Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegitimization as a tactic

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 userfy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Delegitimization as a tactic

Relisted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninsightful, garbled personal essay, serves only as a highly idiosyncratic personal argument by which one troubled editor apparently means to defend himself from his critics. "Delegitimation refers to the process whereby an editor and his or her diffs are undermined because of an alleged deviation from wiki-norms. It becomes a distraction from closer scrutiny of the content of an editor's writing. It is marginalizing or devaluing the legitimacy of a contributor to our encyclopedia building project." What is this supposed to mean, beyond "I feel butthurt because people have criticized my editing so much"? Delete or userfy; no chance this will become a useful opinion reference that others will commonly have reasons to refer to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei probably wrote this article as part of his rant Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands/Workshop#Delegitimization_as_a_tactic against other parties in an on-going ArbCom case. As it occurs, I am the person he is complaining about. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QED -- Bob provides a pointed example of tactical delegitimisation. His words appear plausible; but in fact, his ad hominem comment only "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of this essay. The verb "rant" is an example of loaded language which "criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument".

This is parsed explicitly here. In the pertinent part, I explained:

"An important lesson learned the hard way -- for me, perhaps the most starkly brilliant breakthrough -- ~~in this ArbCom case~~ is a verb Magog introduced in evidence about Bobthefish2 here. This verb and what Magog says it means are useful in contexts beyond the ambit of this case. As an exemplar of explaining something novel ~~in an ArbCom context~~, Magog's use of this verb should be highlighted, e.g.,

"Notably, before the event even occurred, I'd already been expecting for Bob to pick a fight sooner or later in an attempt to delegitimize me. I was proven magnificently correct. It's difficult to believe it was an organic thought process (and not an opportunity to pick a fight) given how quickly it happened. (emphasis added)

"The term or the idea 'WP:Delegitimization' needs to be re-stated and underscored. Wiktionary does not explain or define this word in the way Magog uses it; nevertheless, Magog's conceptual insight needs to embraced."

Bottom line. The time and thought invested in researching and writing this essay were not about Bob. --Tenmei (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As I explained on the talk page here, this term is new to me. However, the concept of "delegitimization as a tactic" appears to have been used with some frequency, including community discussions about articles for deletion.

The history of recurrent and increasing usage in a range of WP:Namespace contexts suggests (a) the arguable relevance of the subject; and (b) the plausible likelihood of potential contributors who may expand it -- compare Wikipedia search results
The use of this term in a range of real world contexts suggests that it has become a "buzz word", which suggests continued and increasing namespace usage in the near future -- compare Google search results.

This array of factors are unrelated to the speculative comments in the diffs above. --Tenmei (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, per nom this is "uninsightful, garbled", but the writer should have the chance to turn it into something insightful and coherent. --Klein zach 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly doesn't belong anywhere in project space. Can't see a particular reason not to userfy - plenty of editors have weird stuff in userspace that's meaningless to everyone else (OK, so most of it is bot scripts, but whatever...)Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like it wold be a useful article of a metasubject,l i.e. describing a wikipedia phenomenon, possibly cautionary. It won't attract useful edits if it gets deleted. Gzuckier (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per comments above. Note: The user may not be in a position to do much with the essay on-wiki for awhile, regardless of the outcome here. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy doesn't seem to be particularly insightful or useful to the community at large but wouldn't do any harm in userspace. Hut 8.5 12:18, 29 September 2011 (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.