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 no consensus. @ harej 00:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant useless essay started from the removal of a WP:SELF-referential WP:POV section from an article. Since its creation back in 2005, it has been edited in a approximated rate of four times a year. Damiens.rf 12:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - no compelling reason given for deletion. – xeno ^talk 13:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Aren't "irrelevant", "non-useful" and "unused" (or at least the combination of them) compelling reasons for deletion? -- Damiens.rf 14:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The first two are subjective and the third is inaccurate; it's interlinked and gets a modest number of views per month. However I had originally thought the creator was still active, but given what you've highlighted below I'll downgrade to weak keep. – xeno ^talk 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no reason for inclusion, even in project space; does not add value to the project. -- Richard ( talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • or Userfy if anyone wants to claim it. -- Richard ( talk) 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Userfy to (or at least notify) User:Chalst, who kicked this off. It looks like a back-of-two-napkins sketch for what might end up as a very interesting blog entry. Come to think of it, I'll notify him right now. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • User:Chalst didn't started that. User:SimonP created the page by moving some pov out of Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. The real author was User:Urthogie [1], inactive since 2007. No point in userfying. -- Damiens.rf 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete or userfy If one of those editors wants to come claim it, then I have no problem with it winding up in userspace. If no one claims it, then nuke it. Gigs ( talk) 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Tag as historical - It's not doing any harm. Tagging the page as historical would be a much better solution than deleting, because several pages linked to it, and it's best not to break links unnecessarily. We only delete essays about Wikipedia as a last resort. Graham 87 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry. There's simply no relevant page linking to it. Have you followed your own link? -- Damiens.rf 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It's linked in Wikipedia:Why stable versions and as an External links at Reliability of Wikipedia. – xeno ^talk 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Last time I checked, Reliability of Wikipedia links to it, for whatever it's worth. It appears to be the only articlespace link, although there appears to be several from project space and userspace. 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Surely "several pages". -- Damiens.rf 19:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep a useful comparison, though it ought to go a little more in depth & use a wider variety of examples. Perhaps I will add to it some day, for I'm fond of citing the SEP as a better model for some purposes, and us for others. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Completely disagree that it is irrelevant and useless. The content does not seem to be in dispute. It is an essay relevant to wikipedia. As it has multiple authors, it belongs in project space and should not be userfied. There is an obvious worthy and scholar motivation, and sure, it is not finished, but we do not delete due to slow progress. The Cologne Cathedral took 600 years to finish. Surely this essay can wait a little longer? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - very poor comparison; outdated and of no obvious use. Both the 'case studies' here reflect pretty badly on Wikipedia (the first is dubious, and the second is just silly). While a thorough comparison between Wikipedia and the SEP would be a good idea, this isn't it, and the existence of this page implies that such a comparison has been made. At the very least, if not deleted, it should be tagged as historical, so as not to imply it is reliable and up-to-date. Robofish ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 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.