Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Times

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 userfy. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Times

We have a perfectly good "newspaper", the Signpost. This page, created by Nathannoblet, looks as though it might be violating WP:POINT as disruptive "payback" – see WP:RfAr#Ral315 (last version before archive) which Nathan brought up against Ral315 when he was told he could not write for the signpost. --Majorly 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy until it has real content. Definitely don't delete based only on the nom's rationale. There is no reason if one "newspaper" is OK why two shouldn't be also. --Doug Bell ^talk 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Doug; while I could assume WP:POINT, I could also assume good faith and say that it does no harm in userspace. The only problem is that having it in project space makes it seem as though it has some sort of official sanction. A couple of us are trying to work things through with Nathan; please let us! :) riana_dzasta 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Riana. Sarah Ewart 08:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per above, failing which, delete. – Chacor 09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly a reaction to being rejected by Ral. I doubt there's anything the Times can cover that won't already be in the Signpost. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, userfying this page would simply keep Nathan distracted from the encyclopædia, and keep him engaged in an area where he is in conflict. I see no benefit in keeping it. --cj | talk 12:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Create a free market where different newspapers can compete for our subscription - er, Userfy. More seriously, there are plenty of off-wiki 'news' sites, lots of newsletters, and the Signpost. Anything added to the on-wiki mix will stand or fall on its own merits. No need to delete, but don't put in the Wikipedia space until it is ready and has some support. Carcharoth 12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. regarding the comments about Nathan, that would be best addressed on his talk page, or in an RfC, rather than here, where the merits of the Wikipedia namespace page should be discussed. Carcharoth 12:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is an ongoing discussion on his talkpage. It's a one-sided discussion, admittedly, but maybe he just hasn't logged in yet. riana_dzasta 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I've just read that discussion on his talkpage. All very good points. Carcharoth 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In case the above wasn't clear, I'm trying to say that the idea of more than one 'newspaper' is not itself bad (to a certain extent). I for one would enjoy reading two newspapers. But the motivation behind this one is misguided. In other words, userfy but don't prejudice against recreation at some future date. Carcharoth 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, thank you for stating your point so cogently, Carcharoth. riana_dzasta 12:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, atlhough given the snotty and rude manner in which Ral dismissed his well-meaning request ([1]), I don't blame him for being a little upset - although this is not perhaps the best route to resolve this. Proto::► 13:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does it even have a purpose besides being the biggest collection of red links outside of mainspace? Anthonycfc (talk * email) 14:00, Monday December 11, 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy - Personally, I don't currently see a real need for it, but it could potentially become something useful down the road, particularly if other people were to add to it. And, certainly, I have no real objection to seeing there be somewhere on the planet where there are still two competing newspapers. Badbilltucker 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Riana. This does look like payback for what wound up as a peculiar - now aren't I diplomatic? - request for ArbCom. Also per Badbilltucker. Moreschi 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or userfy per Carcharoth. Too soon to tell if it will evolve into a legitimate competitor to the Signpost. Eluchil404 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. I have my doubts on whether this would become a competitor to the Signpost, and I would hope, albeit a bit anti-competitive, that anyone wishing to write such a newspaper would "merge" with us instead, in the wiki way. But let's userfy for now. (Anyone wishing to discuss Nathannoblet with me can do so via e-mail or my talk page). Ral315 (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy While it seems it may look like a WP:POINT, I will assume that Nathannoblet is still learning the policies of Wikipedia per [2]. However, Nathan needs to know how take criticism well (as shown as per his rejected Arbritation requests against Ral315 and earlier Longhair). --Arnzy (talk * contribs) 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. No reason why editors shouldn't try their hand at an 'alternative' Signpost, but not in the projectspace, please. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I actually have mixed feelings about this and I would normally keep or userfy it, but as this is clearly a WP:POINT and WP:FAITH violation I strongly demand its deletion. Besides that, Nathannoblet could certainly improve his behavior; it is unacceptable. Yuser31415 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, noting that we'll want to delete/userify if no content shows up. The existence of the signpost should not mean that nobody else can show up and do something similar. --Improv 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, No intention to breach WP:POINT, a comuinity newspaper should be O.K. -- Nathannoblet 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Proposed a merge and appolagised today. -- Nathannoblet 06:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Look, I am happy to merge only if I can somehow be involved with the signpost. I am not letting my newspaper collapsp just because you started a rouge merge." [emphasis original] is hardly "proposing" a merge. "I think I have just wrecked my chance of getting on ArbCom next year." Don't think you ever stood one. – Chacor 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as clear WP:POINT violation. See here. See this, that and this for a sample. --bainer (talk) 23:28, 15 December 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.