The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 no consensus. The page purpose, as described, is a noticeboard, which is a relatively common concept. Ignoring the "Wrestling is crap" comments as they are irrelevant, most of the concerns were about Voting is evil, which is not the real purpose of the stated page. A rename may be in order (and I recommend it), but I'll let you guys hash that out among yourselves. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be voting, and voting is evil. Wikipedia works by reasoned argument, discussion and consensus. Holding polls (which will then be doubtless declared "consensus") in some hidden-away corner of a WikiProject does not strike me as the way to go about things. Our ethos is discussion, not voting. This page promotes voting as a first resort, when in reality it is the last. Moreschi ^Talk 16:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reading through the complaints, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong that hasn't already been fixed or will be fixed with a rename. I suggest closing with no consensus until the page actually has a chance to operate with the fixes in place. There's no time limit. If Moreschi still doesn't like results, let him bring the page back later. Milo 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (1) No where did it [the page in question] ever say polls should be used instead of discussion. (2) Your link to "We shouldn't be voting" doesn't actually say "We shouldn't be voting" it says "Polling is not a substitute for discussion." Polls are allowed. Again, the implication we never implied that we want to replace discussion with polling never happened nor do I think it should ever happen. I have made edit changes to clarify this fact as it was a source of confusion, and rightly so.--Naha|^(talk) 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very bad advice. Projects should organize a subject within policy, not lead it away from policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any consensus gained by a poll would only be carried out within Wikipedia policy, not outside of it. Again, this implication was never made anywhere on the page up for deletion, nor in the conversation that created the idea of the page. --Naha|^(talk) 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I would suggest replacement, if necessary, by something like a mini RfC area that allows reasoned discussion. Nick 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC is a terrible model to follow, IMO. User conduct RfCs are particularly pointless; they provoke plenty of "discussion" (mudslinging), but don't lead to anything actually being done. This is why voting may not be such a bad idea after all. Walton^One 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not how decisions are made here. Hut 8.5 17:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to change my mind if the phrase "polls to gather a consensus among Wikipedians" is altered or removed. Hut 8.5 10:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep now that The Hybrid has cleaned it up. Hut 8.5 11:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Voting is not evil; it's a perfectly good way to determine consensus. I know it's the accepted conventional wisdom around here that "discussion is better than voting", but this is wrong. Let me elaborate. Like many people here, I've had lots of experience of the Wikipedia way of determining a so-called "consensus", and it bears no relation to the meaning of the word "consensus" in the real world. In general, when we try to make policy or settle content disputes by "discussion", nothing actually gets decided. What then happens is that the most intransigent participant in the discussion will be WP:BOLD and do whatever they think is best, and keep doing it until everyone else gets fed up and moves on. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should just have a poll on every proposal. We should discuss issues and new ideas. But when two clear points of view develop on an issue, and it comes to the time to make a decision (e.g. whether something should become policy or not), we should be prepared to vote. Walton^One 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Walton and per the changes I have made to the page per above concerns. If Wikipedians use the page as it is intended (and as it was intended, before this MfD started, believe it or not we are not trying to go off "in some hidden-away corner of a WikiProject" and keep everything to ourselves - please assume good faith) there should be no problems. It is not now, nor was it ever intended to replace discussions. It is intended just as a centralized location for polls to form (or as it already stated before today's edits, a centralized place simply to NOTE that that polls/dicussions on pro-wreslting related subjects/ariticles are happening elsewhere on the 'pedia), so that we don't miss them and make take part in them. They occassionally get noted on the talk page, but not always, and when they do they are often lost among a myriad of other discussions. If everything was at least noted/organized in one place, it would be much much easier to dig up old discussions to see previous consensus' and thoughts on particular topics/ideas. It would be a tremendous help because the project is currently very unorganized and we are desperately trying to get it organized. This is one of many things that would help in that endeavor. That is all its for, and nothing more. Again, I have clairifed info on the page that polls are not to replace discussions. Please see today's edits. Thank you. --Naha|^(talk) 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Naha and Walton. Davnel03 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Naha. She explained it quite well. It's use was entirely misinterpreted. Gavyn Sykes 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Naha. Simply a project noticeboard. The Hybrid 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let the members of WikiProject Professional decide how they want to maintain that WikiProject. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There shouldn't be a vote, the majority will win even if the wrong way to go about something. We should be able to agree on it. If there is a dispute, than someone should overlook it and resolve it. Otherwise it should be by consensus only. Also, there is a talk page for maintaining the project. Mr. C.C. 06:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Consensus and Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Tony Sidaway 07:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my posting above. Citing the titles of policies is all very well, but consensus can change, and I think it's time to fundamentally re-think the way we make decisions on Wikipedia. As to WP:NOT, I think it's generally misused in deletion discussions. Its intention is to set out broad general principles; in terms of application to specific situations, we should think about what's actually best for the encyclopedia, as I outlined above. Walton^One 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - was vote a bad choice of title, yes it was. Is it going to actually list votes, no. The Hybrid 08:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If its role will be that of a noticeboard that will alert the members of the project of discussions taking place on "x" article or talk page I don't see a reason for its deletion, this project has to deal with several unusual circumtances and there has been several ocasions where articles has been put up for AFD and deleted without anyone being informed about it, I'm assuming good faith here and I believe it will be used as a venue to promote consensus instead of empty voting, my past interaction with several members of the project make me think this way. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have just overhauled the page to get across exactly what it would be used for in the future. When this MfD comes to an end I will move the page to /Discussion noticeboard, assuming it survives. The Hybrid 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The overhauled page seems to sugges that it's intended to be used for discussion of issues related to the wikiproject. The correct page for that is of course Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling, so I've been bold and changed the page to a redirect. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Who stated you could do that? I don't see a discussion stating you can just go ahead and redirect. Don't do edits just to make a point. I've reverted your edit. Don't try and harm this discussion by doing that please. Davnel03 13:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community. - guess you just violated that, Tony. Davnel03 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't making a point, and certainly not being disruptive. The talk page is the correct page for discussion so popping a redirect there is correct. Indeed if as seems likely we go ahead and delete this page, and meanwhile some people have added discussion to the page, more disruption will have been caused because they'll have to go back and add their comments to the talk page of the wikiproject where they should have done so in the first place. I didn't violate the deletion policy. Please reread it.

  Davnel03, you ask "Who stated you could do that?" Well, Jimbo, and every good, bold, experienced Wikipedian there has ever been stated that I could do that. It's what Be bold means! --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Be bold, but not reckless, Tony. The purpose of the page is to be a project noticeboard of discussions taking place related to prowrestling articles. The problem with the project talk page is that when the project is notified of discussions the notice gets lost so quickly that almost no one realizes that it’s going on. Therefore, we are making a noticeboard, and leaving the option open of using it as a place to have discussions. The Hybrid 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is getting a bit too personal. Please take up any concerns with my personal conduct on my talk page, and leave more space for discussion of the merits here. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and refactor or delete. Absolutely the last thing we need is Wikiprojects deluding people into believing that a vote stacked by project members is a good thing. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Guy. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete votestacking. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informing the project of discussions that affect them is generally supposed to be done anyway. As long as the person listing the discussion isn't asking people to take a certain side, it isn't vote stacking. You're assuming bad faith with the people in the project. The Hybrid 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as you understand that the project here is to create a high quality free encyclopedia, and not whatever the "voters" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling might wish it to be. --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, we understand that just fine. The Hybrid 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The strong implication is that any discussions relevant to professional wrestling articles should take place there. Just a noticeboard is fine, having a special page where you want all discussions to take place is not. This looks to be the latter. -Amarkov moo! 20:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • then I'll fix it. The Hybrid 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed The Hybrid 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supposing you were copy-editing the page as a noticeboard, could you rename the page from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Voting booth to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Noticeboard? --Iamunknown 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -Aside fro m my poor choice of naming the page, the amount of bad faith assumed here has completely disgusted me. It was never intended to nor did it say it would replace discussions. It was never intended to nor did it say it was only for the use of project members, I believe it actually said "Wikipedians." The use of terms like "hidden" and "vote stacking" were completely uncalled for and misrepresented this page's intent to other people. The fact that the page was redirected in the middle of this discussion is astounding. Comments like "The strong implication is that any discussions relevant to professional wrestling articles should take place there" by someone who voted here after edits to the page were made to clarify that fact (that it was and is untrue), among other comments throughout this discussion, make me feel as though many people here felt some sort of panic, apparently didn't read the actual page, but rather just other people's negative comments here about it, or didn't even think through everything before they commented. As much of an advocate I am for assuming good faith, this is the first time since I became an editor at Wikipedia where I have found it very hard to live by that credo. Unfortunately I can't help but feel that another on going discussion at the PW WP, which is also completely littered with misunderstanding and comments that are not relevant (which may very well be the fault of myself and other editors who have a hard time putting thoughts into words, or not, I don't know) has possibly clouded people's judgements here with this unrelated discussion. I would like to believe that is not true but currently that is the way it feels. I very seriously hope that is not the case - that everyone here has come without bias, and while I apologize for feeling otherwise, at this point I simply can't help it, I've tried very hard. Again, only the attempts and hopes of trying to find ways to ease the improvement of Wikipedia were in mind when this started, nothing more, nothing less. If my above feelings regarding how this discussion has gone down make you feel otherwise, I understand and don't know what else to say at this point. --Naha|^(talk) 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per JzG. The wrestling articles on enwiki are crap enough without having the WikiProject swarming the deletion debates to vote. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swarming? Crap? Inaccurate and uncalled for accusations, please read WP:CIVIL --Naha|^(talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap is a bit to much, most of the articles in terrible condition aren't the fault of the project members, remember that these pages are constantly receiving fan edits. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with rename to "Polling booth". Poll voting is good. As usual, poll voting is being confused with majoritarian voting. Poll voting is what everyone is doing right now, called by a different name. If it's so bad, why are the editors complaining about it, hypocritically doing it to complain? With new editors pouring into Wikipedia faster than admins can be appointed, a more rapid means of determining concensus is needed to limit disputes and anarchy. Easier poll voting is an obvious thing to try out here. Milo 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote for deletion (sorry, had to do it) Per Guy. If it was something other then wrestling, it could scrape through with a rename and reformat, but wrestling articles are killing AfD softly. This aint helping. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since very few of you have the ability to actually read what the page is really about despite several pleas, I give up. Please continue to scare other editors away from trying to pull this project and articles related to professional wrestling out of the crapper because you dislike the subject matter or can't be bothered to read everything because as soon as you see "pro wrestling" you don't need to read any farther and its an automatic veto. Many of the delete votes here are based on inaccurate portrayals, misinformation and bias of subject matter. God forbid we'd like to be notified everytime a discussion OR poll starts in a place where we are sure to not miss it so that we may take part in the discussion. I thought maybe sacrificing my own reputation by asking people to really look at what they are doing and saying, and ask themselves if they are free of bias in this and other related situations would be worth it for the greater good of Wikipedia, but apparently my hopes for humanity are too idealistic. Dihydrogen's reason for voting "delete" solidified this fact by flat out saying it was because it was about wrestling. I'm done. --Naha|^(talk) 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, patent predjudice is a reason for Dihydrogen Monoxide's (and possibly ^demon's) vote not to be counted. Voting delete because of dislike of an entertainment sport is too similar to voting delete because of skin color. Milo 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a lot of other of the keep votes. Darrenhusted 15:55, 12 September 2007 (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.