Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

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 Speedy keep. Ian13/talk 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

The following was moved from AfD.

extremely inflammatory, bites the newcomers, and oversimplifies the policies. --M@rēino 15:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Is this the right spot for this or would Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion be better?--blue520 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Correct. Moved to MfD. Ian13/talk 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Ian13/talk 16:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Did you wish to claim wikipedia was actually something else? Kim Bruning 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; useful. — Dan | talk 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. per Kim Bruning. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all the userboxes - delete the encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I presume there is supposed to be some sarcasm in there. Ian13/talk 17:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Quite likely. Doc sometimes gets ahead of himself, and forgets to be sarcastic, leaving only the pitiable remnants as you see above. I'll have to speak to him about it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I like the little mini-essays like this. They remind us what's important; something that tends to be forgotten in the race for yet more policy. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify: something like "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" doesn't oversimplify the policies: our core policies (what I've started to call "principles", because everyone keeps over-emphasising the unimportant policies at their expense) are simple. But when we wrap them up into things like WP:NOT, it's easy for people to get confused. We need stuff like "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" (shorthand for WP:5P and WP:NOT), "Ignore all rules" (shorthand for WP:NOT a bureaucracy), even "adminitis" (shorthand for WP:AGF). We don't want to get too choked up on policy that we forget what policies are actually important. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest fathomable keep. Delete voters should seriously re-examine their priorities. When I think of policy, this is what I think of. Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on nomination. Frankly, those are the policies. The ones that matter, at any rate. Think of them as categorical imperatives. Everything else that is cited as policy hopefully follows in their wake. If not, there's a problem. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• No vote. This is an invalid nomination since the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is a non-negotiable premise behind the project and I can not fathom how telling that to newcomers in a clear and unambiguous way is at all biting the newbies. It is simply saying what we are. Our goal is NOT AT ALL to be a welcoming community (that is simply a means to an end of CREATING the encyclopedia). When and where our means detract from our goal, those means must be changed or discarded. That includes the bizarre form of niceness this nomination implies. --mav 17:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: surely this is verging on WP:POINT? —Phil | Talk 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I believe the nominator is sincere. His reasons make sense (that is to say, they're reasons a legitimate nominator would have), even as you and I disagree with them. Besides, assume good faith :-). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:46, 15 May 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.