The result of the discussion was: userfy to User:James500/Salami tactics . I'm closing this early because the discussion is starting to generate more heat than light, and a complaint has come in on WP:AN. Essentially, as pointed out by Beeblebrox, there is consensus that the page complies with WP:USERESSAY and enough people on both the "keep" and "delete" side of the argument accept that userfication can be an appropriate second choice. I don't see a consensus for deleting the redirect WP:SALAMI as redirects to user essays are considered acceptable (eg: WP:HNST, WP:KUDPUNG, WP:HITANDRUN); if anyone would like to challenge this, I suggest opening a discussion at WP:RFD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This essay appears to be an oblique attack on the concept that notability is not inherited and a direct attack on the integrity of AfD commentators. It hinges on a fundamental misinterpretation of the result of certain AfDs and also depends entirely on assuming bad faith of the AfD participants. This is definitely not suitable for the main Wikipedia essay space, and I wouldn't support userfication either because it is a WP:POLEMIC. Reyk YO! 13:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either.
One particular form of salami tactics consists of attempting to bring about the deletion of a parent topic by falsely pretending that its sub-topics are separate topics that are not part of the parent topic. In fact, coverage of a sub-topic is always coverage of its parent topic...
Off-topic
| ||
---|---|---|
|
a vendetta conducting wikihounding astro turfing WP:COI meatpuppet advancing a non argument that amounts to a personal attack on me who keeps telling lies (such as pretending he can't count) and who found his way here by watching my user talk page and my contributionsis completely unsupported by any evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
arguing to keep, SJ had already clarified that that was not his opinion).
|
"by falsely pretending [X]"and by claiming editors are using
"a strategy that seeks to bring about the deletion of a topic by falsely pretending..."rather than expressing their genuine opinion on the topic and the proper application of Wikipedia's PaGs. Even citing this essay in a discussion would be, in my opinion, a personal attack against the integrity of the editors it is deployed against. I am expressly against userfication because of this. Jbh Talk 19:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)