Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery

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 speedy/snow keep, because it's trending towards being kept and I'm not sure the MFD was in good faith either. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipuffery

Attack essay accuses other editors of lacking good faith: "Wikipuffery is the puffing done by Wikipedia editors in mainspace, often in misguided good faith" Issues discussed already adequately covered in exisiting guidelines, essays, and policies. Also

• Keep. This is not an "attack essay" by any reasonable definition of the word. Useful content and concept. Ikip claims it is "already adequately covered in existing guidelines and essays" but does not identify any such essays that have the same concept. NB also the
  Business Plot conspiracy theory. THF (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually this is in regards to

talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no "editors lacking good faith" section. The essay explicitly says that WP:PUFF may happen in good faith. Incidentally, a good way to further rebut

WP:HOUND is to identify yet a third article that you followed me to. THF (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

""Wikipuffery is the puffing done by Wikipedia editors in mainspace, often in misguided good faith"

talk) 16:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly what I said. THF (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. looking at the recent editing history, seems to be a "payback" nom as the result of a content dispute. I see no problem with this essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look who has been following my edits again today, hi again Cameron Scott. I wonder if THF will accuse you of Hounding too, I seriously doubt it.

talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep- utterly nonsensical nomination. Friday (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Horribly inappropriate nomination, ironically bordering on non-AGF. (
  talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery was created at 16:19, before this MfD was finalized and after Ikip deleted his template at 16:16. Ikip changed his nomination to include this second essay after Cameron Scott and I had !voted keep. I have no opinion on the second essay. I created it because User:Ikip tried to add this material diametrically opposed to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery to that essay. If he doesn't want it to exist, he's welcome to ask me to blank and CSD it, as long as he promises not to readd it to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. THF (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the first deletion tag (incorrectly) at 16:13, 26 February 2009.[2] giving THF notice time to fork the article. 7 minutes later, at 16:19, 26 February 2009,

talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Doesn't look like an attack essay to me. Essays don't need to reflect the opinion of every user. --Onorem♠Dil 18:00, 26 February 2009 (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.