Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Crash course

From Wikipedia, the free 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 delete, forked out from admin school which had substantial support for deletion. >Radiant< 09:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Crash course

Fork from Wikipedia:Admin school, currently undergoing Mfd. Same issues, only compounded because this was moved from Wikipedia:Admin school/Crash course to the main Wikipedia space, thus removing it from the scope of an ongoing Mfd. Content is all by one user, and is covered (better) in Help:Contents pages. confusing and poorly thought out, as there will be instruction and information drift if both exist, rendering inconsistances (beyond what currently exist). In short, not useful but rather harmful, as editors seeking information will not be "working off the same page". KillerChihuahua?!? 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per other MFD. – Chacor 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Chacor. -- Steel 14:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above •Jim62sch• 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or userfy people who want to start new process in project space ought to draft them in userspace, and then ask for comment. We don't have new processes started by one individual.--Docg 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. FeloniousMonk 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per Doc. JoshuaZ 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and other MfD. Snoutwood (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per irredeemable POV writing and conceptualization. --Quiddity 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    or maybe Userfy per Carcharoth below. --Quiddity 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quiddity. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 21:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy - it's just been labelled as an essay. There is a tradition to let essays evolve in userspace with comments until ready for mainspace exposure. Though thinking about it, this isn't really an essay. I just wish there was some way to preserve the links here (some of which are useful, and I'd like to explore), while stripping out the commentary and wince-inducing text, such as "[Wikipedia is] one version of society's memory" and "These heroes are known as "system administrators", or simply admins." and "Start using AutoWikiBrowser, if you haven't already, to really make an impact." and finally "(more coming soon)". I also note, with some dismay, that the "More places your help is needed" section lists Wikipedia:Contents, Wikipedia:Tip of the day and Lists of basic topics as three areas that need work done on them. Why those particular areas? Well, The Transhumanist has worked on those, so maybe that is why they are listed there. What I see here overall, is a tendency for The Transhumanist's wiki-philosophy and list/contents-building to merge to create pages that both give a view of what Wikipedia means to The Transhumanist, and what pages people should go to to follow on the same path. The trouble is that people learn Wikipedia by following different paths, and encouraging people to go one route loses the diversity gained by people gaining experience in different areas. Building up a personal set of views and links is fine, but it should be confined to user space. Carcharoth 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur - The Transhumanist seems to be building himself a walled garden, and inviting unsupecting newbies in. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 11:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Khoikhoi 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy unless you are trying to stamp out the creator's ideas with hobnail boots. I don't agree with his stuff either, although the page does have some usefulness. I'm weak on this page only because there's the other one; no need for two. But the creator is welcome to keep multiple drafts in userspace and I think it's petty to delete personal essays out of hand. John Reid 04:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Gareth Aus 07:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Needless duplication of existing pages. Move to userspace. Angela. 14:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete outright - much of this is very objectionable. I don't like it. Whatever happened to adminship not being a big deal - not something I go with as a rule, but this page way overstates the importance of adminship. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to teach people to game the system and standards at RFA - in fact, it's revoltingly flagrant. This has got my blood boiling - and, obviously, it's in completely the wrong place. Moreschi 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy or Delete - Same problem as with the Admin School, and also, as Angela says so well, "Needless duplication of existing pages". Delete this, or, if creator wants to, userfy. Just please, move it out of Wikipedia space. Thε Halo Θ 17:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Needless duplication of existing pages? Really? What other Wikipedia page tells you to get AWB as a way to increase your experience - i.e boost your edit count? The way in which this thing tells people how to cheat at RFA is just awful. If there is one, I'd love to know....Moreschi 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems more like a "Guide to pass your RfA" sort of thing. Isn't needed to learn the subtle quirks of Wikipedia. --210physicq (c) 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy (preferred) or Delete. If he wants to do this, by all means try it. But I don't think it should be in projectspace. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy per above comments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-06 06:29Z
  • Delete per nom. AnnH ♫ 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably delete - Seems to loosly cover lots of other better phrased pages, such as wp:deletion etc. Also very hard to read & slangy. If it was a real essay I'd give it A+ for effort, but an E for the outcome... Spawn Man 06:02, 7 November 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.