Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blaxthos/Policy shopping

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. In progress user-space essay. This may flesh out to something useful, let's not ABF until it is more developed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blaxthos/Policy shopping

Only one person seems to use this term, and it is used to mean the citing of numerous policies to support a goal. Which is not really something we want to discourage. This essay violates WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, and it does not seem to support the building of the encyclopaedia so much as it supports one editor's attempts to slap down those who disagree with him. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This page hasn't even existed for a few hours, and is full of lorem ipsem. You guys should at least wait until the essay has fully developed before decrying it as MFD or deciding what it is and how it might be used. Nominator even says, "Which is not really something we want to discourage." I haven't even had a chance to fully formulate what I'm trying to say, and we already have editors trying to censor it away. Give the guy a chance to get it all down before calling for the community to remove it completely. /Blaxthos 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Possibly an NPOV problem as well. This essay would only serve to quash or dismiss valid debate. - Crockspot 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• This essay is one of the more whacky things I've read recently. What on earth's wrong with citing multiple policies and guidelines if they're all applicable to a particular situation? Nothing, as far as I can see. What an odd essay. Get rid of it as an obvious AGF violation until evidence is provided to the contrary. Moreschi ^Talk 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This essay (if it's allowed to be completed) is trying to address the practice of trying one policy, then when that fails trying another ad infinitum. The whole point is to show how it's important to make all valid arguments at once (see the associated talk page). There is no problem with using multiple policies or guidelines. There is definitely a problem with causing needless back-and-forth by shopping for a policy that fits. Eithere there is a good reason, or not. I freely admit there may be some POV/wording problems, but that's because it's only six hours old and I haven't even had a chance to get it off the ground!! /Blaxthos 13:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important to make all the valid arguments at once? You can make 'em over a six-month-time-span, I couldn't care less. If one policy fits eventually, so much the better. Sometimes people need time to develop their thoughts. Moreschi ^Talk 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See the associated talk page for the short on that. I'm not saying one has to present them all at once, but one should present all the arguments he is planning to use when he knows them. MFD debate isn't really the place for this, but my hand was forced. I understand your concern, and I agree with you to a point. This all would have been addressed if Crockspot et. al. had allowed me to even attempt to finish the essay (or let it evolve) before crying foul. /Blaxthos 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In defense of the author, WP:PPP.--WaltCip 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep see where it goes - then maybe delete. An essay will never dismiss valid debate. Viridae^Talk 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as I get it, this is against citing policies incrementally to prove ones point, which IMO should be discourages. So, I suggest at least let it mature before taking any decision whether to follow it or not. --soum ^talk 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Soumyasch. Writing it doesn't make it policy, so there is no harm in letting the idea develop. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it's a two-day old essay in user space. As others have said, give the editor(s) some time to flesh it out before snapping to judgment. --ElKevbo 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Editors all across Wikipedia have written essays in their userspace. Simply having the essay doesn't make it enforceable or even relevant to a discussion. There is no harm done by allowing this essay to remain. It's marked "essay" for a reason; see {{essay}}. - auburnpilot talk 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If it becomes a problem then will be the time to consider its deletion. --John 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A big help for Wikipedians alike. Extremely sexy 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Essays in user space should normally be allowed, unless they are truly strange. I can't resist commenting that 'policy shopping' is a neologism, even within Wikipedia, and the essay lacks examples of its ever having occurred. So I don't see myself joining a crusade to stamp out policy shopping any time soon. EdJohnston 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not harmful at present, and not even finished. Hut 8.5 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is an essay in a userspace. I don't personally agree with the intent or content of this essay, but I don't see any reason to delete it out of a userspace! Cogswobbletalk 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per most of the above. Let it develop and then we can have the discussion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. With a couple limits, people can express pretty much whatever opinion they want on policies in their userspace. And this one is actually good. If you try to cite a policy to do something, and it turns out the policy doesn't apply, the solution is to reevaluate if your changes should happen, not just go find some other policy to use. -Amarkov moo! 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's an essay, not a policy, for Pete's sake. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason right now to delete this. It is related to wikipedia so it is not a violation of WP:NOT or the user page guidlines. Also this is new so we should give it a chance.--James, La gloria è a dio 10:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Snow keep - We're not a bureaucracy, nor are we censored, and this is in userspace. Anything that could possibly have gone wrong in this MFD has.--WaltCip 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's only one delete vote in this entire MFD, including Keep votes from editors (like myself) who disagree with the content of the essay. On the contrary, I think things have gone quite right. ;-) Cogswobbletalk 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep how can an essay in user space stifle debate; deleting it seems like the stifling action, surely. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Its an essay pertaining to the use of Wikipedia in userspace. Nothing wrong with that. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 07:44, 9 June 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.