Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space

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 Userfy. This discussion is a bit of a mess, and much of it is not helpful towards determining consensus. I do not see a consensus to delete the page. On the other hand a majority of commenters (by my count) have indicated that it would be acceptable to have this content in the creator's userspace, and the rationale for this put forward by Uzma Gamal seems reasonable. Several contributors said that the situation may change if the page is allowed to develop, but three weeks later this does not seem to have happened. I am not going to remove the {{proposed}} tag from the page, but this can of course be done as part of the normal editorial process. Hut 8.5 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty page with no content. Disruption by a user involved in content dispute related to the 2012 Aurora shooting. User keeps trying to move any discussion about adding content about federal and state laws related to the shooting to different talk pages to distract and reframe the discussion. User is welcome to recreate the page in his user space. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added content. I feel this issue should be discussed but in a proper forum and not as a coatrack in other articles. Wp has no guideline specific to it, so I am attempting to create one. Anyone may feel free to assist.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea. Like I told you repeatedly at WP:ANI, it would be best to drop this subject. Feel free to create something similar in your own userspace, if you get consensus you can move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Arcandam (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wp has guidelines for blps. It does not have seperate ones for ethnicity, religon, and sexual orientation. I have seen these brought with Bob Dylan and Jodie Foster as well as others. I see no reason why we can't have the discussions all in one forum to create a guideline or policy. This will avoid the same discussions every time an edit war happens. They can reach consenus easier by citing the guideline and policy better than citing other articles that have had various outcomes. These various outcomes may have been caused for many reasons including bullying, canvassing, editors giving up as you suggest, etc, etc. I have said all I wish to on this matter for now. I think we should let others weigh in on it as well. I will respond to any new points brought up if I feel they warrant a response.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Drop this subject. Move your attention elsewhere. Arcandam (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Your message is not very clear, I am not really certain what you meant.[reply]

I mean gun debates, ethnicity, religon, and sexual orientation could all use more policy and guidelines. They are beaten to death all over WMF; in articles, talk pages, dispute forums, etc. This one is only six existing policies I have cited in one forum. DUE, COATRACK, CRIME, RS, NOTNEWS, and CRYSTAL. Feel free to add POV, COI, STICK, BLP, and any others you wish. With all combined in forums to sort the policies involved then we should be able to avoid debates in all the other forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before: "Feel free to create something similar in your own userspace, if you get consensus you can move it to the Wikipedia namespace". But to be honest I don't think you should focus your attention on creating guidelines and policies, and especially not on this subject. Policies and guidelines are not your forte as far as I can see. To outsiders it just looks like you are trying to make this discussion as long as possible. Just drop it. Arcandam (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated numerous times in all the wikidrama forums this is in: I am neutral in the gun debate. It seems to me that many editors are not and are fighting include/exclude battles on it. I don't intend to create policy myself unilaterally. I proposed this as one solution to limit the endless wikidrama that seems to be far too rampant on this and the other debates mentioned above. You keep repeating the same points. I keep repeating the same answers. I think we should let others have some input on it now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed I am not an admin. I have been rather patient and repetitive, trying to explain stuff, some of our admins are a bit more triggerhappy than I am. Arcandam (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If admin wish to weigh in on their views about this proposal I have no qualms with that. If a "triggerhappy" admin wishes to delete it I don't know how well that would go over with consensus policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand: a triggerhappy admin would've blocked you for a while after your recent ANI thread. You clearly misunderstand our policies, so perhaps you shouldn't be trying to write a policy or guideline yourself. But if you do, do it in your own userspace. And please drop your stick. Arcandam (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How does that page help us towards our goal of producing an encyclopedia? It doesn't. Delete. Arcandam (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD: "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated [for deletion]. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors."--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being disingenuous, again. Your blank "proposal" was nominated at 19:35, 29 July 2012‎ when it was an empty page devoid of content that you created for no other purpose than disruption.[1] Somewhere around 3 hours later, after this page was nominated for deletion, you began adding content.[2] If this was a good faith proposal I would of course, withdraw this nomination. However, this is not a good faith proposal, in fact, it is not a "proposal" of any kind but a personal essay that you decided to inflict on the community that currently represents your opinion, an opinion that is not supported. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Since hell would have to freeze over before you ever admitted that this was not a proposal for a policy, and since it is quite clear this is a personal essay that you will not allow others to edit and contradicts widespread consensus established by our core policies, such as WP:NPOV as an example, I maintain this deletion nomination and request that this page is deleted and that you work on your "proposal" in your user space. There's no way in hell you're going to change or contradict our policy on NPOV so this proposal has nowhere to go but into your user space. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, its not going to work, don't you see that? This is not a serious proposal for a policy/guideline. It is just another way to make the discussion longer. Arcandam (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone can claim it as an essay and in my first response above I asked others to help edit it. So it is not OWN nor "essays that the author does not want others to edit" as argued above. It is a small collection of existing policy set in a format to create a new policy that others may agree that we could benefit from here. Wp is not sensored. If you don't like it or disagree with it then take it off your watch lists. You will never see it again until it may become policy and then cited in gun articles. If you think it is POV then edit it to balance POV with your opinons about the 'gun thing'. As I have said many times before I am neutral on it but believe we need policy for those that are not. I created it, went to respond to an edit or 12 and then fell asleep. I did not create it blank. I left a message for others as a starting place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what an essay is in the context of Wikipedia? Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Stop saying you are neutral, you are not. Almost no one is (if we exclude dead people, they are pretty neutral). This will never be something that belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, but if you do not believe me feel free to make a policy/guideline proposal in your userspace and try to get consensus for it. Arcandam (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither my opinion nor advice. It is merely a basic framework for a proposed policy. Where do you see any opinion in it? I formatted it to match most of the policies/guidelines in wp. Where do you see that the format differs or which material is opinion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we are communicating in the same language. If you have a good proposal and it gets some support, cool, post it in the Wikipedia: namespace. But as long as you haven't: make it in your own userspace. Arcandam (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy/Delete - Seems to qualify as a user essay (often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or do not contain enough advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors to be considered a Wikipedia essay). I could see the topic being developed into an essay placed in the project namespace, but I don't see the actual posting going towards that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that all the edits are mine but I barely wrote it at all. I used arguments from both sides of the 'gun thing' to try to create a balanced policy. My name may be the only one on it, but many more have created it by refining their policy points in numerous other discussions besides just the 'gun thing'--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above? You need to make a proposal in your userspace. If you have a good proposal and it gets some support, cool, post it in the Wikipedia namespace. But as long as you haven't it should be in your own userspace. Do you know what a namespace is??? Arcandam (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems many of the ones in Category:Wikipedia proposals are not in user space, only have one editor, are far lamer than mine, make no sense, will never fly, etc, etc. It also seems that this is the only one with a long deletion debate that keeps wasting time by repeating the same points, over, and over, and over, and over.......--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see a WP:IDHT-problem. I asked you to read a couple of things, you haven't read them. I've asked you a couple of questions and made a couple of comments, you failed to respond to them. But you keep posting offtopic stuff over and over again. Please stop doing that. Respond to the questions and read the stuff you are advised to read. Arcandam (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.[reply]

It's not going to be a policy or guideline. It could be an essay, but since you presently are involved in discussing a related issue, it's not a good time to try to influence that discussion by creating a project space essay. A user essay is fine for now. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have answered all of your questions. I have posted examples to back up my points, not "offtopic stuff". You are the one that seems to have a problem with WP:IDHT. You either disagree with my points, can't fathom them, won't accept them, etc, etc. I feel we should let others respond and see if they have any new points instead of the ones that we repeat over, and over, and over, and over...... Should we go back and count how many times we have done that?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be how you feel, but in reality you have not. Do you want some examples of the offtopic stuff you posted?

I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.

Do you honestly think this is on-topic and useful? And what about this next quote?

A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.

Or this one?

People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?

I am not even sure if you understand what a policy is, because you wrote stuff like:

"You will never see it again until it may become policy and then cited in gun articles".

And:

"If a "triggerhappy" admin wishes to delete it I don't know how well that would go over with consensus policy."

Arcandam (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had answered all of these but my answers were deleted. I have answered them again below.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or delete. Half of what Viriditas said. (And for all I know the other half too; I haven't checked.) Exactly what Arcandam said. Canoe1967, this is where you can write your essay. (Of course you can change the address to taste: this, this, this, etc.) When it says something and you're happy with it, ask others to take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how it can be referred to as an essay, there is no opinion in it and others are free to improve it. It is the same format as other policies and guidelines and it is in the proper space for proposals. Are any of these up for deletion: Category:Wikipedia proposals and are they in the wrong space as well? Why does everyone keep repeating the same questions? I give the same answers and then others repeat the same questions. Does anyone have an original and valid question?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same format as other policies and guidelines and it is in the proper space for proposals. That's right. But it isn't fit to be proposed. It seems to be headed in the direction of a warning against "coatracks". However, WP already has one of these: Wikipedia:Coatrack. NB it's a mere essay. This is more or less its first version; note how it actually says something and also has a disclaimer at the start. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows coatrack as one extreme pov and no material at all as the other. If it is developed and followed correctly then every gun article will have a perfectly balanced NPOV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its current version seems reasonable enough as a Wikipedia space essay, at least that it shouldn't be deleted now. If in a month or two it has failed to develop into more then a rehash of policies covered elsewhere it may be appropriate to reconsider deletion or to start an RFC on it. Monty₈₄₅ 14:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That still means we need to keep it in the correct namespace: the userspace. Arcandam (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/pastes from the question asked asked twice above: Are any of these up for deletion: Category:Wikipedia proposals and are they in the wrong space as well? Why does everyone keep repeating the same questions? It seems many of the ones in Category:Wikipedia proposals are not in user space, only have one editor, are far lamer than mine, make no sense, will never fly, etc, etc. It also seems that this is the only one with a long deletion debate that keeps wasting time by repeating the same points, over, and over, and over, and over.. It is getting far easier to answer these when I have so many choices to copy/paste from.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. And please read WP:OTHERSTUFF Arcandam (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not a guideline, far from policy, and also in the same space as my proposal. Did you want me to Mfd it so you can waste time trying to defend it because you may need to cite it as policy some day? Which part is untrue? I wish you would be more specific. Didn't you know that wikipedia is not based on truth? Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. From WP:SOURCE. Some liked it bettter 2 days ago when it said Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. but I guess they spent lots of time discussing that policy as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to replace my answers you deleted above now......--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These answers were deleted by the questioner because of format policies. I will answer them in the proper format now:

That may be how you feel, but in reality you have not. Do you want some examples of the offtopic stuff you posted?

I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.

Shows I am neutral on the subject. I have been at both ends of them when they are in operation. --Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think this is on-topic and useful? And what about this next quote?

A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.

Taken out of context (whole quote isn't there). Shows that even if you have been bitten or shot at it may not affect your opinion on dogs and guns and can remain neutral in dog/gun debates.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this one?

People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?

Same NPOV issue. They want to include material in an article as relevant when it happened long ago. The sources are speculating today on something that happened 20 years ago.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even sure if you understand what a policy is, because you wrote stuff like:

"You will never see it again until it may become policy and then cited in gun articles".

If you don't like something, just ignore it and walk away until it comes to you and bites or shoots you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And:

"If a "triggerhappy" admin wishes to delete it I don't know how well that would go over with consensus policy."

If admin are "triggerhappy" too often then policy may bite or shoot them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy. Neither subject nor content fit for a guideline proposal. Too narrow. We cannot have a separate guideline for each subject: too much bureaucracy already. If one feels the topic deserves guidelining, try to expand some of existing guidelines (sure there already are about general topics of crime, news, etc.) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is partially my point. This is not a new policy (yet). It is an attempt to create a policy or guideline built from the ones that exist. This one differs in the fact that most of the other policies are being put in one compact place and with examples. These examples may be good and bad ones that can be edited easily from here. We can turn the bad examples into good ones, move out the good ones, then add more bad ones to work on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against essays in Wikipedia space. The way I understand it is that essays may be in userspace if the original author does not intend to WP:OWN it, and it doesn't advocate positions seriously out of line with accepted practice. If the author doesn't want other people to edit it, or wants to say something that is likely to confuse readers about policy, only then must it be in userspace. The idea that you need to generate support for an essay before it can be in article space is not consistent with common practice. See WP:ESSAY. Monty₈₄₅ 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe1967, since you presently are involved in discussing a related issue, it's not a good time for you to try to influence that discussion by proposing a policy or a guideline. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I cannot strive for a NPOV policy on an issue that has been ongoing for centuries? Guns will continue to have POV debates for a while yet but there is no reason we can't be NPOV with them on en:wp. As I said before you can take it off your watch list and not worry about it until it may affect your edits in the future. I am pushing NPOV and not POV and I think that is a pillar kicking around here somewhere. (8th time I answered this?) If anyone has a new and valid question that I have not answered, please feel free to ask.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a proposal. Clearly a lot of people object to this, and it looks at the moment like it doesn't have a snowball's chance of gaining consensus as policy. But it's only been around for two days, so it's a bit early to shut it down just yet; and besides, we don't normally delete failed policy proposals, we keep them and tag them as {{rejected}}. Assuming it becomes clear this one doesn't have consensus behind it, that's what should happen here. Userfication would also be acceptable, but I don't think it has to happen; providing it's made clear this is not currently a Wikipedia policy, it can remain in Wikipedia-space. Robofish (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That said, I have just removed part of the page, which was not obviously making any kind of recommendation or advice but simply holding text which belongs in an article. That's not what policy pages or essays are for. Robofish (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was hoping we could use it as an editable page to discuss types of inclusions/exclusions, discuss and modify content, add and remove articles from a good/bad list as we work on them. That section you removed I had copy/pasted from article space. I thought it may be a plan to seek consensus here and then move it to article space as an 'approved' NPOV version. We could avoid edit wars in articles that way. We all come over here from a disputed or locked article and then tell admin when we have consensus and put the material in the article. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my own thought is that if you're planning an essay (or would-be guideline) as a place where editors may work out their disputes elsewhere, then your idea for this essay seems even battier than I'd first inferred, no matter how benevolent your intentions may be. But perhaps you're not good at explaining Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space, which itself may convince me. I look at it and discover that it manages to say nothing coherent whatever -- aside from a list (obscurely titled "Works in progress") of nine articles about massacres, shootings, etc. If you have something to say, then put it into your essay; if I don't see it there, I infer that you have nothing to say. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR Arcandam (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a bad save above? Did you forget the rest of what you are trying to say?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Arcandam (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I just modified as per your requests. I have never called it an essay. Others may view it as such until we develop it beyond that view.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it says about itself: The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. Of the three, guideline seems the least implausible. If it's proposed as a guideline in anything like its current state, it will most assuredly fail. That it's nowhere near ready to be a guideline does not in itself condemn it. It needs incubation. This is what userspace is for. -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to hide or strike through any comment (no matter how intelligent, constructive, perceptive, witty or otherwise welcome) made by a block-evading puppet. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal is not a reason to censor wikipedia, nor edit war over it. please stop edit warring and seek consensus before revert. I am claiming 3RR exemption because the blocked IP is a BLP. Although they don't have their own article their wp input has a record here. Any further censorship is undue without consensus. Hiding it in a hat is a fine example of the Streisand effect and does not add to the discussion but takes away from it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Cough) "Streisand" (so spelled). That aside, see this at AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:. Reviewers may wish to see Wp:Strategic issues with core policies#WP:NPOV. It seems this proposal may have merit in the eyes of others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Did you post the wrong link? Arcandam (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:. I may not participate further if the valid comment remains hidden against wikipedia policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just drop it and move on. Arcandam (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote from ANI, my bold: "It's pretty common to do so, but not necessary. If someone else undoes it, then there's really no point in starting an edit war over it. Instead, just add a note in small text underneath that the user above is a banned sockpuppet. Easy as that. Don't start conflict for conflict's sake."SilverserenC 04:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order: BLP does not mean someone gets to ignore 3RR to be heard. Edits by sockpuppets of banned users may be reverted on sight. Putting a hat on it was lenient; putting a sockpuppet tag on it is just advertising for the sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is not blocked and there is nothing on its talk page. How do we know it is a sock? As well, the key word is may.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am leaving town for a few days so I won't be able to respond. Please be patient. Thank you in advance. If editors focused on me post below this, ignore them like a troll until I get back and I will deal with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIVIL. Read it when you get back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy: I understand how you feel, Canoe, but I don't think this is quite ready for Wiki-space yet. Before you start saying that there are tons of other proposals in Wiki-space, that is still not a valid rationale. I'm not in favor of deleting it, but I feels Canoe needs more time to prepare this. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Remarkably, this probably does belong in projectspace. Canoe1967 should still be trouted for the novel-length rambling above, as should Arcandam for the pathological LASTWORDism which encouraged him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree. This fits project space now, but it has no chance of being a guideline. It'll wind up as a failed proposal, or an essay, but that's doesn't affect its status in project space. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how it "fits" project space, as it directly violates WP:BATTLEGROUND: "...do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies..." Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in Project space for as long as it can be considered a proposal. If rejected by all but the author, it can be userfied, but otherwise Keep as we do not delete good faith project-related content. Also, we do not allow MfD to be used as a card in project discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) MfD hasn't been used as a "card" in any project discussion here. This proposed project page was nominated because it was blank and empty.[3] 2) The newest version with actual content explicitly describes itself as an essay (even though the creator maintains it is a policy "proposal") but does not propose an actionable policy of any kind. 3) Contrary to your claim, this was not a good faith project proposal, but a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND intended to advance the position of the author during a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1)It looks like it to me. When an actively edited page comes to MfD, usually someone is playing games.

      2) It does indeed have problems as you describe. However, I don't think they are irretrievable. I don't think that the page is a valid guideline/poliyc proposal, but as long as it is tagged as such, I consider it out-of-scope for MfD. As an essay, I don't see the reason for deletion, although sending (WP:MOVE) it to userspace is an option.

      No, I don't make that claim, I am just assuming. If, as you say, the user has a POV in dispute, I commend the writing of an essay on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this the longest MFD ever? Just ask...221.203.139.100 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This is relatively short compared to some of the big debates. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "proposal" page and its talk page have been inactive since 2 August 2012. Tag {{failed}} and userfy to User:Canoe1967/Gun debates in article space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (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.