Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is amoral

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. bibliomaniac15 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensibly an "essay" but blantant POV/agenda pushing, this page advances the cause of the project not, and should be thus deleted. Furthermore, taken on its merits, the essay contains several mis-statements of not only wikipedia practice, but also its reality. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 'This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints.' Cybercobra's viewpoints can be minority viewpoints. However, there is no problem with an essay pushing a Wikipedia POV. Pushing a real-life POV is not the same as pushing a WP POV. Whether or not it is poppycock is one's own opinion. You cannot say something's bosh, even though you are supported by a majority. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is amoral in the sense explicated in the essay, for reasons that are well explained in the essay. That is not a derogatory statement. It's quite possible that this could use a better title, but as an essay it's perfectly fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Where does this conflict with policy? It seems to be completely correct. --Yair rand (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator of the essay. Complete failure to WP:AGF on the part of the nom, what with jumping to a conspiracy theory and not trying to work out on the talkpage and fix whatever the problems are which he perceives prior to this MfD. Essays (and even Policies) inherently have some POV, but I fail to see where I've unduly pushed one. Nom has also failed to point out any specific instances of supposed blatant misrepresentations of policy/practice. Additionally: Suggestions as to a better title are welcomed. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all above. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Within guidelines. Essay which appears to be properly done. Absent a reason to delete, dfault to keep. Collect (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not believe that this essay violates any policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Without expressing any opinion on the content, it should be kept as an essay within guidelines per WP:ESSAYS. Title could be better, however. — Becksguy (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why do you find the title of the essay more unpleasant than the essay itself? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at all unpleasant in the essay. On the other hand, if the title of the essay leads to deletion nominations, that implies that the title could be better (how about "Wikipedia is not a moral force"?). For clarity, I don't find the title "unpleasant", however. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Are you confusing "amoral" with "immoral"? Nippoo (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks fine to me--SPhilbrickT 01:33, 1 August 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.