Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP2E

Related AFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy (opposing viewpoint)

I think the essay was written to try to make a point based off of disagreements in the AfD of Anthony Bologna, and having it titled simply as BLP2E is misleading to people. The Anthony Bologna article where this all started has attracted a lot of non-Wikipedia attention, and users have linked to WP:BLP2E in his AfD. It is my fear that having this essay gives an impression to people who aren't used to Wikipedia that the nomination of Anthony Bologna may be against Wikipedia is not legitimate. If the creator refuses to allow edits to the essay that only explain the pro-BLP2E use side, I feel that this essay should be moved to his userspace. My edits did not even change the essence of the essay - it still expressed that BLP2E is not policy, but I think the essay should be allowed to explain the reason why some have used a BLP2E line of thought (and the reasoning why I put in the essay, just for reference sake was "It is an argument made by some editors that WP:BLP1E can be applied to two events when one event is only reported in conjunction with the other event. Editors who follow this line of reasoning view BLP2E as a subset of BLP1E, while editors who do not agree with this line of reasoning argue that the existence of 2 notable events probably indicates a presumption of notability."). The whole essay as it reads now seems like it was made to try to make a point and to advance a particular view in an ongoing AfD rather than advise on the actual issue. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the creator of the article. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's an essay created to express a point of view and complies with our policies on essays. They're supposed to express a point of view. In good faith, I created Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy for opposing views. There has been a long saga on ANI about this essay in case folks haven't seen it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But WP:ESSAYS also says, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." What is your objection to just moving this to your userspace if you want it to be so narrowly tailored? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see widespread consensus opposing the viewpoint and I certainly don't mind others improving it as Rlendog and Count Iblis have done. However, if you want to censor it or neuter it, you should follow the advice in How to improve essays, "When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it may be best to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other." I've even created a place for that at Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is trying to fundamentally change the meaning of the essay because they disagree with it. There is nothing wrong with the essay as it is, the nominator is free to work on an opposing essay if they wish to. Silver seren^C 22:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not fundamentally change - nowhere in the essay do I think the opposing viewpoint should be stated as correct. I just find it logical and fair to at least state what explain what the opposing viewpoint is before attacking it. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why you're free to work on an opposing essay. Just like we have WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. Each one doesn't have to state the opposing viewpoint, they just have to link to each other to allow readers to get an opposing opinion. Silver seren^C 22:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a problem with the essay, nor do I think the essay invalidates the AfD nomination in question, since as I see it, that subject has been involved in 1 notable event and the human interest story in a local paper from a few years ago is not an "event". But if other Wikipedians disagree with my interpretation of "event," that does not represent a defect with this essay. Rlendog (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essays created to make a point while arguing in an XfD, as this one was, are created in bad faith. To allow this sort of thing to proliferate is to cheapen and weaken Wikipedia essays in general. Take a stand and dump this crap, the creator can host it in his userspace if he desires. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that practically all essays were made in response to something or to "make a point", as you put it. As long as they don't specifically focus and mention the XfD or source of the creation, which this essay doesn't, there shouldn't be a problem. Silver seren^C 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Essay seems useful and perfectly in keeping with any sort of guidelines. I'm not seeing any WP:POINT violatins here, I do see an afterthought to create an essay that helps deal with the ongoing issue of scope creep inherent to BLP1E debates. Night Ranger (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no policy-based reason offered for deletion; editors have wide scope to create essays and this one falls within that scope. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely what essayspace is for. The only matter of real concern here is that it's titled WP:BLP2E, which some editors have apparently been involving as shorthand for "this is really just an edge case of BLP1E". Obviously if the term "BLP2E" continues to be used more for the latter purpose than to refer to this essay the essay should be moved or reworked; however, that's a discussion for the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nomination contains two arguments: that the nominator doesn't agree with the essay and that the essay doesn't contain references to the opposing point of view. Both miss the point of a essays, which is to express an opinion that is held by some editors. Essays don't have to advance a position that is universally accepted and don't have to adhere to NPOV. Hut 8.5 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an essay. It's not disruptive, and in fact after this whole brouhaha dies down, it will be promptly forgotten. In the meantime, it's a legitimate essay that makes a good point. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When two opposing or vastly diverging views exist, it's normal to create separate essays on them instead of attempting to turn an essay at 180 degrees, and failing that, trying to have it deleted, which is what's happening here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest renaming it to Wikipedia:BLP2E is not policy for total neutrality over the ownership of the BLP2E shortcut. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as a general comment: I see nothing wrong with editors writing essays based on their recent experience in a given AfD, as long as they address some previously undressed issue that is of sufficiently general interest (which is the case here with BLP2E). Making a point is entirely appropriate at times; writing it in an essay is not disruptive. This is what essays are for; quote from an ArbCom decision "State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally". A disruptive experiment in this context would have been nominating for deleting a bunch of articles of people known only for two main events in the hope that these hypothetical nominations would cause outrage and result in—I'm just wildly speculating...—a policy change of some sort that affirms the invalidity of BLP2E as a principle. Merely writing an essay on this is stating a point, and is not a disruptive experiment. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Wikipedia:BLP2E is not policy or similar, at least as long as Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy is kept, because the current situation is totally confusing; by all appearances, the latter essay is saying that THIS essay should be policy. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy is heading for deletion. (I'm tempted to save us the hassle and replace the contents with {{db-blanked}}, but I don't want it to appear that I'm acting in bad faith.) Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.