Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by nominator per overwhelming keep arguments for both. --jonny-m t 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

I've had my eye on this essay for a good while now, and after much deliberation I've decided to nominate both it and its sister essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding, for deletion. Both of these essays have gone beyond the norm and are now attempting to bolster the opinions they present with externally-sourced facts, essentially creating non-neutral articles in the project namespace. These essays also fail to serve any useful functions, instead serving as soapboxes that editors can use to trumpet the successes or lament the failures of the project without actually taking any of the constructive steps needed to fix the problems or ensure continued improvement.

We have Criticism of Wikipedia (not to mention a slew of external websites) for information on what is wrong with the project and the village pump for discussions on how to make it right. We do not need divisive articles masquerading as essays as well. jonny-m t 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, yes, they are non-neutral. Essays don't have to be neutral, and in fact they usually aren't. The only thing that makes these essays different is that they use information from external sources; that's hardly worthy of deletion. -Amarkov moo! 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both To delete these would be a slap in the face to some truly outstanding editors who have helped write these pages. Discussion is good. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell the most serious accusations in the nomination are citing sources and soapboxing. These essays are more concise than the village pump and the rest of the internet, obviously.P4k (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep both Wikipedia is experiencing growing pains, which is to be expected as the population using Wikipedia changes, and the nature of Wikipedia itself changes. Remember that Wikipedia has gone from being a fairly minor website to one of the top 10 web destinations, and is being used now as a source by print, radio and television journalists and even a source of research information for the courts in the US and other countries. It is the largest collection of human knowledge ever compiled, and continues to grow at a rapid and increasing rate, and the quality appears to be improving at the same time (not quickly enough or broadly enough, but it is improving clearly). It is to be expected under those kinds of pressures that some problems will show up, and that the way we were organized a year or two ago when we were much smaller and less visible might not be as suitable any more. These two essays, together with Criticisms of Wikipedia, the Village Pump, Wikipedia:Expert retention, Wikipedia:Expert rebellion, the discussion page at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal, and similar venues are all valuable places to trade ideas and explore if and how the principles under which Wikipedia is operating need to be adjusted. To cut off or minimize internal discussions and leave the only discussions on external websites like Wikipedia Review that are for the most part hostile to Wikipedia, and frequented by some of the malcontents who have been very disruptive on Wikipedia and often have been banned for it, is really silly. Would you prefer that the United States ignore its own internal problems, and let Iran or Cuba or North Korea make decisions about how the United States should reform its tax code and change its laws? It is just ridiculous to suggest such a thing, but that is analagous to what you are doing. So keep these essays, and maybe we will manage to marshall our resources to reform ourselves, rather than let The Register and Stephen Colbert have the lion's share of input in the matter. Reducing the amount of internal discussion is not the answer, that is for sure.--Filll (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No policy or guideline-based rationale has been provided to delete these essays. It's clearly useful -- perhaps even essential -- for the project to discuss its successes and failures. The tone is not nearly as polemical or negative, like one might expect. This page has a completely different purpose than Criticism of Wikipedia. This page is for us to candidly examine ourself which is why it's in Wikipedia space. It's not meant to be an encyclopedic retelling of our errors. It is essential that we track those external sources that have documented our weaknesses. Acknowledgment and documentation of our weaknesses is hardly irrelevant to constructively resolving problems -- on the contrary, it is the very first step. --JayHenry (t) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is a community based effort - the community needs documents like these to be able to point to when people overstate our claims to success or when they short-change us when it comes to our successes. We should welcome the addition of outside references - because references are good, even outside of article space. The articles aren't neutral - but there are two of them and the represents the opposite poles of debate. Taken together, we see Wikipedia's successes and it's failures shown up in the bright light of day. If this were article space, it would be a different matter but here in WP: space, I see no reason to delete them than rabid deletionism for it's own sake. SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My rationale for deletion of the articles is that, in my view, they hinder rather than help the debate by splitting off the supporters of the opposing viewpoints rather than bringing them together. I am not suggesting that internal debate about Wikipedia be stopped or limited, but I am suggesting that this, in my opinion, is not the way to go about it. That being said, if the comments in this discussion are still for a keep after it has run for a little while, I will happily withdraw the nomination. --jonny-m t 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Criticism of Wikipedia doesn't offer the same degree of self-criticism that these two sister articles do (also, there's a third: WP:MNF). The reason it doesn't function as well is because people on both sides of the issue have to fight over it. The resulting compromise works well for an encyclopedia article on Criticism of Wikipedia, but it doesn't fully and completely present the views of both sides. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (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.