Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN

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: no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN

Article presents only a single view or definition of what the phrase means and does not go into depth or talk about any philosophy, approach or standard when it comes to editing or thinking about Wikipedia. I do not believe that providing a link to the essay would assist new users understand what Wikipedia is about. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the best “huh what?” statement since “plastics”. Not helpful to anyone, unclear what this even means in regards to WP. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve created an advice page that’s equally useful Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, since these two essays seem to be covering essentially the same topic and point of view, they are used in pretty much the same context in discussions, this essay doesn't really add anything that isn't better discussed in the other essay and I don't see how quoting lyrics from a copyrighted song and saying "we should do what this song says" is compatiable with the WP:Non-free content Policy. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too small to be a copyright violation, if it was Wikiquote wouldn’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we were to put in a redirect then I would actually prefer WP:SNOW as you can tell which way the wind is blowing, it is all heading in one direction, and it is time to invoke WP:SNOW. Which again highlights the lack of depth or explanation in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the nom disagrees with the essay is not a valid deletion reason. There are big disclaimers on essays that say they lack community consensus—this is perfectly fine and acceptable for essays. If the essay sucks, you don’t have to cite it and you are free to write a counter-essay. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This essay doesn't say enough to be worth keeping or deleting, but it isn't against policy, and none of the reasons to delete it apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or weak delete. There is no essay here to be kept or deleted, as Robert McClenon correctly pointed out. I don't think it needs to be redirected to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue because I don't think anyone has ever keyed Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN. This page started as a single vague sentence in 2013, and it was never developed into anything more than that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or delete. This is vague and confusing as others have already pointed out. I don't see any disagreement with the essay from the nominator, but rather confusion on if its helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is short and to the point. We don't need a bureaucratic over-long semi-guideline to make the point. Wikipedia has become insanely overcited. Nowhere else in scholarship, or the internet generally, is the little blue number disease so prevalent. Anything that fights back against that has got my vote. SpinningSpark 08:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. No case for deletion over userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. There isn't enough content here to keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only makes sense if the text of this page is merged into the target. Otherwise, it turns WP:WEATHERMAN into a WP:EASTEREGG that will totally baffle anyone who follows it. SpinningSpark 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sufficiently famous. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 5 May 2022 (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.