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 . per WP:SNOW, also withdrawn by the Nominator/Author (non-admin closure) DBigXrayᗙ 05:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/Gallery[edit]

I created this article with good intentions and in good faith, but after a user comment, I now no longer think I should have created this. I know censorship as per a similar 2016 case - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery was kept unanimously, but I would like to put forward self-censorship, moreso due to misinterpretation of the article and the commenter not replying or willing to remove his template (I know one hour isn't fast in Wikipedia terms but in case of Signpost I think it should mean something, especially since a username is directly being attached). Here, for Signpost speed is more of essence than a normal Wikipedia article..., hence I have not waited patiently for newsroom replies etc as I normally do for other things or normal article talkpages.

If users do not understand that Signpost does not follow the same rules as Wikipedia as I have seen (and hopefully correctly understood), even the very experienced user who commented, then me as the writer and "journalist" shouldn't have to let a comment and an article template spoil the entire effort behind the article. The article is on an honourable topic, and if i am maligning it, i apologize and want this article to be deleted as soon as possible. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the rationale in the essay Wikipedia:Drama and everyone else below, I request this to be Withdrawn. We all have much larger issues and battles here on Wikipedia and The Signpost to focus on. I apologize for this prolonged escalation. Won't happen again. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the editor that commented at the Teahouse. I understand your rationale, and I'm pretty sure WP:CSD#G7 applies, but I would encourage you to keep it. A worldwide neutrality tag isn't the end of the world, I at least think it's perfectly fine to have politicians from your country in the pictures. The orange tag looks scary, but it's not so apocalyptic in the context. I cannot be sure, but John's comment sounded to me more like a comment on something in the gallery than an insult. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is nothing wrong with the article; the tag is just another editor's opinion. Many other editors and readers, including myself, appreciate the special angle the author took for their selection of pictures. — JFG ^talk 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly labelling the comment box "unnecessary drama" implies a very negative connotation in my consideration and makes this whole thing even worse. And just now, Johnbod again commented even after it was written "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." (though it does say bleated) And the comment is again problematic and half-hearted. (Here I do not have a problem with negative comments or nonsensical comments or people who just don't know what they are talking about, since enough of that is seen in India-Pak-Kashmir related articles which I try to edit and which everyone experiences in there own way, everyone has article they just can't edit as easily as others due to personal experience and knowledge etc.) I regret creating this article even more. I am not sure if I can comment here or not...where else? I don't want to seem more "dramatic" right.... even below the word drama is used. Then if this seems drama only one question needs to be addressed... G7... does that apply here or not? If not, then basically that is saying I do not have any other way to remove this article from Signpost, unless say Arb, which probably won't consider such a "silly" case right. Unless this goes back to the newsroom only the team listed gets to decide, and outside opinion needn't be considered. Irrespective of all this reasoning which I don't need to write, and I doubt anyone will read properly, I still request deletion. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree this qualifies for speedy under G7 and if the author really wants it deleted we should do so. I personally have no problem with the article as it is, but I think it should be their call. AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is now part of the published Signpost and would put a hole in it if it were deleted. Opinions of others can be distressing, but I think we can negate the G7 request for the benefit of the Signpost readers. In fact if this were deleted it would need another Signpost story about it, and that would increase the drama. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I for one won't be the one to write that, I can assure that. I already have other interesting ideas to consider, WikiProject's needs to be covered, Jimbo's talkpage is such an interesting area to cover in an article, comparing Wikipedia to Isaas Asimov's Foundation encyclopedists and using a line from the book in the heading "The Fraud of the Encyclopedia" and then writing in the article how Wikipedia is anything but what Isaac Asimov had in mind and is progressing much better in real than even the book could...can't spill out all the ideas now can...:D that is if I am still allowed to contribute after this. I assure you, this is not drama from my side. I still request deletion, but then your reasoning is solid too, no more drama. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please reconsider your request, DiplomatTesterMan. I found the gallery to be interesting, thought-provoking and possibly one of the better "articles" presented by the Signpost in the past few years. This is a valuable addition. Please do not let one commenter get you down. Instead, encourage that commenter to create their own gallery with their own preferred theme. Risker (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graeme and Risker. As part of The Signpost it would have to be deleted by the editors-in-chief @Kudpung and Bri:, absent any extraordinary, e.g.BLP, reasons. BTW, I think it is a good article. I'll request @DiplomatTesterMan: to withdraw the deletion request - it would not be a good precedent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, I think this is the best argument put forward. "As part of The Signpost it would have to be deleted by the editors-in-chief @Kudpung and Bri:, absent any extraordinary". So they have the final say? G7 won't apply... or from my side do i withdraw G7 and then let Kudpung and Bri decide? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And please everyone, the praise is not what I am begging for, but if genuine ok, can't demean that. (Just like that barnstar and rewards article in this issue). I have written "compiled by", I have hardly done anything but arrange the stuff on the page and write some words at the top. Praise is not what is being discussed here. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: I don't know the rules at MfD, but I'd be bold and just put Withdrawn by DiplomatTesterMan at the top. Somebody should come along in an hour or so and then close it and remove the deletion tag on the page. If not, I'll consider doing it myself (perhaps that would be too bold!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do hope the nominator decides to strike their deletion request. I thought it was a moving page - the people in it seemed as insignificant as the template added by one editor seemed irrelevant. My focus was on the monuments. I respect DiplomatTesterMan's sensitivity and desire not to be seen as biased in any way, but I'd respectfully suggest this may be an over-reaction. If pushed, why not just replace one or more images and remove the template as having been addressed. I would ask them to keep the page in Signpost, but I won't offer a policy-based !vote on this occasion, even though the obvious rationale for retention has already been stated above. Just strike the nomination, please. (@Smallbones: - yes, I think that would be a little too bold of you. But nice thought) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (notwithstanding my COI as a current regular contributor to The Signpost). The very idea that a Signpost feature (or any other content of the magazine) be treated like a Wikipedia article is frankly ridiculous. If this sort of thing continues, The Signpost might be hosted on its own server, and then like all other newspapers, the readers' comments for publication would be selected by the editorial board (which would put paid to some of the other inappropriate comments too). Thank you Risker for your valued comments there and here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I selected this contribution myself for publication, so obviously I support it's content. Sad that this debate is even necessary and keeping people away from doing more good work. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, concurring with Bri - although I have no jurisdiction over what gets published - I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why 'The Gallery' should not be allowed to have a special focus. If it contained only pictures of birds I suppose The Signpost would be leaving itself open to criticism for bias towards ornithology. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (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.