Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

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The result of the debate was withdrawn. Daniel 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

This should really be deleted or at least userfied, and should definitely not be linked from the top of WP:RFA. POV essay, the examples of do's and dont's reflect only the opinion of some, as e.g. there is no consensual agreement whatsoever regarding what's an "unhelpful comment" on an RfA. Tendentious essay, patronizes RfA participants as if they weren't capable of making a wise decision by themselves. Honestly I don't think we need this kind of tips, for those unfamiliar with the proper evaluation of a candidate we already have Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship which thoroughly describes the process and in a neutral tone lists what the community usually appreciates in candidates, and what it usually doesn't. Hús ö nd 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how it's patronizing, or even really POV. In any case, it's a perfectly acceptable essay so it doesn't need to be deleted or userfied. As for RFA linking to it, that's not an issue for MFD. Take it up on the RFA's talk page if you don't want it link to from there. - Koweja (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the essay reflects consensuses which have arisen in previous RfAs. It is a collaborative effort (some written by me); if you think that any of its points are wrong, you can take it up on the talk page, or even edit it. With RfAs being such a contentious area, an essay of this type provides an interesting and potentially very useful perspective for those commenting on RfAs. On the side issue, linking to it from an RfA is exactly the purpose it is intended for - some users do appreciate these "tips". Warofdreams talk 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an essay that is open to editing from the community, that reflects the considered positions of at least some non-trivial portion of the community, and that means at least in part to summarize past individual RfA and WT:RFA discussions, this is quite properly situated in project space (toward which one may see, for instance, Category:Wikipedia essays), provided, at the very least, that it remain tagged. I am in agreement with Husond about the underlying substantive issues, and I am not at all sure that the link from AAAD in the RfA header is useful; a decision about its use there, though, is to be taken at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter (neither ought discussions about, or objections to, its use generally—e.g., to dismiss certain !votes—valid though they may be, to take place here, of course). Joe 03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Essay it was, essay it is, essay it will be. All opinions are different. This just happens to be informative enough to merit Wikispace approval.--WaltCip (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not reflect everyone's opinion, but it doesn't have to -- it's just an essay. Editors are not bound to follow it, but I think the counsel in it is valuable and is only beneficial to the RFA process. Useight (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was very impressed with this essay when it was first published. It's one thing to disagree with an essay; it's another thing entirely to have that essay deleted because you disagree. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You err in your interpretation of my nomination. I don't wish this to be deleted just because I disagree with it (in fact, I agree with most of it), but because I think this essay goes too far in pushing the views of some users on a good/bad participation at WP:RFA. But yeah, I admit that perhaps suggesting to cut off the link to it from the WP:RFA header would've been a better option than suggesting to have this essay deleted. Hús ö nd 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - MFD withdrawn. Discussing concerns on the talk page of the RfA header as suggested. Hús ö nd 01:51, 30 November 2007 (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.