networking and bureaucracy of Esperanza, but could you bother looking at the page before nominating it for MfD? It's not social networking, it's support for editors having problems in their life, and after Elara, Kyoko, EAL, and so forth, we need it. I'm totally with Hipocrite, and under my watch this will not be a chat board. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{AGF, please. Do you really think I didn't read it before doing this? There are several huge problems:}

1. _{Having to avoid the fine line between friendly wiki-hugging and giving medical advice (which, in my opinion, Nina clearly oversteps in one of the posts).}
3. _{How do we decide who gets to post? If we allow new users, we'll be flooded with random troubled teenagers, and if we don't, it'll hurt them even more. How do we root out the trolls?}
4. _{Who gets to reply? Some of these cases are borderline: are we going to insist that only psychologist editors get to answer? How will we react if someone starts giving religious answers?}
5. _{What next? Maybe we could have a page where editors could meet up to find partners (I'm sure someone would argue that it would be good against wiki-stress)?}

_{Why not just create a "wikipedia" group on friends.com (or something in that vein) and do anything social there? In retrospect, I shold have given all this in the nom., but I thought it would be clear. PS: I'm not evil. Honest. yandman 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{You miss the point. This isn't for medical advice, and this is for supplementary purposes only. This isn't a support board for everyone, there's forums all over for that, it's for helping productive editors deal with their real life issues and get back to being productive again. It's not a replacement for medical advice, and this is actually a guideline I proposed but haven't got any feedback on - yet. My comment about reading was more directed toward the delete voters and I'm sorry for saying "nominator" specifically, because after reading the nom again it doesn't seem to imply the social networking aspect. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{I think Yandman brings up important points. I think that by addressing them, we can help to make Reach out a more useful place, one that few people would find problematic. I think we should look at the suggestions as an outside opinion that gives valid points to be improved. -- Natalya 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Strong keep. We need projects like this to improve our functioning as a community; I would go so far as to say we need them desperately. And let's undelete Esperanza while we're at it. Everyking 12:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Comment. Just have a rule against giving medical advice. So what if someone brings up religion? It's not like if we read a line of religious text, our eyeballs melt out of our head. If it works for someone it works for someone. .V. (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Weak Keep well yeah, per wooty, yet some of the "delete" votes have me in this position. Arjun 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Delete or Move to Wikia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, though I don't see why this kind of work can't be carried out in a place like Wikia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Keep, until someone can explain what harm editor support groups are going to cause. -Amarkov ^blahedits 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}
• Keep. Yandman's four points above are worth considering. I'm sure that a few people will also be keeping an eye on Reach out, to make sure that it doesn't go off course. But the idea itself - the idea of editors supporting editors - is a perfectly valid one. Quack 688 09:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is nothing like social networking. It is specifically to promote open discussion about project related problems which is much better than cropping it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is not networking but a place to put a red flag as it were to alert a user who doesn't mind giving a stressed or bog-downed user a vitual shoulder to lean on. It is a good idea in theroy so lets see if they can do this in practice (and if it fails and becomes a networking place then MfD it). As for the Nom While esperanza is inactive I don't see a reason to get rid of all the former prgorams yet. Give these fleging (now that they are away from EA) to stand up and try to help the Wiki. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 05:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've found this page useful countless times.--Húsönd 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Amarkov -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:50, 19 January 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.