Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village Pub

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: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village Pub

Pretty much going to be duplicate of WP:VP, WP:REFDESK and WP:TEAHOUSE. See the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Village Pub. Alex Shih ^Talk 00:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Village pump and WP:RD already cover more than is needed. There are plenty of other websites for forums and Wikipedia should not encourage chatter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and complete trivia / WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM. — fortunavelut luna 01:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTFORUM. See the whole Wikipedia:Esperanza mess. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a social forum. People can go elsewhere for general discussion. SkyWarrior 01:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTSOCIALFORUM. Chatting between editors on a casual basis is just fine, but a place for just chatting is not a good idea. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and the idea that anything useful to that is going to come out of a chat room flies in the face of decades of online experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect NOT Delete per WP:BITE. The original poster was humble and apologetic when suggesting the idea so do not bite the newcomers. The original poster was not even notified of the deletion listing so it may be interpreted as heavy handed. To remedy that, redirect to WP:Teahouse is less harsh. Wikipedia depends on others to edit. You cannot keep Wikipedia going by your own edits alone. Let's have a cordial Wikipedia community. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BITE is not a legitimate "keep" rationale at XfD. XfD decisions are about what's good for the project and the encyclopedia, and upholding policies and standards, not about being nice-nice to others. Nothing should be kept simply because it was created by a newbie, if there are valid reasons to delete it. If it were otherwise, we'd be drowning in puerile fan stubs and name-check "articles". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE is very legitimate for civil behavior. I am appalled that the nominator did not tell the newbie about the deletion. The end result will probably be a delete and the creating editor may feel it is a vicious attack to destroy something because someone else doesn't like it. This is bad PR and hurts Wikipedia. Wikipedia already has enough fighting that creating more is no good. Furthermore, my vote is not a "keep" but a "redirect". Vanguard10 (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, BITE is about editor behavior, and is not a legitimate reason to delete. Nor is lack of a notification to the initiator of the article (which is suggested, but not mandatory). You should probably read WP:BITE, as well as WP:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the editor who created this had good intentions, this kind of page isn't what Wikipedia is about. Lepricavark (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No offense to the creator whatsoever, and no hard feelings at all about a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia and the editing community. I'm afraid that in this instance it was just a somewhat misguided effort, and we've already seen in many instances that making exceptions to WP:NOTFORUM, as are often made at the WP:REFDESK lead to a number of problems that are not always easy to solve, and are often time consuming and unproductive. I also don't see this as a particularly plausible redirect, especially given that many/most of those who end up at the teahouse do so because of a talk page notification. GMG ^talk 13:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned beforehand. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - others have said it better, but Wikipedia is not a social network or a chat room. The reference desk and Teahouse already provide a similar opportunity to the one provided here. Patient Zero^talk 13:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Esperanza should have taught us something.--WaltCip (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not being within the scope of the project, and against current guidelines/policies like WP:FORUM. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC
Redirect To WP:TEAHOUSE. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect. A redirect will just sit there as a page no one is watching that could be vandalized or Revived against this deletion discussion. I presume the well intentioned editor that started this has been notified sufficiently with the ANi close and I don't see any valid keep arguments presented. Thos is not a likely search term for any of our existing pages so a redirect is not a valid result. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2017 (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.