![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Does reading this part sound horribly wrong to anybody else? I can't quite put my finger on why... 161.49.198.69 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of "disinterested" as being "impartial, unbiased" was supported by 88–89% of this usage panel. Therefore, changed to "uninterested" = not interested. Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
i completely disagree with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. here's a hypothetical situation.
some editor - editor 1 - nominates all articles about subject A for deletion. when another editor - editor 2 - points out that subject B - which also has articles on wikipedia - meets the same criteria for deletion that subject A does - editor 1 cites WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
that's a problem for a few reasons. for one, if editor 1 refuses to delete subject B for deletion even though the reasons given for subject A apply to it just as easily, it's liable to create resentment. it's liable to give the impression that wikipedia is just singling out articles and it really does make it seem like editor 1 hates it. i mean, why else would editor 1 nominate subject A for deletion but not subject B? if the deletion criteria apply to both but editor 1 only choses to delete only subject A, what other possible reason could there be for that other then editor 1's alleged hate for it?
also, if subject B really is different, then it would be beneficial for editor 2 to know how. this would better allow editor 2 to understand editor 1's arguments. but if all editor 1 ever does is cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, such understanding is not going to be forthcomming.
anyway, for those two reasons, i think WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should be deleted. any AfD that it's used in is degenerated by it's use. 209.209.214.5 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I originally wrote WP:RUBBISH to show what it says in the first and last paragraphs, but today it's horrible - confrontationally written with unnecessarily bolded sections, an overly long explanation, there's too many examples and too much redundant text, so it doesn't fit the simple, concise model that the rest of the article follows.
I'm proposing moving it back to the version that I rewrote [1], combining with the changes to the final paragraph and the nice analogy "Ask the question, "If a thousand editors worked all day on this article, would it still qualify for deletion?". Comments? - Halo 15:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The essay states that votes without reasons and votes "per nom" are to be avoided. I disagree. It frequently happens that the nominator has given a perfectly thorough and comprehensive explanation. Plain votes and votes "per nom" mean that the commenter finds the nominator's reasons compelling, and has nothing further to add.
Raw votes have value, because one measure of a nomination's strength is the number of people who find it persuasive. Indeed, if I am reading a deletion discussion, I'd rather not plough through dozens of comments that repeat the same points in different words. Commenters shouldn't feel the need to add anything, unless there are additional reasons that the nominator omitted. Marc Shepherd 16:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following sections about arguments I frequently see at AfD and CfD:
Example:
The guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes specifically addresses arguments like this:
Sometimes, a category is nominated for deletion for the reason that a list would be better, and then the same list is nominated for the reason that it would be better as a category! If both deletions are successful, the information is needlessly lost.
In the case of categories, there is an overcategorization guideline which describes specific reasons for deleting a category. Note that this guideline specifically does not apply to lists. On the other hand, most policies which do apply to lists would also tend to apply to categories—for example, if a list would promote a particular point of view or is based on original research, so would the equivalent category.
However, if a list is composed entirely of random or alphabetized bluelinks and offers no navigational advantage over an equivalent category, this can be a valid argument for deleting a list and keeping the category.
Example:
The GFDL, under which all textual Wikipedia content is licensed, requires attribution history of all content. Because of this, when we merge content, we are required to keep the edit history of the merged content. Deleting a page deletes the edit history, and if any content were copied from the deleted page, this would violate the GFDL. From the help page on merging content:
The correct action to recommend in this case is Merge and redirect (or Merge and disambiguate). If you are thinking of nominating an article for deletion because you wish to "delete and merge" it, instead see " How to merge pages"; it is not necessary to bring the article to Articles for deletion in order to do this.
.
Does anyone object to these? If not, what sections should they go in? They don't seem to fit well into any of "Arguments without arguments", "Point of view", "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", or "Fame and shame". DHowell 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna go through and reword this whole thing into how to avoid these arguements. Right now it's a collection of negative statements, which makes the whole essay confrontational, which is part of the problem that leads to these arguements in the first place! I appreciate the frustration these cause, but perhaps we'll have more impact with positive wording? If you strongly disagree, please revert and we'll discuss it here. -- 54x 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC) OK, I'm done. Let me know what you think, and whether I've stayed true enough to the original essay. -- 54x 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability of a parent entity does not imply notability of the subordinates, but it does imply notability of subordinates which are simply broken out for size or to address key features. For example, Arrakis itself isn't a notable thing, it's just a world in a fictional universe. However, Arrakis is the primary setting in the Dune universe which is very clearly notable. In cases where an article is essentially an extended sub-section of a notable topic, especially in fiction, it does inherit the parent's notability, and that's the way Wikipedia has operated for years. Policy should not be written which would invalidate many of the good articles on Wikipedia that have long fit well into the collective body of the encyclopedia.
This introduces the "key feature" test for inherited notability. Is an article (e.g. Spacing Guild) a key feature of an established, notable article (e.g. the Dune universe)? Any debate about the removal of such an article should include the answer to that question. - Harmil 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I oppose this change too. The point of these essays should be to make it clearer how to interpret policy and guidelines, and this change, as pointed out by Guest9999, contradicts WP:NOT and WP:FICT, effectively saying that the way to interpret them is to ignore them. If this proposal were to go through at the higher levels required, it would give a free pass to a potentially unlimited amount of triva and detail, which is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. It is very much my view that if a subject deserves multiple articles it will have the sources to support them, and, try as I might, I can see no reason that this should or could ever be otherwise. Miremare 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
People should remember that it is not a guideline, and quite rightly so. In AfDs I sometimes use arguments that are listed here, such as WP:WAX.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.
Example:
Examples: Someone creates an article on a politician, including negative information on them (an attack page), or about their company to promote it positively (an advertising/promotion page). If it happens that the politician or company are in fact notable and the article is not a complete waste of space, or a copyvio, then the article should be improved, rather than deleted. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy).
Once created for whatever reason, an article takes on its own life. The topic survives or is deleted according to our article inclusion criteria - notability ( WP:N), suitability ( WP:NOT), verifiable reliable sources, etc. It is AFDed, PRODed or SPEEDYed if it is dubious, but kept and improved otherwise. There's a warning to this effect on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest related to self-promotional article creation. Deletion processes are always available if it is likely that non-notability, unsuitability, or lack of reliable sources can be established. But "It was not created for genuine reasons" is not a valid deletion argument. AfD is not a form of punishment for real or perceived infractions, regardless of the motivation of the editors who have worked on the article previously.
If there is no reasonable possibility of improving an article, it should be deleted, often via WP:SPEEDY. Pure advertising and simple attack pages are both subject to speedy deletion, per WP:CSD.
Something Like:
Any thoughts? I have seen this arguement used in a few AfDs and don't think it has much merit, I relaise the woridng needs some work and maybe something of a counterpoint. Sorry if this is covered somewhere else or if the issue has come up before. [[ Guest9999 ( talk) 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Something like: don't delete reliably sourced material just because it criticizes or makes look bad your favorite (nation state, soccor club, author, politician, etc.), or reveals favorable information about your most hated (nation state, soccor club, author, politician, etc.)
I and others I've corresponded with over the last year have run into some really phony baloney excuses for deleting reliably sourced, mostly critical information (and some positive info about "hated" parties). THere seem to be organized partisans of one member of one of those categories above and they seem to be OUT OF CONTROL. And I'm sure there are other articles or collections of articles where the same issue arises.
Sure there should be balanced information, but when any and all criticism of a favorite entity - or positive information about some "hated" entity - is systematically deleted by roving teams of wikilawyer-cronies, the whole premise of wiki is defeated. Being able to send these people to WP:IDONTLIKE would be at least SOME relief! If you've got another solution, do tell! Carol Moore 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I would like to see this entire essay rewritten into a prose-format explanation of how to form good arguments and critically examine the arguments of others, rather than just a series of rebuttals to particular arguments. It seems like shortcuts to this essay are way, way overused in deletion discussions. Also, having the ability to casually throw a rebuttal by linking to this essay without examining the content of the argument is IMO a poor idea which does nothing to build consensus. It encourages the idea that the opinions of people who make unsound arguments don't count.
Furthermore, this essay appears to be an inclusionist/deletionist battleground of thought, with some of the portions of the essay appearing to be much different from others in ideology.
It seems like it would be a much better idea to explain how to make good arguments instead of simply providing talking points on how to defeat arguments. -
Chardish
20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
== Step 1: Focus on content ==
Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Ok, got point on cruft. So you think a separate section needed as opposed to adding to IDONTLIKE IT? I guess it WOULD be more clear and more convincing if people could just link to WP:DontDeleteOpposingViews instead of vague and humorous/not as serious sounding IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, if I used the examples I wanted to that would lead to a whole lot of IDONTLIKE IT :-) But examples from the three or four MOST controversial topics would be useful. I can think of three off hand in same category, but will look for others in other categories before put up a draft here. And repeat reference to WP:NPA.
In fact that reference to WP:NPA probably should be included in a one sentence introduction to the whole article to set the tone of cooperation. Should I make that a separate proposal and go for it ASAP?? Carol Moore 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I've run into this one once or twice, most recently on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Bean Cobain (2nd nomination). It seems like a totally irrelevant argument: articles on similar topics, or separate topics that are linked by a common element such as a band, team, or historical event are bound to have overlapping information. Any thoughts? Torc2 ( talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Kind of getting tired of this being thrown around in AFD debates. Particularly a problem in debates about fictional works. If an article is nothing but a al arge plot summary with no real world information or context this argument often gets thrown into the mix. AFD is cleanup for articles that hopelessly fail policy. This section needs to be rewritten to show that there are times when an article simply can not be improved. It also needs to be pointed out that if you are going to argue that an article can be cleaned up you need to provide some sort of evidence of this in the AFD debate. Ridernyc ( talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please reread the tag at the front of the page. It's an essay. It's not a guideline, it's not policy. Happy editing folks, enjoy the edit war. Hiding T 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As a relatively new editor I think the over-abundance of wiki essays/guidelines/policies just makes it easy for wiki lawyers to play games and get their way in very destructive manners. Below in Proposal: Intro Make Clear Article NOT about Only Deleting Info from Articles I say we should include Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Step_1:_Focus_on_content in intro. Maybe we should just list/link the five or six most important policies in intro and note that all those other phrases have been around but people should rely first and foremost on the policies. Keep it simple for newbies and editors who would rather be improving articles than dealing with wiki lawyers out to impose their views and delete others', be they words, phrases, or articles. Carol Moore 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
As pointed out by someone over at WP:FICT, it encourages and sustains violations of NPOV, a core policy. Jtrainor ( talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Splain to me again how OTHERSTUFF is "violating NPOV by giving editors free reign to be inconsistent". WP:NPOV is: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. OTHERSTUFF says that you need to provide specific valid arguements for this particular item and can't just point to other violators/ommissions as your basis. How OTHERSTUFF can be construed as "promoting POV" baffles me. Lasalle202 ( talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your example is still faulty. Editor A saying Article X should stay/be deleted and ignoring Editor B's substantiated reasons by citing OTHERSTUFF is ignoring Editor B's substantiated reasons - and that has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFF or NPOV, thats just Editor A being a jerk. If we removed every guideline, policy and suggestion that jerks used inappropriately, well, there would be no guidelines or policies at all. Lasalle202 ( talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If Bearcat's recent edits ("Similarly, while precedents...") are kept, we really have to get rid of WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's no way we can have a section telling users how important precedents are followed a few paragraphs later by a section telling them pointing to precedent is wrong. Torc2 ( talk) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is enough ambiguous language in the introduction to this article that it is not clear these arguments refer to deleting whole articles, not en masse deletions of info from articles not otherwise up for deletion. Which is what I was talking about above in Possible Addition to 3.2 "I don't Like it"'. Also my comments in Major, Major Rewrite.
FINALLY I figured out this article NOT relevant to such content deletions. But I did notice today skimming through other people's comments that some also seem unclear on the concept - or at least their statements also ambiguous.
Unless I am misreading it and this DOES apply to deletion/mass deletion of parts of articles, and NOT only to whole articles, is it OK if I a) just make that explicit by changing a few words in introduction and b) refer them to the policy Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Step_1:_Focus_on_content and paraphrase from it?? (And that's a good idea even if it DOES refer to content.)
Carol Moore 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
There are very few classifications whose members are all notable or all non-notable, and in those cases, it's very easy to make a case on each subject's individual merits.
I recently came to the same conclusion as was expressed in an older section; the policy says that it's not a vote, but then, immediately after, says that votes are, in practice, considered. Are the number of votes relevant? If there are sixty Delete votes, either bare or per nom or per previous voter, basically with redundant or irrelevant arguments {"badly written"), and one Keep vote, with a cogent argument, what happens? Theoretically, the numbers don't count, but from AfDs that I've been reviewing, they do; that is, the policy page is correct in terms of describing what happens, and that is an open invitation for vote stacking. The closing administrator makes the decision; but, too often, there is no *judgment* made as to the various arguments raised. Which arguments did the admin accept and which were rejected? Were the number of votes considered? In any case, we don't know, because far too many closing statements give no information about the arguments. In one AfD, I made a keep argument that was not a repetition of what anyone else had argued and, in fact, I provided a more reliable source than anything that had been provided. Did the administrator consider this? Not a clue. "Result was Delete." Why? For that article, most delete votes were based on the topic of the article being quackery, and most keep votes, substantial numbers but in a minority, were based on it being notable quackery. Was the common agreement that it was quackery a factor in the deletion (it shouldn't be, quackery should be irrelevant; quackery is handled by including evidence for such, or removing POV claims; Wikipedia has no business making a judgment of "quackery," and deletion on that basis is exactly that, it's taking a POV).
I'm not sure it is practical, but I'd much prefer to see a controversial delete discussion edited, possibly on a separate page, into an NPOV "article" on the topic of deletion. This would state all the arguments (personal attribution might be there as notes, or arguments could be generally attributed to the original delete page -- "it was argued that...."), *without* redundancy. A vote count could be reported, perhaps, and I assume that most editors will probably want to keep votes in -- but it would be closer to the intent of AfD and policy if votes were simply not allowed. The problem with the current practice is that AfDs become quite confusing to read, and the basis for the decision is frequently murky, providing no guidance as to precedent, no record of what was actually the basis for deletion (and thus no clear record of what might be fixed to avoid deletion on the same grounds in a future article on the same subject). And then there are all the uncivil comments. I've seen some reverted out, but in other AfDs, some of the most shockingly uncivil opinions are still there. I'd suggest that someone who votes delete, obliterate, incinerate, salt, POV-pushing nonsense for something of marginal notability, with one or more editors, including experienced ones, arguing for notability on objective grounds, doesn't have the balance to be helping make these decisions.
A "decision" page would show the arguments accepted by the closing admin, and those rejected or considered not relevant. The work would be set up as in Arbcomm decisions, the participants would prepare the suggested decision, and, I'd suggest, to reduce conflict, there could be two sections on a proposed decision page, with collected evidence (evidence is not, in itself, keep or delete, it should be verifiable facts or attributed testimony), and proposed judgments or "arguments". Thus, admin time could be conserved, and those editors concerned would do the work, leaving the closing admin to accept (or deny) evidence (there is evidence submitted in some AfDs that is submitted in bad faith, false claims, etc.), report whether or not the admin has personally verified the evidence or has accepted it without question (which is okay if there was substantial participation and opportunity for the opposition to impeach the evidence), and accept or reject arguments made.
I do predict that if AfD is not fixed, it is going to increasingly be a battleground for competing visions of what the encyclopedia is and should become, and policy that essentially says that content should be encyclopedic is circular, giving almost no guidance. Notability is more subtle, but is again certain to create collisions between perspectives, with no benefit to the project worth all the effort, and I have not seen notability defined in such a way as to avoid major misunderstandings on the part of the vast readership of Wikipedia. "The sum of all human knowledge, the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Wow! If I know something, I can put it in!
I don't care how many policies are written, with that advertising, ever-increasing numbers of people are going to do just that. Instead of trying to stem the tide, we should be channeling it. Every time someone writes about something they know, and it gets deleted, one more disappointed or even insulted reader/editor exists, and this is accumulating in the public like undrained waste; we are spending increasing amounts of experienced editor time in deletion conflicts that, practically by definition, add almost nothing to the value of Wikipedia *if the content is adequately organized* This was the promise of hypertext, hierarchies of knowledge, and such hierarchy is *essential* to an encyclopedia that attempts to be comprehensive, it becomes unintelligible, information overload, unless organized for graduated access.
Instead of deleting marginal material, it should be *organized* and *tagged*, particularly if it is unverified, it might go into a dedicated space. It's already being kept, no disk space is being saved by deleting it. So there would be the accepted "encyclopedia," with subjects agreed to be notable, and a penumbra of not notable, unverified or otherwise unaccepted articles, searchable, possible candidates for mainspace if properly sourced and considered notable. Much more could be written on this... In summary, though, censorship, deletion of allegedly useless material, is inherently POV, introducing a community bias. Notability is not a quality of facts, it is a quality of observers, i.e., a fact is, if noted by someone, by definition, notable *to that degree*. How many people does it take to constitute community "notability"? Does it depend on who they are? Does it depend on their professions? Their first language? Their affluence? Their interests? I think the Wikipedia vision answers this: "all human knowledge," which does not discriminate or make the knowledge of one group of people more important than the knowledge of another. The difficulty, really, comes with "sum." It has two meanings: totality, and summary. The former is inclusionist, the latter deletionist, one might think. However, deletion is not only not necessary for summarization, it is dangerous. Summary knowledge should always be linked to the raw source; I know that I'm sitting in my kitchen, but where exactly is my big toe? Until I "notice" it, I don't know, it's not in the "summary," i.e., the routine "consciousness." But if I want to know where my big toe is, I look (or feel). It's all there; consciousness is arranged in hierarchies of perception, and a good encyclopedia is arranged in hierarchies of knowledge, from vast overviews to the level of detail limited only by system capacity. This is not only a desirable vision, it is a *necessary* one, for limiting the encyclopedia by excluding categories of knowledge is going to be like stopping a river with a few corks. The corks are going to be overwhelmed and outnumbered, and dealing with the ever-increasing input can only go in one of three ways: acceptance ("inclusionist"), failure (burnout, resentment, conflict, declining reliability, burgeoning inefficiency), or increasing rigidity and imposition of ever-more-specified rules that, in the end, only set a bound on the usefulness of Wikipedia, binding it to cultural bias and subtle or not-so-subtle POV. -- Abd ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The argument, "The article should be kept because it's true" should be included. Technically, this is similar but not identical to "Wikipedia should be about everything" and "Don't lose the information." Simply because an article is true doesn't make it encyclopedic. 69.138.16.202 ( talk) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Does reading this part sound horribly wrong to anybody else? I can't quite put my finger on why... 161.49.198.69 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of "disinterested" as being "impartial, unbiased" was supported by 88–89% of this usage panel. Therefore, changed to "uninterested" = not interested. Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
i completely disagree with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. here's a hypothetical situation.
some editor - editor 1 - nominates all articles about subject A for deletion. when another editor - editor 2 - points out that subject B - which also has articles on wikipedia - meets the same criteria for deletion that subject A does - editor 1 cites WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
that's a problem for a few reasons. for one, if editor 1 refuses to delete subject B for deletion even though the reasons given for subject A apply to it just as easily, it's liable to create resentment. it's liable to give the impression that wikipedia is just singling out articles and it really does make it seem like editor 1 hates it. i mean, why else would editor 1 nominate subject A for deletion but not subject B? if the deletion criteria apply to both but editor 1 only choses to delete only subject A, what other possible reason could there be for that other then editor 1's alleged hate for it?
also, if subject B really is different, then it would be beneficial for editor 2 to know how. this would better allow editor 2 to understand editor 1's arguments. but if all editor 1 ever does is cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, such understanding is not going to be forthcomming.
anyway, for those two reasons, i think WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should be deleted. any AfD that it's used in is degenerated by it's use. 209.209.214.5 15:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I originally wrote WP:RUBBISH to show what it says in the first and last paragraphs, but today it's horrible - confrontationally written with unnecessarily bolded sections, an overly long explanation, there's too many examples and too much redundant text, so it doesn't fit the simple, concise model that the rest of the article follows.
I'm proposing moving it back to the version that I rewrote [1], combining with the changes to the final paragraph and the nice analogy "Ask the question, "If a thousand editors worked all day on this article, would it still qualify for deletion?". Comments? - Halo 15:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The essay states that votes without reasons and votes "per nom" are to be avoided. I disagree. It frequently happens that the nominator has given a perfectly thorough and comprehensive explanation. Plain votes and votes "per nom" mean that the commenter finds the nominator's reasons compelling, and has nothing further to add.
Raw votes have value, because one measure of a nomination's strength is the number of people who find it persuasive. Indeed, if I am reading a deletion discussion, I'd rather not plough through dozens of comments that repeat the same points in different words. Commenters shouldn't feel the need to add anything, unless there are additional reasons that the nominator omitted. Marc Shepherd 16:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following sections about arguments I frequently see at AfD and CfD:
Example:
The guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes specifically addresses arguments like this:
Sometimes, a category is nominated for deletion for the reason that a list would be better, and then the same list is nominated for the reason that it would be better as a category! If both deletions are successful, the information is needlessly lost.
In the case of categories, there is an overcategorization guideline which describes specific reasons for deleting a category. Note that this guideline specifically does not apply to lists. On the other hand, most policies which do apply to lists would also tend to apply to categories—for example, if a list would promote a particular point of view or is based on original research, so would the equivalent category.
However, if a list is composed entirely of random or alphabetized bluelinks and offers no navigational advantage over an equivalent category, this can be a valid argument for deleting a list and keeping the category.
Example:
The GFDL, under which all textual Wikipedia content is licensed, requires attribution history of all content. Because of this, when we merge content, we are required to keep the edit history of the merged content. Deleting a page deletes the edit history, and if any content were copied from the deleted page, this would violate the GFDL. From the help page on merging content:
The correct action to recommend in this case is Merge and redirect (or Merge and disambiguate). If you are thinking of nominating an article for deletion because you wish to "delete and merge" it, instead see " How to merge pages"; it is not necessary to bring the article to Articles for deletion in order to do this.
.
Does anyone object to these? If not, what sections should they go in? They don't seem to fit well into any of "Arguments without arguments", "Point of view", "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", or "Fame and shame". DHowell 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna go through and reword this whole thing into how to avoid these arguements. Right now it's a collection of negative statements, which makes the whole essay confrontational, which is part of the problem that leads to these arguements in the first place! I appreciate the frustration these cause, but perhaps we'll have more impact with positive wording? If you strongly disagree, please revert and we'll discuss it here. -- 54x 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC) OK, I'm done. Let me know what you think, and whether I've stayed true enough to the original essay. -- 54x 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability of a parent entity does not imply notability of the subordinates, but it does imply notability of subordinates which are simply broken out for size or to address key features. For example, Arrakis itself isn't a notable thing, it's just a world in a fictional universe. However, Arrakis is the primary setting in the Dune universe which is very clearly notable. In cases where an article is essentially an extended sub-section of a notable topic, especially in fiction, it does inherit the parent's notability, and that's the way Wikipedia has operated for years. Policy should not be written which would invalidate many of the good articles on Wikipedia that have long fit well into the collective body of the encyclopedia.
This introduces the "key feature" test for inherited notability. Is an article (e.g. Spacing Guild) a key feature of an established, notable article (e.g. the Dune universe)? Any debate about the removal of such an article should include the answer to that question. - Harmil 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I oppose this change too. The point of these essays should be to make it clearer how to interpret policy and guidelines, and this change, as pointed out by Guest9999, contradicts WP:NOT and WP:FICT, effectively saying that the way to interpret them is to ignore them. If this proposal were to go through at the higher levels required, it would give a free pass to a potentially unlimited amount of triva and detail, which is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. It is very much my view that if a subject deserves multiple articles it will have the sources to support them, and, try as I might, I can see no reason that this should or could ever be otherwise. Miremare 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
People should remember that it is not a guideline, and quite rightly so. In AfDs I sometimes use arguments that are listed here, such as WP:WAX.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.
Example:
Examples: Someone creates an article on a politician, including negative information on them (an attack page), or about their company to promote it positively (an advertising/promotion page). If it happens that the politician or company are in fact notable and the article is not a complete waste of space, or a copyvio, then the article should be improved, rather than deleted. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy).
Once created for whatever reason, an article takes on its own life. The topic survives or is deleted according to our article inclusion criteria - notability ( WP:N), suitability ( WP:NOT), verifiable reliable sources, etc. It is AFDed, PRODed or SPEEDYed if it is dubious, but kept and improved otherwise. There's a warning to this effect on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest related to self-promotional article creation. Deletion processes are always available if it is likely that non-notability, unsuitability, or lack of reliable sources can be established. But "It was not created for genuine reasons" is not a valid deletion argument. AfD is not a form of punishment for real or perceived infractions, regardless of the motivation of the editors who have worked on the article previously.
If there is no reasonable possibility of improving an article, it should be deleted, often via WP:SPEEDY. Pure advertising and simple attack pages are both subject to speedy deletion, per WP:CSD.
Something Like:
Any thoughts? I have seen this arguement used in a few AfDs and don't think it has much merit, I relaise the woridng needs some work and maybe something of a counterpoint. Sorry if this is covered somewhere else or if the issue has come up before. [[ Guest9999 ( talk) 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]]
Something like: don't delete reliably sourced material just because it criticizes or makes look bad your favorite (nation state, soccor club, author, politician, etc.), or reveals favorable information about your most hated (nation state, soccor club, author, politician, etc.)
I and others I've corresponded with over the last year have run into some really phony baloney excuses for deleting reliably sourced, mostly critical information (and some positive info about "hated" parties). THere seem to be organized partisans of one member of one of those categories above and they seem to be OUT OF CONTROL. And I'm sure there are other articles or collections of articles where the same issue arises.
Sure there should be balanced information, but when any and all criticism of a favorite entity - or positive information about some "hated" entity - is systematically deleted by roving teams of wikilawyer-cronies, the whole premise of wiki is defeated. Being able to send these people to WP:IDONTLIKE would be at least SOME relief! If you've got another solution, do tell! Carol Moore 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I would like to see this entire essay rewritten into a prose-format explanation of how to form good arguments and critically examine the arguments of others, rather than just a series of rebuttals to particular arguments. It seems like shortcuts to this essay are way, way overused in deletion discussions. Also, having the ability to casually throw a rebuttal by linking to this essay without examining the content of the argument is IMO a poor idea which does nothing to build consensus. It encourages the idea that the opinions of people who make unsound arguments don't count.
Furthermore, this essay appears to be an inclusionist/deletionist battleground of thought, with some of the portions of the essay appearing to be much different from others in ideology.
It seems like it would be a much better idea to explain how to make good arguments instead of simply providing talking points on how to defeat arguments. -
Chardish
20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
== Step 1: Focus on content ==
Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Ok, got point on cruft. So you think a separate section needed as opposed to adding to IDONTLIKE IT? I guess it WOULD be more clear and more convincing if people could just link to WP:DontDeleteOpposingViews instead of vague and humorous/not as serious sounding IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, if I used the examples I wanted to that would lead to a whole lot of IDONTLIKE IT :-) But examples from the three or four MOST controversial topics would be useful. I can think of three off hand in same category, but will look for others in other categories before put up a draft here. And repeat reference to WP:NPA.
In fact that reference to WP:NPA probably should be included in a one sentence introduction to the whole article to set the tone of cooperation. Should I make that a separate proposal and go for it ASAP?? Carol Moore 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I've run into this one once or twice, most recently on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Bean Cobain (2nd nomination). It seems like a totally irrelevant argument: articles on similar topics, or separate topics that are linked by a common element such as a band, team, or historical event are bound to have overlapping information. Any thoughts? Torc2 ( talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Kind of getting tired of this being thrown around in AFD debates. Particularly a problem in debates about fictional works. If an article is nothing but a al arge plot summary with no real world information or context this argument often gets thrown into the mix. AFD is cleanup for articles that hopelessly fail policy. This section needs to be rewritten to show that there are times when an article simply can not be improved. It also needs to be pointed out that if you are going to argue that an article can be cleaned up you need to provide some sort of evidence of this in the AFD debate. Ridernyc ( talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please reread the tag at the front of the page. It's an essay. It's not a guideline, it's not policy. Happy editing folks, enjoy the edit war. Hiding T 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As a relatively new editor I think the over-abundance of wiki essays/guidelines/policies just makes it easy for wiki lawyers to play games and get their way in very destructive manners. Below in Proposal: Intro Make Clear Article NOT about Only Deleting Info from Articles I say we should include Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Step_1:_Focus_on_content in intro. Maybe we should just list/link the five or six most important policies in intro and note that all those other phrases have been around but people should rely first and foremost on the policies. Keep it simple for newbies and editors who would rather be improving articles than dealing with wiki lawyers out to impose their views and delete others', be they words, phrases, or articles. Carol Moore 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
As pointed out by someone over at WP:FICT, it encourages and sustains violations of NPOV, a core policy. Jtrainor ( talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Splain to me again how OTHERSTUFF is "violating NPOV by giving editors free reign to be inconsistent". WP:NPOV is: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. OTHERSTUFF says that you need to provide specific valid arguements for this particular item and can't just point to other violators/ommissions as your basis. How OTHERSTUFF can be construed as "promoting POV" baffles me. Lasalle202 ( talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your example is still faulty. Editor A saying Article X should stay/be deleted and ignoring Editor B's substantiated reasons by citing OTHERSTUFF is ignoring Editor B's substantiated reasons - and that has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFF or NPOV, thats just Editor A being a jerk. If we removed every guideline, policy and suggestion that jerks used inappropriately, well, there would be no guidelines or policies at all. Lasalle202 ( talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If Bearcat's recent edits ("Similarly, while precedents...") are kept, we really have to get rid of WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's no way we can have a section telling users how important precedents are followed a few paragraphs later by a section telling them pointing to precedent is wrong. Torc2 ( talk) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is enough ambiguous language in the introduction to this article that it is not clear these arguments refer to deleting whole articles, not en masse deletions of info from articles not otherwise up for deletion. Which is what I was talking about above in Possible Addition to 3.2 "I don't Like it"'. Also my comments in Major, Major Rewrite.
FINALLY I figured out this article NOT relevant to such content deletions. But I did notice today skimming through other people's comments that some also seem unclear on the concept - or at least their statements also ambiguous.
Unless I am misreading it and this DOES apply to deletion/mass deletion of parts of articles, and NOT only to whole articles, is it OK if I a) just make that explicit by changing a few words in introduction and b) refer them to the policy Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Step_1:_Focus_on_content and paraphrase from it?? (And that's a good idea even if it DOES refer to content.)
Carol Moore 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
There are very few classifications whose members are all notable or all non-notable, and in those cases, it's very easy to make a case on each subject's individual merits.
I recently came to the same conclusion as was expressed in an older section; the policy says that it's not a vote, but then, immediately after, says that votes are, in practice, considered. Are the number of votes relevant? If there are sixty Delete votes, either bare or per nom or per previous voter, basically with redundant or irrelevant arguments {"badly written"), and one Keep vote, with a cogent argument, what happens? Theoretically, the numbers don't count, but from AfDs that I've been reviewing, they do; that is, the policy page is correct in terms of describing what happens, and that is an open invitation for vote stacking. The closing administrator makes the decision; but, too often, there is no *judgment* made as to the various arguments raised. Which arguments did the admin accept and which were rejected? Were the number of votes considered? In any case, we don't know, because far too many closing statements give no information about the arguments. In one AfD, I made a keep argument that was not a repetition of what anyone else had argued and, in fact, I provided a more reliable source than anything that had been provided. Did the administrator consider this? Not a clue. "Result was Delete." Why? For that article, most delete votes were based on the topic of the article being quackery, and most keep votes, substantial numbers but in a minority, were based on it being notable quackery. Was the common agreement that it was quackery a factor in the deletion (it shouldn't be, quackery should be irrelevant; quackery is handled by including evidence for such, or removing POV claims; Wikipedia has no business making a judgment of "quackery," and deletion on that basis is exactly that, it's taking a POV).
I'm not sure it is practical, but I'd much prefer to see a controversial delete discussion edited, possibly on a separate page, into an NPOV "article" on the topic of deletion. This would state all the arguments (personal attribution might be there as notes, or arguments could be generally attributed to the original delete page -- "it was argued that...."), *without* redundancy. A vote count could be reported, perhaps, and I assume that most editors will probably want to keep votes in -- but it would be closer to the intent of AfD and policy if votes were simply not allowed. The problem with the current practice is that AfDs become quite confusing to read, and the basis for the decision is frequently murky, providing no guidance as to precedent, no record of what was actually the basis for deletion (and thus no clear record of what might be fixed to avoid deletion on the same grounds in a future article on the same subject). And then there are all the uncivil comments. I've seen some reverted out, but in other AfDs, some of the most shockingly uncivil opinions are still there. I'd suggest that someone who votes delete, obliterate, incinerate, salt, POV-pushing nonsense for something of marginal notability, with one or more editors, including experienced ones, arguing for notability on objective grounds, doesn't have the balance to be helping make these decisions.
A "decision" page would show the arguments accepted by the closing admin, and those rejected or considered not relevant. The work would be set up as in Arbcomm decisions, the participants would prepare the suggested decision, and, I'd suggest, to reduce conflict, there could be two sections on a proposed decision page, with collected evidence (evidence is not, in itself, keep or delete, it should be verifiable facts or attributed testimony), and proposed judgments or "arguments". Thus, admin time could be conserved, and those editors concerned would do the work, leaving the closing admin to accept (or deny) evidence (there is evidence submitted in some AfDs that is submitted in bad faith, false claims, etc.), report whether or not the admin has personally verified the evidence or has accepted it without question (which is okay if there was substantial participation and opportunity for the opposition to impeach the evidence), and accept or reject arguments made.
I do predict that if AfD is not fixed, it is going to increasingly be a battleground for competing visions of what the encyclopedia is and should become, and policy that essentially says that content should be encyclopedic is circular, giving almost no guidance. Notability is more subtle, but is again certain to create collisions between perspectives, with no benefit to the project worth all the effort, and I have not seen notability defined in such a way as to avoid major misunderstandings on the part of the vast readership of Wikipedia. "The sum of all human knowledge, the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Wow! If I know something, I can put it in!
I don't care how many policies are written, with that advertising, ever-increasing numbers of people are going to do just that. Instead of trying to stem the tide, we should be channeling it. Every time someone writes about something they know, and it gets deleted, one more disappointed or even insulted reader/editor exists, and this is accumulating in the public like undrained waste; we are spending increasing amounts of experienced editor time in deletion conflicts that, practically by definition, add almost nothing to the value of Wikipedia *if the content is adequately organized* This was the promise of hypertext, hierarchies of knowledge, and such hierarchy is *essential* to an encyclopedia that attempts to be comprehensive, it becomes unintelligible, information overload, unless organized for graduated access.
Instead of deleting marginal material, it should be *organized* and *tagged*, particularly if it is unverified, it might go into a dedicated space. It's already being kept, no disk space is being saved by deleting it. So there would be the accepted "encyclopedia," with subjects agreed to be notable, and a penumbra of not notable, unverified or otherwise unaccepted articles, searchable, possible candidates for mainspace if properly sourced and considered notable. Much more could be written on this... In summary, though, censorship, deletion of allegedly useless material, is inherently POV, introducing a community bias. Notability is not a quality of facts, it is a quality of observers, i.e., a fact is, if noted by someone, by definition, notable *to that degree*. How many people does it take to constitute community "notability"? Does it depend on who they are? Does it depend on their professions? Their first language? Their affluence? Their interests? I think the Wikipedia vision answers this: "all human knowledge," which does not discriminate or make the knowledge of one group of people more important than the knowledge of another. The difficulty, really, comes with "sum." It has two meanings: totality, and summary. The former is inclusionist, the latter deletionist, one might think. However, deletion is not only not necessary for summarization, it is dangerous. Summary knowledge should always be linked to the raw source; I know that I'm sitting in my kitchen, but where exactly is my big toe? Until I "notice" it, I don't know, it's not in the "summary," i.e., the routine "consciousness." But if I want to know where my big toe is, I look (or feel). It's all there; consciousness is arranged in hierarchies of perception, and a good encyclopedia is arranged in hierarchies of knowledge, from vast overviews to the level of detail limited only by system capacity. This is not only a desirable vision, it is a *necessary* one, for limiting the encyclopedia by excluding categories of knowledge is going to be like stopping a river with a few corks. The corks are going to be overwhelmed and outnumbered, and dealing with the ever-increasing input can only go in one of three ways: acceptance ("inclusionist"), failure (burnout, resentment, conflict, declining reliability, burgeoning inefficiency), or increasing rigidity and imposition of ever-more-specified rules that, in the end, only set a bound on the usefulness of Wikipedia, binding it to cultural bias and subtle or not-so-subtle POV. -- Abd ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The argument, "The article should be kept because it's true" should be included. Technically, this is similar but not identical to "Wikipedia should be about everything" and "Don't lose the information." Simply because an article is true doesn't make it encyclopedic. 69.138.16.202 ( talk) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)