Wikipedia talk:Delete the junk

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

WP:RUBBISH

I have redirected this page to WP:RUBBISH which is essentially the same shortcut as WP:JUNK. Notice how easy it is to edit away poor content. Redirection or reduction to a stub is usually simpler and easier than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New name?

What was the reasoning behind the move to a new name? It's not bad, per se, but it kind of lacks the punch and succinctness of the previous one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title may be misleading

The title may be misleading, or it may be an indirect attack on the Article Rescue Squadron, implying that Squadron members may be engaging in the rescue of content so bad, that it would be better to not have an article at all rather than a really bad article.

However, this is an essay, representing the viewpoint of one editor, and it may be a minority viewpoint. The best approach for anyone who disagrees is to write their own essay, espousing a contrary viewpoint. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new title still fit really, and I don't think it was meant as any attack towards anyone. I moved it back, though, because in my opinion the first was better anyway, although I welcome more discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new title was grammatically wrong anyway. It should have used 'that' rather than 'which'. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this essay is actually pretty widely known and agreed with: Jimbo in particular once said that he agreed with every word of it when canvassed during its MfD. Secondly, it's most commonly used in the sort of deletion discussion that the ARS likes to wade into and defend with repeated insistence that AfD isn't cleanup, when such cleanup wouldn't address the fundamental problems with the article in question. Thirdly, the current title is unnecessary aggravating: a less loaded title would help with acceptance of the points therein. And fourthly, there's no prohibition on making changes to an essay; essays evolve over time as they are contributed to just like anything else, and minor differences in tone aren't worth whole new essays. I firmly believe that the page should be moved back to the new title (with the grammatical change suggested if truly necessary). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]