Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:If after all there is a vote

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 userfy The shortcut redirects can be re targeted as well Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:If after all there is a vote[edit]

Delete. This is not more than a POV version of the majority judgment article, portrayed as an essay. See especially the section "inferior alternatives for this use case". This essay has mainly only one editor (Homunq). Markus Schulze 20:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy as a user essay. Every user is entitled to write there opinions about Wikipedia on a page. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a thoughtful analysis about !voting meeting the policies of WP:WPESSAY. Arno Nymus (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article doesn't really analyze the different aspects of voting and non-voting. This article is only a biased version of the majority judgment article. Markus Schulze 11:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, as can easily be shown: e.g. the section about what criteria are desirable in !voting can't be found in the Majority judgment article. Arno Nymus (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The listed criteria are general criteria. They have nothing to do with !voting at Wikipedia in particular. Markus Schulze 15:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, too. E.g.: "1. It should be easy, even "foolproof", for !voters; and compatible with existing !voting behavior on wikipedia". Arno Nymus (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial text insertions to make this article look like an article on !voting at Wikipedia. The rest of this article is a biased version of the majority judgment article, portrayed as an essay. The arguments why rating systems are better or worse than ranking systems are general arguments and have nothing to do with !voting at Wikipedia in particular. If the author really wanted to discuss !voting at Wikipedia, he would spend more space discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the different solutions (in the context of !voting at Wikipedia) and he wouldn't concentrate on describing just one solution. Markus Schulze 06:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by Userifying - to User:Homunq/If after all there is a vote. The essay largely is the viewpoint of one user and it has not been cited by others to any noticable degree[1]. Users may write there opinions about Wikipedia on a page and this personal analysis about !voting describing just one solution fits user essays described at Wikipedia:Essays. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are redirects to this essay in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. Wikipedia:NNV and Wikipedia:NOTNOTVOTE). What should happen to these redirects, when this essay is userfied? Markus Schulze 08:08, 25 September 2013 (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.