Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse (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. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse[edit]

This page violates Wikipedia spirit and policy. Forcing opposition comments to "use the talk page" while prominently displaying endorsements in favor of a petition is hardly a neutral or collaborative effort. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is an issue of page organization and content, not a reason to delete the page. If you want the oppose comments to be displayed in the main petition page fine, but seek consensus there. Now, I would personally not mind about opposes in the main page, but the consensus seemed to be that opposes should be in the talk page for petitions (which are different from other discussion pages). But in any case, again, disagreement on organization issues is no reason for deletion of a page (especially one that has been approved by something like 130 editors,and opposed by less than 10) --Cyclopia ^talk 17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly disagree with the page's format, but Cyclopia is correct in stating that this is not a valid deletion rationale. —David Levy 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JB, just withdraw this drama, the nom is not a reason to delete. (Background discussion: User_talk:JBsupreme#MickMacNee_ownership_of_Wikipedia:Petition_against_IAR_abuse)--Milowent (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the issues which you have with this page, JB, but there is, and will be, an overwhelming consensus to keep it. Problems with the page should be brought up on the talk page, certainly not here. Claritas § 17:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. If anything, a proposal could be a link to the talk page at the outset or end of the list.--Milowent (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've archived the old talk page discussions which dated from January and February 2010, in anticipation of anybody wanting to begin new sections in light of recent events. I hope nobody sees this as anything other than good housekeeping, and not something more nefarious, what with all the allegations of ownership that have been coming my way today. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination provides no reason to delete the page. Petitions/polls/elections do not violate "Wikipedia spirit and policy" - if anything it generally is accepted practice to move long discussions to the talk page or elsewhere. Hut 8.5 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So that you may make an informed comment, it is not "long discussions" which are being moved. It is any form of opposition to the signed petition. That's a first in my book. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not a deletion rationale - it an ANI or RFC or whatever thing.--Milowent (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator even contributed opposing text on the petition. This kind of page is a way of expressing a consensus or at least one point of view. If JB desires a Wikipedia:Petition for IAR abuse can be created to express the opposite view, that abuse is wanted. Few would support that though. I expect that JB considered this petition was Wikipedia:Petition against IAR use, which is not what it is. Earlier I wanted to have notice given and the petition closed, so as to become historical, but plenty already disagreed on that option. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I agree that the page should not be deleted. However, the implication that opposition to the petition means that someone is "for IAR abuse" is part of the problem. The page's format inherently has a polarizing, "with us or against us" effect (with no opportunity to seek middle ground or note disagreement with specific elements). —David Levy 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Silly nomination. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Project related expressions should not be easily deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blizzard. Indeed, to delete it would violate WP rules and policies. Clearly properly devoted to a WP-related topic per se. Collect (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Petitions don't normally have an 'oppose' section. Somewhat silly petition (who would be likely to be in favour of IAR abuse, I wonder), and a magnet for drama as people have wildly different opinions of what IAR means and what it's for: however this is no reason to delete it. pablo_hablo. 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom didn't get their way so they lash out in what amounts to essentially a WP:POINTy nomination. -- œ ^™ 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
De-own-ify. There looks like a clear problem here with the petition being owned. Unilateral commands like the one at the top of Wikipedia talk:Petition against IAR abuse are not appropriate. It's especially inappropriate when those in opposition are invited to voice their opposition on the talk page, but then the complete contents of the talk page are archived. If you want this in project space, then it doesn't belong to simply one side of the discussion. --B (talk) 21:52, 21 June 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.