Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't lie (2nd nomination)
- 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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This terse sentence adds nothing to the project. Efforts to expand this essay have been reversed by other editors. No one cites this essay (and the only links to it are from transclusions of {{Wikipedia essays}}) and I posit that this doesn't have community consensus. This might be appropriate in user space but not in the wp namespace. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: As I have already explained when I first nominated it, "This essay is incredibly short (two mere words), to the point that even the essay template and shortcut were removed to make it shorter (so don't expect an expansion). There is no idea being explained, or a description of things to avoid, just an idea of civility we have all learned at our childhood. Thus, this page (it's not even an essay) is completely useless and redundant". --Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and revert back to the version that had content. It is actually a fairly good essay at that point. If someone wants the two word essay they can create it in their userspace. ~ GB fan 19:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep if reverted to the previous version linked above by @GB fan:, which seems like a valid essay. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note I've restored the essay. Linguisttalk|contribs 23:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Check history before MfDing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I am sure Chris troutman looked at the history prior to MFDing this. His nomination statement says he looked at it, "Efforts to expand this essay have been reversed by other editors." That says he looked at it, saw it had been expanded and then reverted ~ GB fan 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- . Oh sorry. I guess the opening sentence doesn't match the history. Last time I said merge. I think that should be followed up on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I am sure Chris troutman looked at the history prior to MFDing this. His nomination statement says he looked at it, "Efforts to expand this essay have been reversed by other editors." That says he looked at it, saw it had been expanded and then reverted ~ GB fan 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify my nomination since apparently everyone quit after the first sentence: No one cites this essay. This essay does not belong in the wp namespace. While we all agree lying isn't helpful, this essay (long form or short) does not expand for the readers their understanding of Wikipedia. Just because this "seems like a valid essay" does not mean it should purport to represent some number of Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am sympathetic to that, but disagree that the answer is deletion. Same as last time, look at merging similar essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- I reviewed the restored essay and it seems pointless to me. Of course, we know that editors should not lie. I don't see a purpose -- would someone link to this essay to convey to another editor that they are a liar? I don't see how that's helpful or civil. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep the restored version. The essay has the usual caveats at the top to tell people that it is not an official order from the project, and it is worth reading. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.