Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoiding harm

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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closing this per WP:SNOW. - Koweja (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Avoiding harm

I created this essay nearly six months ago, in the aftermath of the badlydrawnjeff arbitration case and in the midst of great controversy over how WP:BLP should be interpreted and applied. At the time, the aim was to create a comprehensive, elaborate guide to how to handle BLP concerns. The essay didn't, and doesn't, reflect my own views; rather, it was intended to be a compromise between many different views on a highly contentious issue.

However, WP:HARM was a failure. It failed to gain consensus for adoption as a formal guideline, and I've very rarely, if ever, seen it cited in deletion discussions. Furthermore, given that the controversy has now largely died away, it now seems largely irrelevant. Reading through it, it conflates a number of related concepts, some of which largely re-state the policy, while others do not reflect current practice at all and are virtually irrelevant to Wikipedia today.

I don't see any reason to mark it historical. It isn't a failed policy (I did propose it as a guideline at one stage, but it never got off the ground) and doesn't represent a significant chapter in Wikipedia's history. I think deletion would probably be best.

I cannot mark it as G7, because other users have contributed to it. I should also draw attention to the fact that WP:PSEUDO, referring to the problem of pseudo-biographies, redirects to a part of WP:HARM. Possibly it may be necessary to spin this out into a different, shorter, essay, or alternatively redirect it to WP:COATRACK which covers substantially the same ground. Walton^One 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It's just an essay, which means that users can legitimately choose not to follow it, but presents ideas worthy of consideration. Personally, I think there are some good ideas in this one.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Still useful in discussions, and to some of us a better statement than some others. I suggest revising it to account for subsequent developments. DGG (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• If this user really, really wants it deleted, I believe it should be deleted - as a courtesy of sorts. Otherwise, I see little harm in keeping it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't desperately want it deleted, I just wanted to see what the community thought. Walton^One 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete if you, the author, want it deleted, otherwise Keep per DGG. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:54 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I've referred to it multiple times, and it's directly linked from WP:BLP. As far as courtesy deletion goes, while Walton One may have been the first to edit it, he has certainly not been the last; a quick look at the history shows that Seraphimblade, Jossi, and Carcharoth have also made a healthy amount of edits to it. --jonny-mt 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's true, hence why I didn't speedy it under G7 (as I said in the nomination). Walton^One 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I know; that point was more made in response to some of the comments above supporting a courtesy deletion. What would be courteous to you might be awful rude to a lot of other people.... --jonny-mt 09:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum - I might also add that the controversy about WP:BLP interpretation hasn't died down just yet. --jonny-mt 07:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it's a decent essay, and since there are multiple contributors to it (and the nominator doesn't feel that strongly about it anyway), a courtesy deletion isn't really appropriate. - Koweja (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Update or mark {{historical}} to warn that it may not reflect current thinking on the topic. It's bad precedent and raises GFDL issues to delete something just because the author wants to remove it . . . even if the user felt strongly . . . which the user doesn't. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently useful essay. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• I withdraw the nom, and suggest this MfD be closed early. I just wanted to gauge community feeling on the retention of this essay, and there is clearly a strong consensus in its favour. (Indeed, I'm rather pleased that several people clearly feel my work is worth keeping.) Walton^One —Preceding comment was added at 21:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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.