Wikipedia talk:You are not irreplaceable

This page was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

It's easy for this to develop

When you have created an article, built it up from a little reference-less stub article to a fully-fledged article with references, footnotes and illustrations, it is natural to feel that it is "your" article. However, it is not "your" article. It is Wikipedia's article. Hundreds of other editors can edit, alter, refashion, reword and rework the article. Entire sections can be removed. New sections, sections that you don't think are part of topic XYZ, may be added. Hmmm....time for timeworn cliche...you may have created the article, but now, you must let it "fly off into the world and be free". Cue dramatic music, footage of baby birds flying from nests, sunrise...: ) OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed

Done

Two intent-identical essays,

WP:No editor is indispensable, should surely be merged. They make largely the same points, and both have great wording in places and weaker wording in others. Together, they'll make a more solid essay. I suggest merging to the one rather than the other because it has considerably more history. I would leave out WP:Wikipedia does not need you; despite also overlapping; it's a "Wikipedia Cabal" humor essay, and doesn't share the same "this is real advice" tone. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

A raw merge of the two is at WP:You are not irreplaceable/sandbox and is actually okay as-is, though someone with a good eye for compression might be able to squish it down a bit. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensical to me. I'd suggest a combination of the two, "No editor is irreplaceable", for the title.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea, and I agree with Godsy's proposed title. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of the original, I do not object to the merge, nor have any heartburn with the sandbox version. I strongly prefer the original title be retained, as the essay is a personal message to those editors who come to think of themselves as irreplaceable; the "no editor is irreplaceable" title loses that introspective bent, which is why I didn't pick it the first time around. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Irreplaceable" is easier to understand than "indispensable", as "replace" is a very common verb. --167.58.99.200 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge done, after merging changes that post-date the discussion into the sandbox, tweaking that a big (capitalization cleanup, etc.), then using that text. I left it as Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable, given concerns of original author. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]