Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Josh Billings

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. Discussion regarding renaming the page can take place on its talk page or WP:RM. — ξ ^xplicit 00:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Josh Billings[edit]

This essay was prepared by one editor, has had no substantial contributions from any other editors and is used as far as I can see exclusively by the writer in discussions on talk pages, having a re-direct to it from WP:KNOW. TFD (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noting that I was not notified. That the proposer had previously sought deletion of the redirect to this essay at [1] less than two months ago. . That the essay is well within reason, and has now many references linking to it. Further the nom has unsuccesfully sought enforcement actions against me in the past week, and might not be acting in totally neutral manner here. Collect (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended deletion of WP:KNOW, because, "The article this page redirects to was userfied, and therefore the redirect should have been userfied as well". That discussion was closed when the essay was unuserfied. TFD (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you did it less than 2 months ago. And neither time did you give me the required notice. Now might you just back off all this stuff? Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, where exactly in deletion policy is this "require[ment]" that you be notified? It is certainly bad form not to notify you, but it isn't grounds to dismiss the discussion, especially given that this page is not in your userspace. --N Y Kevin @911, i.e. 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator is on this very page. OK -- it is not "required" but elision of this step is not a great way to impress me. Collect (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or userfy. This isn't an essay. It's a quotation with a few lines of context. Surely there's already an essay that covers similar grounds. If so just paste the quotation into it. (There's always that catchall - User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior). Otherwise userfy while developing this into a full essay. At the moment this is just a single observation that doesn't merit inclusion in project space. Will Beback talk 23:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (Which isn't to say that the idea is irrelevant. It's akin to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Maybe merge there? Will Beback talk 10:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing specifically where this would be merged to so that seems out. More importantly, we give wide latitude to essays. This one strikes me as having the germ of a very good idea. A possible avenue of improvement would be to find some examples of relevance and link to them (being careful not to run into issues doing so) but even without expansion this seems a keep to me. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable essay related to the project. Nothing objectionable. Belongs in project space. Anticipate future merger of these mini-essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally, essays are kept unless they contradict strong consensus or standing policy. --N Y Kevin @913, i.e. 20:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but suggest a rename to some title focusing on the word 'know'. Jack Merridew 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as it now stands we have WP:KNOW that redirects to the essay "WP:Josh Billings. There is no prospect that editors will improve the article because its title restricts it to what Josh Billings had to say. On the other hand an essay about the sayings of Josh Billings would more reasonably be incorporated into the article about him. TFD (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the essay now please. Collect (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userify: No need to delete. I love that we have an essay that references Josh Billings. Can one referencing Orpheus C. Kerr be far behind?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Drat - you led me to [2] invented by his father. Actually a fairly famous lock. Were the Day brothers related to Ben Day and Clarence Day? Collect (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me you know the answer, because I couldn't even ferret out the first names of the "brothers Day" to try to make a connection.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - no. Though I can not imagine that there were all than many wealthy Day families in New York at the time, and the metal working business would easily have led to printing press making. Ben and Clarence Sr. were brothers it appears, so if one is related to the earlier Days, both are. Collect (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2010 (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.