Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 6 April 2013

Misplaced Pages essays High‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages 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.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays High This page has been rated as High-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 22 October 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

It's useful considered harmful

I've edited the "It's useful" section to reinforce the main idea that usefulness should be explained in debates. I've found that it's being used to mean that usefulness of content is not important at Misplaced Pages! In a recent discussion an editor explicitly said that usefulness on it's own isn't a great enough reason for having content, linking to this essay for explanation. People isn't even reading the whole section before making judgement calls; in the case I commented, the argument for usefulness was explicitly described in this essay as a valid one. Diego Moya (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked a sentence, just for the syntax. I think your premise is perfectly sound. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I was not sure that a bold edit of a popular essay would stay without being discussed at the talk page first.Diego Moya (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I said usefulness on it's own is not enough to categorise a video game as a fictional character. Don't take my reasons out of context. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I removed the link to the discussion. But you still were linking to wp:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's useful to support an argument of yours that doesn't refer to deletion discussions, and when this section is about too short arguments that don't provide reasons - not to the validity of usefulness itself as a basis for reasoned arguments. (Besides, your intervention is not the only time I've seen this essay being used in that harmful way). Diego Moya (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, about 85% of the fallacious arguments presented in this essay are broadly applicable outside of deletion discussions per se. Really, this page should be moved to Arguments to avoid in Misplaced Pages discussions or something, since most of this is applicable to merge discussions, arguments about inclusion or exclusion of facts in articles, split/WP:SUMMARY debates, renames, etc., etc., etc. Many people cite its logic, when applicable, and probably shouldn't be taken to task for it, even if you want to argue about other stuff with them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. I'd support that name change, but this should be done as a formal proposal at the Village Pump. Diego (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Subjective importance?

The section on Subjective importance states several times that Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia, but that is against the description of the first pillar: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I will rework it to keep the bit about importance "not sufficient on its own", but remove everything about local fame being a hindrance for notability per wp:NOTPAPER; the inclusion criteria should be the existence of reliable sources per WP:GNG, even if they are local. Diego Moya (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Misplaced Pages also contains glossaries, although in the past I've seen well written glossaries AfD'd with reasons such as WP:DICTIONARY, WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. While this problem isn't entirely related to WP:ATA, it is related to the first pillar and something I've been unable to figure out how to fix. I've been seeing more and more of these at AfD lately and we even have one such article at DRV right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic glossaries are generally kept these days, with the key word being "encyclopedic". Lists of words with dictionary-like terse definitions that don't provide encyclopedic detail generally don't belong here. Contrast wordlists of that sort with, say, Glossary of cue sports terms, a richly-developed article. Anyway, I think Diego is misinterpreting the pillars point. Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia, the world's most. It also permits super-geeky specialist-encyclopedia information, and info that would be found in other tertiary sources like almanacs and gazetteers, short of being a general directory or repository for trivia. But it is first and foremost certainly a general encyclopedia, and this page isn't wrong to re-make this point, even if the wording for doing so may need tweaking. As for "local fame" issues, I think that's matter for WT:N and what is said here should reflect what WP:N says by consensus, which will already have taken WP:NOTPAPER into account. It would not be wise to remove material from here on the basis of your personal interpretation of NOTPAPER without first being very sure that WP:N's interpretation is not being misrepresented here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like it" - a personal attack?

Is it a personal attack to say that arguments for deletion are "I don't like it"? I made such an argument at ANI. One of the involved editors scolded me for doing so, saying I'd attacked him. I see that there are over 5000 inbound links from WP:IDONTLIKEIT alone. If it's true that referring to this section and redirect are personal attacks then we should delete them. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In the broadest sense, no - because we are assuming that even if its an argument to avoid, it is an argument on the article itself and not the editors involved (per AFG). I can see in exceptional situations where editor A and B have been at each others throats, that B responding to an AFD of A's article and saying "I don't like it" could be taken as a personal one, but again, look at the amount of setup I have to create to make that case even plausable. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. IDONTLIKEIT, however personally grating some may find it, is fundamentally an argument about the argument, not the person making the argument. I think it's entirely possible to AGF that an editor means well, yet is making poor arguments based on personal biases. My most recent essay, WP:NIME, expounding on this point. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

But in this case, I think it's all about the editor. Will Beback has my talkpage watchlisted, sticks his nose into events that he knows nothing about and has trumped up evidence at ArbCom against me. I'm tired of him following me around and I've had it. His comments are personal attacks against me and I want him to leave me alone if that's all the commentary and 'assistance' he can provide. If he continues this current course of action, then I'll bust him in the nose every fracking time (virtually, natch... :)). His continued statements saying that I deleted an article and blocked an editor merely because "I don't like it", is indeed a fracking comment on the editor and not the reasoning. It needs to stop now. Dreadstar ☥ 03:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my latest "I don't like it and have presented no other reasoning" according to WBB: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2. Yup, you bet your ass I don't like it, and neither does BLP Policy. Something else I don't like, those little violations of policy. Dreadstar ☥ 03:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's not just me. Dreadstar ☥ 03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That last remark seems totally off-topic and could be described as "poisoning the well". The only matter for discussion here is whether referring to "I don't like it" as an invalid deletion reason is a personal attack. Let's stick to that.   Will Beback  talk  04:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Goes to recent motive regarding this entire issue and adds to the pejorative evidence against you. I had a good reason, BLP; yet you continue to attack. There's a reason for that, it goes way back. This isn't some isolated incident. Confirms the above suggestion that "I can see in exceptional situations where editor A and B have been at each others throats, that B responding to an AFD of A's article and saying "I don't like it" could be taken as a personal one", you've been at my throat for over year and you continue to be so. Stop it. Dreadstar ☥ 05:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are having a problem with an editor, and you can't work it out with him, it is best not to canvas boards to get someone to agree with you, but instead take it to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U or barring that, ArbCom, to resolve it. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree that this shouldn't be taken up here, because obviously it is justifiable to refer to this policy, just like any other - it's no more a personal attack for you to say Dreadstar is violating IDONTLIKEIT than for him to say that Cirt and Kiwi and so forth are violating BLP.

Those unfamiliar with the underlying dispute should note that the santorum (neologism) argument is tied into the fundamental inclusionist-deletionist debate, an older conflict between Scientology and its critics, an RFC/U about User:Cirt etc. The situation has become very much partisan, with fundamentally different ideologies about what Misplaced Pages is about, and there is very little middle ground. I feel that my side remains true to the inclusionist spirit of the pre-2007 Misplaced Pages, while the other side, among other things, embraces a metastatic BLP policy when it pleases them, and harangues editors for leaving out such things when it does not. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Wnt, if I say I deleted an article because it was a poorly sourced, contentious BLP, then to you it's the same as if I said "I just didn't like it"? Dreadstar ☥ 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing any guideline here can be incivil if the one citing it is doing so in an incivil, ad hominem, personally attacking manner. The idea that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is innately incivil or a violation of WP:NPA is absurd. It's like blaming a hammer for blunt force trauma committed by a killer. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Assertion of notability

Now that we have the GNG, can we add "does not assert notability" to the list of arguments to avoid in deletion debates? If it's an A7 candidate and doesn't assert notability, it should be speedied; otherwise, assertion of notability is irrelevant and has been for years. Yet I see it brought up at AfD all the time. Can we be done with it? —chaos5023 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but the hurdle at AfD is notability, while the hurdle for CSD A7 is credible assertion of importance. Despite many examples where editors mistake the two concepts, they are not the same, and deliberately so. Many, many articles fall into the gap wherein they contain a credible assertion of importance, yet do not satisfy the criterion of notability. This is intentional.--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you missed my point. My point is that "assertion of notability" shouldn't be brought up at AfD because, as you say, the hurdle at AfD is being notable per WP:GNG, not the article saying the topic is notable. Which is why I would like to see "does not assert notability" added to the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (I don't much like the concept of "assertion of notability" in the first place, because the unencyclopedic gee-whiz language that gets added to articles in order to satisfy obscure Misplaced Pages process seems like a negative outcome to me, but CSD A7 is a windmill I don't feel up to tilting at today.) —chaos5023 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we really see this, um, strange complaint very often (at an article on a notable subject)? Or is this maybe evidence of ignorance, e.g., inexperienced editors letting us know that they believe A7 requires articles to contain the words "is notable because...", and that we should therefore discount their ill-informed opinions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My subjective and anecdotal belief is that I see it a lot, yeah, most often as part of a boilerplatey-looking nomination. I don't think it shows up in post-nom opinions nearly as much. I can poke around for examples if there's interest. I'm not really sure how often it shows up on notable vs. non-notable topics, but really my point is that it shouldn't matter; if assertion of notability was at issue, the article should've been A7ed, not sent to AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/August_Gebert.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need not only "no assertion of notability", but also a new section, ==Nobody has typed the names of reliable sources onto the page, and I'm too lazy to look==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a really popular one lately. I'm going to see if I can draft some sensible language around assertion of notability. Wish me luck. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Diff here. BRD powers, activate! —chaos5023 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I tried reaching out to the nominator from the August Gebert AfD above and the response was the articulation of a commitment to unresearched AfD noms for the purpose of extracting labor from other volunteers under threat of content destruction. So that's wonderful. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironic example

I notice that the example used to illustrate the flawed Keep argument based upon Page view stats exists. Wouldn't it make more sense to illustrate the point with an article that had high page view stats and resulted in a Delete decision?--SPhilbrickT 00:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems logical, if you can find one that fits, I see no issue with changing it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't personally tracked any examples. But I can imagine it happening quite a lot. Articles get created about current events that fail NOTNEWS. Also, just the fact that an article is up for deletion can lead to it getting viewed a lot as those considering commenting in the discussion view the article. Sebwite (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wild egotism of endless, anonymous editors

Almost all of this article, and so much similar Misplaced Pages "policy," is aimed at empowering the organization's few and dubious insiders to make unilateral decisions about inclusion based on absolutely endless, arbitrary and unknowable subjective criteria.

Is about dancing on head of a pin by a few hundred, or a few thousand, individuals, who lack verifiable credentials apart from their list of contributions (typically limited to strange lists and breath-taking telephone book-type projects).

How Misplaced Pages actually works, or equally, how it is so often disfunctional, is based on such entirely opaque "policy." Yet this simply isn't a credible form of knowledge theory.

Rather, it is a reflection of Misplaced Pages's "local politics" as practiced by its most active handful of individuals, who are genuinely unaware of basic epistemology, and who certainly lack even an awareness of the potential constraints and conventions imposed by a sizable and cautious for-profit copy desk.

I would suggest deleting this entire entry, and much else of Misplaced Pages policy.

If facts can be sourced to a known copy desk, then good. If not, then delete.

Expand Misplaced Pages on this basis.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Relax.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Relax?" My few points are so bleeding obvious, yet despite this, of course, obviously, nothing can change and discussion cannot be meaningful. All the Misplaced Pages jerks remain, certainly, jerks.

On this basis, then certainly, relaxation is very good advice.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• You'll probably get much better responses if you don't call people jerks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Also if your proposals weren't vague and totally ridiculous, but that's another matter.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that Calamitybrook wants a response that is different from the one he has obtained? Perhaps he just wanted to express himself. Perhaps he wanted to prove yet again that most Wikipedians disagree with him. Since his comment was so effectively aimed at provoking this sort of response, it is not entirely unreasonable for us to assume that it is the result of intention and skill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I just like to assume the best in people, while simultaneously assuming the worst.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

These policies are to make Misplaced Pages as reliable as possible. But I also say, why are some people not following these guidelines? Also, why does Wiki decide to make itself like a school, making many rules and policies? WWEWizard (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Because thousands of editors act like raging, hormonal, uneducated, undisciplined, fighting, immature schoolchildren, and the resulting work would be a ridiculous shambles. Are there too many and too nit-picky rules? Sure. That is of course not a rational call for sheer anarchy, however, even if some ranters make that call. PS, to Calamitybrook: Yes, there are many "insider", know-it-all, holier-than-thou types on Misplaced Pages. Just learn to work around them. There are also lots of whiny, noob twits who want to do stupid, selfish things and have to be reigned in. Work around them too. Your time here will be much happier. I guess I'm kinda saying what Yaksar is, in different, more cynical words. >;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:INHERITED

(It may or may not be obvious that this proposal is a result of a recent deletion discussion, but please let's confine ourselves to the actual merits of the proposal, rather than providing our personal opinions about that discussion.)

I'd like to propose a small amount of text to add to our guideline on "Notability is not inherited." Something along the lines of:

This guideline is not intended as a means of second-guessing sources. A subject may gain coverage in reliable sources that he or she would not otherwise gain if not related to a notable person, but if that coverage is of them and their activities rather than of the notable person, standard notability guidelines apply.

I propose this because I feel that, in a laudable effort to apply NOTINHERITED, we may be going too far and setting a higher bar for the relatives of notable people. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's wait for the DRV to conclude before we take any action here. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh - I certainly don't expect that anything decided here will be used as an argument in the DRV, either way. It's just called my attention to something that I think should be clarified, either by the addition of more language or by the rejection of said language. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think INHERITED is really at issue at all in that case. More like deciding how well WP:WI1E describes when WP:BLP1E applies. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but I obviously disagree and think it would be good to add some sort of clarification to the guidelines - do you actually oppose it, or just think it wouldn't have made a difference in this case? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... as I believe that we ought to have a somewhat higher bar for every living person, I'd rather not try to push down the standards in the one group of BLPs for whom (IMO) we're almost getting it right. Also, I suspect that it would confuse people and therefore not actually be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an underlying problem we're missing here, in that the "celeb" press like to manufacture pseudo-celebrities out of the spouses and dates and roommates and nieces and landlords and whatever of genuinely notable people. It's their bread and butter. These "fifteen minutes" types can appear temporarily notable, like because People and Cosmopolitan and Soap Opera digest all publish articles about how some soap actor's college roommate is gay, but this is basically just noise. It should not be confused with genuine notability. Another issue is that people go out of their way to "complete collections", like if Greg Evigan rightly has an article, his fans want to create articles on every one of his kids, even though of them hasn't done jack other than have a couple of roles as an extra or whatever. I AfD'd one of those (forget the outcome). Because papa Evigan is notable of course paparazzi rags are going to follow his kids around and take pictures of them and try to make them the talk of the party circuit or whatever (otherwise they're wasting their time and money - no one wants to buy magazines about random nobodies). It's actually a WP:RS problem at its core - not all big-publisher brouhaha about someone is necessarily the real deal. People magazine is not in fact a truly reliable source about much of anything, it's just a popular and allegedly entertaining one. Anyway, this discussion really doesn't belong here, but at WT:N. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Poorly sourced articles on potentially notable topics

In recent days I have come across some articles that share the following characteristics:

1. The sources that were actually being used in the article were insufficient to establish notability.
2. There was a significant likelihood that sufficient sources are available to establish the notability of the topic.
3. The articles were not written based on the independent, secondary sources, but drew primarily from self-published sources, primary sources, sources that were ideologically affiliated or close to the topic. (Many also used blogs and other unacceptable sources, but this is not important with regard to this request.)
4. In some cases, editors who have created or have worked on the article appear unwilling to write the articles bases on independent, secondary sources, and to prefer sources that a close to their personal point of view.
5. Reliable sources are sometimes not easy to find, and rewriting an article based on those sources takes time. In addition, there is the possibility to generate a heated controversy with editors who would support the original version of the article.
6. The topics were controversial, and it was difficult to determine whether the presentation conformed to WP:NPOV without a thorough research of sources that were not actually present in the article.

I find in unacceptable that editors who intend to avoid having controversial material on Misplaced Pages that is not properly sourced are effectively subject to doing the work of finding and evaluating sources, because there is not explicit guideline that potentially biased articles on controversial topics can be deleted, even if proper sources may be found, and may be actually included in the article at some future date. We need to state clearly that it is the responsibility of editors who create articles on controversial topics to actually use adequate sources, and that failure to do so may lead to the deletion of articles on controversial topics that are not properly sourced. I would also include biographies (in my view, both bios of living and of dead people, but I would restrict my suggestions to BLPs at this point), while I would be more lenient, in an eventualist perspective, with regard to poorly sourced articles that are not controversial.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You can always remove undersupported assertions per WP:BURDEN--it's not just for completely unsourced material. I agree that the shifting of the efforts onto those trying to clean things up is problematic. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it also possible to blank an article, as an alternative to nominating it for deletion, in those cases where, for example, inadequate sources are being used to support the main aspects, with some acceptable sources only used to support minor details?  Cs32en Talk to me  21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Blanking a page is almost always something that should be avoided, except in regards to copyright issues, I guess. If a page is so bad or biased that an entirely clean start is needed, a better idea would probably be the cut it down to the bare sourceable essentials. If these aren't available, deletion is probably a smart option. We really do want to avoid entirely blank pages.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was assuming that we do not want to have entirely blank pages on the project. But if I see about 20 articles that have no admissible sources, that can't mean that I would have to look for 20 sources on 20 different topics and write a sentence based on each respective source, can it?  Cs32en Talk to me  23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to some of the articles to which you're referring? I just want to get a better sense of the issue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Calcutta Quran Petition, 23 Years, and "The Force of Reason" illustrate the problem.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what you're talking about is called WP:Stubbing. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that guideline. I think that the possibility of stubbing an article should be mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Afd#Before nominating an article for deletion. This list creates the impression that an editor needs to spend about 2 hours of work before even thinking about nominating something for deletion.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be pointful; it might just give editors the impression that they need to do three hours' work first. Stubbing is often the best (albeit hopefully temporary) solution to wildly biased articles on notable subjects. You don't want to delete an article merely because it needs a lot of work. We'll never get anywhere if only perfect articles are allowed to stay. I think occasionally about a different kind of clean up tag:

An editor is pretty discouraged by the mess on this page. Anybody at all is invited to help clean it up, either by deleting bad stuff or by adding good stuff. At least one editor honestly thinks you'd have a hard time making this article any worse than it is now, so you might as well give it a try.

It's exactly the kind of thing we'll never do, but it would be appropriate for some of these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have just stubbed the article Rutherford Institute. Let's see what happens. (For the changes that I have made to the article, see here.)  Cs32en Talk to me  03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe this would be a good topic to write an essay on. Sebwite (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Delete" examples for "It's in the news"

There should be some contrary "delete" examples for the "It's in the news" section. While Misplaced Pages is not a source of routine news, some events are notable, and it should be pointed out that being in the news alone is not a reason for deletion. Some I have thought of are:

• Delete A news event sourced only by the news.
• Delete There has been no coverage about this event for two years already.

Sebwite (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Just a blog"

Can we include a sentence explaining that a blanket statement that "blogs are not reliable sources" is not a valid argument against the reliability of a reference? There are frequent cases in which reliable sites, with an editorial process in place, publish verified information in a blog format; WP:RSOPINION already explains this difference, and I think a reminder here would be sensible, as this invalid argument is often found at deletion discussions for blogs for which it doesn't apply. Diego (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is actually really important, as more and more authoritative voices publish online, and virtually all of this publishing is now done via blog software like WordPress and MovableType because hand-coding websites is an expensive, time consuming pain from the Net.Dark.Ages of the 1990s. There are a great number of professionally produced blogs, either with editorial staffs, or written by experts as the modern equivalent of monographs and editorials, and they are frequently more reliable than any other sources for being the most current, for having exclusive interviews with leading industry players, or many other things. Some random jagoff's blog is not notable, not because it's a blog but because it's just some random jagoff with no credentials as a reliable source; the medium is totally irrelevant. This "blogs aren't notable, aren't reliable sources, and can't be valid external links" nonsense is a blatant case of blaming a tool instead of its least competent wielders, condemning a technology because some people use it trivially or improperly, and as such it's blatantly logically fallacious. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Usernames

Just a fun question. Who came up with the usernames in this essay? Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Generally the person who contributed the corresponding entry. Reyk _YO! 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why is this not making an impact to lower-level Wikipedians? Why are some people still making these arguments? Why are some people not reading or caring about this? Why? WWEWizard (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

good question. I have seen some very lazy !keep voting even when I point out to these editors about this page. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing as a contemptible low-level Misplaced Pages, I shall answer your question. The page appears to list every conceivable reason for keeping, or deleting, an article, and dismisses them all as invalid. If I had found another page giving, for contrast, some examples of what are accepted as valid arguments, I might be able to learn something by comparing the two. As it is, I consider the page useless. Maproom (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Misplaced Pages article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Misplaced Pages, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Misplaced Pages can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

given that people like you like to refute many nominations, there are sufficient people who patrol AfDs and point out inadequate nominations. articles even if deleted can be contetested in deletion review that's a further process. no further checks and balances are necessary. I think there needs to be a way to stamp out longwinded copy and pastes in AfDs as keep !votes. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your perspective and input regarding the matter of improving checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Users interested in this discussion should comment on it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process, where it is receiving more attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please refer to: Misplaced Pages talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Article size

I found the Article size heading inside this page and it was only saying "keep because the article is large enough" or "delete because it is too small". It never said the opposite, which I believe is important for there to be some info on when it comes to huge articles. Georgia guy (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But no one wants to delete big, over-developed articles, so it wouldn't be relevant here. They get in split debates, on their own talk page, generally per the processes outlined at WP:SUMMARY. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like the way it's titled"

I'm surprised that there's no "I don't like the way it's titled" section here. Check out:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yes, this is prime candidate for non-admin closing. Discussion about article titles belong in the discussion pages of articles, and are not valid reasons for deletion. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of early modern history

Timeline of early modern history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In what way would the year 1500 be modern?? It barely postdates the time of Christopher Columbus, the oldest important event in U.S. history. How is this article title sensible?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. What does "U.S. history" have to do with it? Have you read the article Early modern history, Georgia guy? Deor (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a very Euro-centric term. One of the main properties of history before 1492 is that the United States is ignored. Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

    A regrettable oversight. Should we request an article Pre-Columbian history of the United States? :)  --Lambiam 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• strong, strong keep "early modern" is the standard term among academics in every field in the social sciences and humanities for the years between 1500 and 18xx, as a simple google books search shows. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this a more logical title than Timeline of history 1500-1900?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

comment good luck with your project. don't forget to change these too. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Nominator has failed to specify a valid reason for deletion. "I do not understand the article title" is not one of them.  --Lambiam 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  I understand the article's title as meaning that 1500 is the beginning of modern history. Is this logical?? What's modern about 1500?? It's 511 years in the past! Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  That happens to be the commonly accepted meaning of the term "modern history", whether you like it or not. "I don't think it is logical" is not a ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. There is no argument for deletion here. What Georgia guy is proposing is a rename, not a delete, and lack of basic historical comprehension on the part of the nominator is not grounds for one nor for the other. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly the term "early modern history" is an Era that covers a range of periods just as "classical history" or "ancient history" also cover different periods. No point deleting this over nominees apparent confusion 511 years is modern compared to history termed "BC". Ma®©usBritish  01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• comment silly, silly people... it was before last thursday so it can't be modern! — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - a waste of everybody's time. This is the term used by historians, even those in Georgia, to describe this period. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only do I agree with the post by Agricolae, but this Keep consensus is 100% unanimous, and although I have never ever done it until now, this is clearly an appropriate instance for Non-Admin Closure. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Upon review, what I meant to say was that if no objections are presented by tomorrow, 7 days after the discussion opened, it will then be grounds for Non-Admin Closure (which requires 7 days worth of debate in addition to a clear Keep decision). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2011 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Georgia guy (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is largely because we have Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves and Misplaced Pages:Article titles that deal with titles of articles. Mkdw 01:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

False dilemma

"Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages."

So an argument is only allowed if it guarantees that the subject matter should (not) be included? --91.10.43.88 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it just means that Ghits are often unreliable and don't make the best rationale for deletion or keeping; Google is best used for finding and citing sources. Much like Misplaced Pages is forbidden as cited source by most college professors because it's unreliable, but many outright recommended it for the ==References== sections pointing students to what they should cite and base their papers on. Both Google and Misplaced Pages are interesting tools, with limitations. Anyway, for more on how to use and not use search engines here, see WP:GOOGLE. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 13:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition: "Too hard/messy to fix"

I've been meaning to add this one for years, but just never got around to it. Maybe someone can massage the text a bit. This bogus argument type is very, very common in the non-AFD discussions, especially templates, categories and moves.

Too hard to fix or too messy to clean up after Shortcuts

• WP:TOOHARD
• WP:TOOMESSY

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

• Speedy keep: This template is used in 800 articles! – ChangeIsBad, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Who's going to clean up the categorization of every article on Widgets if we delete this category? – CategoryChangeIsWorse, 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: We shouldn't rename this article, because every single other article about Widgets will have to be updated to deal with the change. – MovingIsPainful, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Unless the nominator is going to clean up the mess, this should not be deleted, even if it is obsolete and CoolTemplateCoder's alternative is better. – NotInMyBackProject, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: We've being doing things this way for 7 years here at WP:WHATEVER; it'll be too hard to get people to do things differently, even though the proposed streamlined process might make sense. – InertiaIsMyFriend, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This sort of argument is very common at WP:TFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD and WP:RM, as well as in merge and split discussions. It is fallacious firstly because Misplaced Pages and its constituent resources are not fixed in time, and are easily malleable. AWB, bots and other tools can often make short work of seemingly monumental tasks, while moving (renaming) an article automatically creates a redirect from the old name to the new one, thus breaking no links and giving plenty of time for "gnome" editors and their tools to polish off the redirects at their leisure. That work will be involved has nothing to do with the actual merits of the deletion (or move or merge, etc.) discussion. The idea that the nominator should have to clean up after the "mess" created by deleting something useless (or worse) is essentially a form of ad hominem argument (an implication that the nominator is maliciously or negligently trying to create work for others). Every improvement to the encyclopedia takes work, generally on the part of many people and their tools, and not having an instant army of volunteers to fix a problem that has been identified does not mean that the problem is not real and should not be dealt with.

This one has bugged me to no end for a long time. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition: censorship or "they don't like it"

We have an "I like it"/"I don't like it" section, but I wonder if we might benefit from adding a "they don't like it" section - I'm sure I could count a number of AfDs where keep voters have argued that the article needs to stay because Muslims don't want anyone to know about X or Israelis don't want anyone to know about why and we'd be censoring otherwise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you actually suggesting that Misplaced Pages should not favor the free flow of ideas that others are trying to censor? Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Roscelese is talking about people playing the "censorship" card to distract from the real issues. Sort of like, "Keep- they're only saying this copy and paste job from my blog is WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation because the evil they don't want the truth to get out!" Reyk _YO! 04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Essentially, that WP:NOTCENSORED does not supersede our normal notability etc. guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition for clarification regarding a person "inheriting notability" from notability of their work, and regarding the meaning of “co-creating”

We have this wording –

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.”

This appears to some to contradict WP:NOTINHERITED. I repeatedly see arguments to delete in AFD’s where a person who co-creates a notable artistic work that “that has been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, but who has not themselves as a person “been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, citing WP:NOTINHERITED to delete an article on that person. There is also often a deletion argument based on a work of art being so bad as to not be considered a creation at all by some editors. For example, a camera operator in a recognized work of cinematic art such as Vadim Yusov is clearly a co-creator, but a camera operator for a reality tv show such as Jesse Fleiss (a hack camera operator compared to Yusov) who has to make spontaneous decision at the critical times of real improvisation, in order to increase ratings, is not, because their product is essentially garbage, yet recieves more significnt coverage as a work product that that of the great artist cinematographer.

Both issues have arisen once again in the AFD for Jesse Fleiss. There is an argument that reality television is so bad that a camera operator is not a co-creator, as he would be in a work of cinematic art, even though the reality tv show would be compeletely different with a different camera operator reacting to sponteneous real world events in a different way. Such camera operators direct themselves to the sponteneity of the reality part of the show, and need not even be a good camera operator to have a hit creation. It was argued at the AFD that such camera operators are no more co-creators of cinema than a printer is a co-creator of a novel. It is difficult to argue that a reality tv camera operator, who is essentially a hack, is a "co-creator", since their skills may be so poor and the creation so artistically worthless, but WP is an encycopedia and not an art review journal, so a camera operator for notable bad art inherits the notability of the work just as much as if the work was good art.

I therefore propose that following be added both to WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTINHERITED, so that the incessant arguments for deletion stop once and for all by having clear language.

• “Notability for a person who co-creates a work or body of work can be inherited from the notability of their work product.”
• ”A person is a co-creator of a work if the work would be significantly different in visual, aural, or conceptual content without that person’s particular contributions at the time of creation. These are sufficient but not necessary criteria for being a co-creator.”

Since one is a guideline and one is an essay, I am proposing clarification both at WP:NOTINHERITED and at WP:CREATIVE, which are different contexts for the above two proposed additoins to occur in. PPdd (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Commenting after each "Keep" vote?

So I did this in the deletion discussion because I thought that it would be a great way to converse with other users that have put their vote. However, at least one user thought that I was being negative and disagreeing when I did this. When I wasn't happy with how the discussion went (mainly because nobody replied to my comments but just kept on saying "Keep") I tried to discuss this with the non-admin that closed it but I got a harsh reply from many of the users that were involved in the discussion (they followed me there) and they thought that I was going against the consensus. So does commenting after each vote count as disagree/counter to the Keep votes? Bleubeatle (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think many people will understand this without citing the AfD in question, which was at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki. I don't understand the point Bleubeatle is trying to make here, nor how this will improve the Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, so I will let the record speak for itself. CT Cooper · talk 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it either honestly. There were a consensus. And when that consensus wasn't in the user's favour..well. I thought some agreement had been made between CT Cooper and Bleubeatle to let this go.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Um CT Cooper and BabbaQ, this is called the "Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" for a reason. I am aloud to ask questions here if I have any doubts that I did not understand with procedures. Its not an "improve" or "suggestions" page, alright? I want to understand how this works so that I don't mess things up in the future. You guys seriously need to let the whole thing drop. I am not contesting against consensus anymore nor am I trying to re-instate the discussion open again. Now any replies from you both I will ignore. Please let me be in peace and let me learn this myself, from other users, not from you two. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken - scroll to the top of this talk page and read the first line: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page." Anything without such intent is off-topic, which appears to include this thread. CT Cooper · talk 12:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And with that, case closed :-)BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As a disinterested participant reviewing the discussion after the fact, I have a couple of observations.

1. This question is about how discussions are generally structured and what some our protocols and conventions are. Nothing directly affects the "non-arguments" itemized in this essay. So technically the question doesn't belong here. That said, Bleubeatle is asking for help understanding the process (not merely challenging the outcome) and we should offer help wherever possible. In the interest of keeping this page clean, though, please pose any followup questions on my Talk page and we can move the rest of the conversation there.
2. Part-way through the discussion, Wesley Mouse re-factored the discussion threads to segregate the comments from the "votes". He/she should not have done that. They are discussions, not votes. Consensus is evaluated at the end of the debate by reading all the comments in context and weighing both the weight of opinion and their connection to established policy and precedent. The re-factoring makes that significantly harder. I would ask everyone to please help discourage that practice. Refactoring a deletion discussion should be limited to standardization of indentation, attribution of comments and, in extreme cases only, redaction of personal attacks.
3. The process was closed prematurely (sometimes allowed) and was closed by a non-administrator (also sometimes allowed). However, those two are not allowed together. Non-admins may only prematurely close an XfD debate if it meets one the five narrow criteria at Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep. I am not suggesting that this particular debate be reopened but as a matter of education for future debates, the closure was not in accordance with Misplaced Pages processes.
4. Getting to Bleubeatle's original question (finally), yes, participants are encouraged to discuss with each other the fate of the article, the strength of respective arguments and the applicability of various policies. XfDs are explicitly discussions, not votes.
   That said, we must also be respectful of the time and effort put in by other readers. Challenging every comment with the same rebuttal is a waste of everyone's time. (Didn't happen here but it's a common abuse.) Make your case and present your evidence once - and trust that the other participants will read what you wrote. Subsequent comments should address new points, present new evidence or clarify prior comments, not regurgitate things already on the page.
5. Civility is an essential part of the Misplaced Pages decision-making process. I find a number of breaches of civility (on all sides) in this discussion and its aftermath. Please remember the civility mandate.

I hope some of that helps. Ping me directly with any follow-up questions. Rossami (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rossami. Thank you very much for answering my question and also explaining how the discussions should work. All I really wanted were some answers and to learn more about these procedures so that such conflicts and misunderstandings can be avoided in the future since there wasn't really any discussion going on in the XfD mentioned. And don't mind what these two users have brought into this discussion, although I appreciate their effort to give out the link of the discussion I really have no intentions of introducing any conflict in this page. They think that I am still "going against the consensus" by asking questions regarding the discussion and attempting to canvas to over turn it. So now they've been following all my contributions ever since even though I already stated that they are not my intent. Hopefully other users that are following me around will read and learn from what you've written as well. Cheers Bleubeatle (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record Bleubeatle, that was not my thoughts at all. As you can see above, I noted that you started this discussion and noted it was not in the correct place, so I pointed that to you, and realized that any uninvolved users would need to see the AfD in question to follow, so I provided a link - that's all. I have never personally accused you of canvassing or "going against the consensus" in this thread, in fact I personally have no such comments at all, so please don't attribute such statements to me. Also, I would like to re-emphasize the suggestion by Rossami to move this thread to User talk:Rossami, which is a good idea. CT Cooper · talk 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

CT Cooper, you and BabbaQ need to let it go now. I already did. If you had no intentions of such things then both of you should've never followed me here. Enough is enough.Bleubeatle (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then don't make incorrect assertions on what other editors think or say. I don't think asking users not to comment in threads in which they are discussed is reasonable, so I must decline, if that is what is being requested. CT Cooper · talk 13:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, CT Cooper. Alright I won't go into anymore detail because you both know very well the reasons why and how got to this page. Just let it go now. Thanks. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. You don't seem to be answering my points at all. CT Cooper · talk 10:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks to Bleubeatle for never notifying me that a discussion about myself was taking place here. It would have been courteous to have been notified that a user was (in their own words) "talk behind my back". Thankfully I stumbled across this thread via another user. In reply to one of Rossami (talk · contribs)'s comments above, firstly, my name "Wesley" (which is a male name) should be a clue that I am not a "she", and I do feel a little disheartened that someone mistook me as a she. Also the fact that my edit summary of "sectioning the comments, so that they don't get mixed up with the consensus voting" should have been evident as to why I segregated the comments in the AfD. And like you pointed out, "they are discussions, not votes" - so I thought it was reasonable to separate them from the votes, so that people wouldn't get confused. So I apologise if doing a helpful gesture is not appreciated, and think it is very harsh to reprimand someone for doing what I thought was an act of good faith. Wesley☀Mouse 14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wesley Mouse. Please avoid making quick judgements. The reason why you were not notified in the first place was because my question was about my experiences with the deletion discussions and in order to avoid getting anyone from AfD discussion involved I decided not to post any links. You should thank CT Cooper & BabbaQ for following me here and posting the link. If they had not done so then you would have never been mentioned on this discussion in the first place. Have a good day.Bleubeatle (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your question mentioned Wesley and the rest of us in the opening post ("I tried to discuss this with the non-admin that closed it but I got a harsh reply from many of the users that were involved in the discussion (they followed me there) and they thought that I was going against the consensus"), and even if it wasn't in name, he and the rest of us were involved and had the right to comment, particularly in regards to the factual accuracy of what was being said. I can no relevance to the fact I provided a link - I'm sure Rossami could have found the AfD him/herself, or may have asked to see it, to allow a meaningful answer to be given. If you didn't want this to be a discussion about an individual AFD, it would have been better to ask the question straight-up - "So does commenting after each vote count as disagree/counter to the Keep votes?". CT Cooper · talk 10:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"If you didn't want this to be a discussion about an individual AFD, it would have been better to ask the question straight-up"-Actually, you may want to read what I first posted in this page again. I made no initial mention of any usernames involved in the discussion. My question was "straight-up" about my experiences with the deleted discussion and I only expected an answer from this without the assistance of the link to the AfD that would get other users involved into this page. It would've been best if both of you didn't intervene(trying to disencourage me from asking and getting answers) in this page and posted the links to the AfD. Now please stop following me around Misplaced Pages. That has been making me feel frustrated and stressed since you both followed me in this page. I will no longer respond to anymore posts from the two(and now three) of you here.Bleubeatle (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bleubeatle this essay happens to be on my watchlist because I take an interest in what changes are to made to it, so I did not actually "follow" you here - perhaps you should take your own advice and avoid making quick judgements. In any case, the facts are that you mentioned other users, and made questionable statements about their actions, and as a result we became involved - not mentioning their names isn't an excuse. I'm sorry to hear that you are "frustrated" and "stressed", but your earlier comments at WT:EURO including "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" may come back to haunt you here. You are free to respond as you wish, but really in a discussion users should be focusing on what is said, rather than who says it. CT Cooper · talk 13:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just the fact that this discussion is still going on, days after the user said he would "move on" and "dont care" is quite telling. Can you please drop it and move on now Bleubeatle. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What is disencourage Bleubeatle is that you claim not to get any answers to your question when infact you getanswers on every question but you then continue to ask them over and over again. You dont seem at all interested in the answers to the questions you are asking if they are not in your favour so why ask them for the 10th time? And by that I mean any questions concerning Ell & Nikki.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:SOURCESEARCH paradox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why on earth do we have an AFD layout which prompts users to search for sources on the subject at the top of each debate page, yet discourages them from using the volume or content of said sources as a point of argument? Surely one of these needs to go or clearer distinctions need to be made? SplashScreen (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see no conflict. The AfD header at the top of the deletion debate makes it easier to find reliable sources. The WP:SOURCESEARCH part of the essay merely says that the number of sources is irrelevant. One high-quality, reliable source can be enough to defend an article. On the other hand, a thousand trivial, duplicative or unreliable sources have no value at all.
  Personally, I don't like the SOURCESEARCH shortcut. It creates ambiguity. The section name (and the other shortcut) make it more clear that the error is in inferring anything solely from the hit count. Rossami (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Right off the bat, a problem with the source search is a lot of them will be unreliable. Even if we could create a custom search engine that would only search sources that we've vetted as reliable (that is, with standards for peer review, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), we'd still deal with false positives: sources that appear to cover the topic, but might cover a synonym, or might only have a WP:TRIVIALMENTION that prevents us from writing anything significant about it (without delving into original research and unverified claims). I agree it's a little misleading, but the alternative of providing no guidance about how to find sources was something that was confusing newbies even more. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• The proper way to fix it would be to use search links that hide the search results count; unfortunately, Google doesn't provide this option, so we have no choice then to explain the difference between "searching for reliable sources on topic" and "looking up the hits count" to everyone, who doesn't possess RTFM skills. Sad but true... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The listing of lots of sources is not an argument to avoid. In fact, editors commonly ask for this to be done and, when it is done well, it is usually decisive. Of course, some sources are better than others but that's just a matter of competence and detail, not a fundamental objection to the listing of such evidence. Warden (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is dramatically bad habit: if reliable sources are numerous in the results, the better argument would be to list them; otherwise the even the millions of unusable sources don't help with establishing notability. Effectively such pattern exhibits the bad faith of editor, who is trying to hide the lack of sources behind splogs, press releases, trivial mentions, unrelated pages on alternative meanings of term, twitter/facebook/other social pest and other otherwise unusable pages. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The shortcut WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and the examples do not clearly make that point. The point is better made in WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:UNRELIABLE. We don't need this too as it's unclear and redundant. See WP:CREEP. Warden (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • These arguments are different, as in one case the bare amount of search result serves notability, while in another case the voter assumes that it is nominators' responsibility to demonstrate the lack of sources. Regarding asserted instructions creep: the whole essay deals with the obviously flowed arguments, that come up because of editors' unwillingness to think before hitting "save", so any level of redundancy is OK; the issue of clarity should be addressed with editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• There is no paradox. Encouraging someone to look for reliable sources and assess whether they rise to the level to satisfy WP:GNG by providing a tool to start the search in no way encourages people to use a simple count of results in an argument. I don't think the wording is at all confusing. If SOURCESEARCH said "You should avoid making arguments based upon nontrivial coverage in reliable sources" then there would be a problem. But it doesn't say that, or anything like that. Based on Colonel Warden's history of providing totally worthless sources as if they somehow justified a Keep vote, I'm not surprised he wants that section removed. We shouldn't some editors' wikilawyering and/or inability to understand basic concepts about notability on Misplaced Pages get in the way of a section that is very basic and undeniable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Editors are re-using the link to possible sources as a magic bullet in discussions, it's extremely lazy and should be discouraged, which is why the section exists. The link to it in templates is provided for convenience, not a solution. It's a completely different argument to G HITS, - it exists, Sourcesearch - it's in reliable sources, must be notable! WP:CREEP doesn't apply here, as a common problem has been clearly demonstrated.--Otterathome (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEMOLISH

Look at some of the listings here:

• Keep I need more time to work on it – Not Finished Yet, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep I am on vacation now, and I won't be able to work on it until I get back home – In Tahiti, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep. Article was only created yesterday, I'm still working on it! – Think of the New Articles, 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing these as arguments to avoid seems to be advocating demolishing the house while it's still being built. OK, so maybe the intention is to point out that an article being under construction doesn't in itself constitute a reason to keep it. But the entries make no reference to the reasons that somebody might have nominated the article for deletion in the first place. As such, they read to the effect that the principle I've cited is never a valid counter-argument to an AfD nomination.

How best can we clarify the intention here? — Smjg (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a) a time limit should be stated, though I detest them, and b) deletion is inferior to moving to AfC or userfication in such cases. Under the new hidden-in-shrink-wrap policy, the first editor to claim it's under construction is considered to have volunteered to take it under their username. Hee. --Lexein (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The length of an AfD is 7 days before a decision if no speedy delete. This should be more than enough time to make changes to the article. If the volunteering editor cannot make the changes in that time frame then the article can be re-created at a later date. Furthermore, we already have policies and essays about Misplaced Pages is never complete and always a work in progress. The purpose of the AfD is not to judge an article in regards to its state, but whether the subject is notable and verified for inclusion to this encyclopedia as stated in its policies. Mkdw 08:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because the person who created the article does not have the time to fix the article that would not prevent someone else from either fixing it themselves or finding reliable sources to show that the topic is notable and presenting them at the AFD. The absence of the article creator should have little to no baring on whether or not reliable sources can be found.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Book and film inheritance

It says:

"(three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)"

The books and film guideline have nothing to say on inheritance. Or at least, the word "inherit" does not appear in those guidelines. Suggest this sentence be amended to music only. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In books, there is:

"5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable."

In films:

"2. The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."

Though you're right that inheritance is not stated, it's implied as applicable in a very limited sense. Should these be reworded? --Lexein (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability is inherited, or, "Notability is inherited"?

I had the notion to enquote that phrase, to emphasize that it is the phrase itself that is to be avoided. The other subsection headings are not declaratives, this one is, and so, seems problematic. But quoting breaks links to that subsection. Possible solution 1: enquote and add an unquoted {{anchor}} tag there, so nothing is really broken. Possible solution 2: rename the subsection. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Authors inheriting notability from their books

WP:CREATIVE says if a book is notable, the author is presumed notable. One may or may not call this inherited notability, but I see many arguments on Afd discussions that even if a book is notable, its author is not always so. I agree this is actually not a question of inheritability (that would be from author to book), nevertheless the argument is phrased as: "there is no inheritability from book to author and so proving a book notable is not sufficient to make author notable." I think WP:CREATIVE says otherwise, and we need to clarify that somehow here. As an example, see the comment here: " Even if his books were notable, that doesn't make him notable." We need to clarify here that "if his books are notable" then "he is notable" since this is not an "inheritability" issue. Churn and change (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

First, even taking the simplistic view that "if a book is notable, so is its author", that's not "inherited notability" in the framework of WP. The fact that the author has a notable book is a point in favor of presuming the author is notable, but that can always be challenged by others. An article on an author that has a notable book, where the only thing that can be said about the author is that they wrote that book, does not make for a notable author, and that article would likely be deleted or merged. Particularly in light of WP:BLP1E, if the author only has the book as their claim to fame, its usually better to talk about the author on the page about the book. So no, CREATIVE doesn't break the idea that there's no inherited notability on WP.

But second, CREATIVE does not say what you think it does. The standards for when the book allows the author to be presumed notable is very specific in #3 and #4, and certainly doesn't mean every "notable" book. The basic minimum for the book is "significant" or "well-known". Your example appears to show that - these are not significant or well-known titles, nor are they notable, so the author is not fundamentally notable through the CREATIVE aspect. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BKCRIT the notability criteria for books would be one of multiple, non-trivial reviews, a major literary award, or a major contribution to a film, art form, religious movement and so on. To me that seems pretty much the same as criterion 3. I am not arguing the specific case I point out is one of notability (I don't think it is); it is the generic argument "proving a book notable doesn't make the author notable" I have an issue with. Under which notability criteria in WP:BKCRIT would one prove a book notable but unable to confer notability on its author? Churn and change (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies to an author who wrote just one book. A book is not an event; people read it, comment on it, and critics critique it on an ongoing basis. Even if an author writes just one book, if that book gets multiple, independent, significant reviews the author is notable per WP:CREATIVE. Churn and change (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

CRIT #3 includes the qualifiers "significant or well-known". Many books get reviews, but not every book can be significant or well-known (In the case of your example, you're talking about textbooks, which due to their limited nature will always fail this qualification). BLP1E does apply to authors and other creatives if they have only one thing they are noted for. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, in a WP article itself, "significant" and "well-known" would be weasel words. Seems to me "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is our definition of significance in the context of that sentence, since any other definition is pretty much subjective. If a textbook has multiple independent in-depth reviews, I have to assume it is "significant"; what other criterion can I use (I am not saying that is the case for that example)? I agree if a textbook doesn't have multiple, independent reviews it may still pass book notability without conferring notability on the author.

Both WP:BLP1E and WP:1E refer just to "events" and all examples talk of news events; they do not refer to cases of "one work of creation." I find it hard to read it as including authors of one book, actors in just one film and so on. Churn and change (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They may be weasel words, but in the context of assessing notability on the back end of WP, they're perfectly fine terms. The only thing that you proven with multiple reviews of a book is that it is presumed notable (read: we have sourcing to write a good encyclopedic article about it) and qualifies for an article, but this says nothing about the significance of the work. (Consider films - every film shown in theaters gets reviews, but would you call all such films "significant"? ) Being used at multiple universities is not showing significance, just notability.

Basically, what should be happening is that when a book is presumed notable, one can determine if the book, in their opinion, is significant or well-known enough to presume notability on the author. If they believe that is the case, they can create the article, but if the only fact in the article is that the author wrote that notable book, someone may easily come along and challenge that. Then, at AFD, the discussion will turn on the fact if, per CREATIVE, the book is "significant or well-known" to qualify the author being notable. Consensus may not agree on that, and the author article will be deleted.

Or to put it another way, if the intent of CREATIVE #3 was to allow the author of any notable book to be presumed notable, it would come out and say that. It specifically doesn't, instead stressing "significant or well-known" as a key factor. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree for books we have a well-defined concept of "notability" and a concept of "significance", the second of which confers notability on author. I think the concept of significance is rather ill-defined, and I would say all the criteria of WP:BKCRIT except for the textbook-at-many-institutions one confers significance (in-depth book reviews are harder to come by than movie reviews). But, yes, thanks for the discussion; learned one new thing about guidelines today. Churn and change (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering specifically about textbooks, which are almost always written by academics, this is where our subjective approach to notability and presumption thereof is important, as we're balancing what is stated at BKCRIT, at CREATIVE, and at PROF. (And might suggest that there perhaps is some disagreement between the three to be fixed, but that's neither here nor there.) Say, for lack of a better example, that an associate college professor (pre-tenure) writes a grade-school level chemistry book that ends up being used in 50% of the schools of a country. Per BKCRIT, this certainly would make the book notable, but likely between CREATIVE and PROF, the author is likely not to be considered notable. But that's a subjective decision that is made either via a talk page discussion or at an AFD. Importantly, and bringing it back around, this shows that there's no inherit notability involved here. The authorship of such a book leads evidence towards notability but there's no magical entitlement for notability. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Churn and change (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted an RfC about this issue at WT:Notability_(people)#RfC_on_Creative_professionals
--LK (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice in regards to OUTCOMES

I don't know if this already may be classified under an exciting ATA, but we should have some statement that reiterating "Topics of type X are kept/deleted per OUTCOMES" as a argument is something to avoid.

This is coming from a current discussion on school notability/inclusion occurring at WT:ORG, and it is pointed out that the statement of OUTCOMES (which no one is denying is true) is one of those that seems to be reiterated in deletion discussions about schools. But because it's describing the generalized outcome of AFDs, using it to try to influence the outcome of an AFD can be a snowball effect (but hopefully closing admins are already discounting this already). --MASEM (t) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I'd suggest examples like these:

• Delete Even though there are good sources, we always delete articles about ____.
• Keep I looked for sources and couldn't find any, but we always keep articles about ____.
• Keep I didn't bother to look for sources, because we always keep articles about ____.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those formulations; that describes the basic problem. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, that's why we have WP:OUTCOMES in the first place. Referring to it should never be an argument to avoid--if OUTCOMES is wrong, it should be updated. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we have OUTCOMES to discourage or encourage starting an AFD where the likelihood of keep/delete is already known, or at least to require the AFD nom to demonstrate without a doubt why deletion should be done even though OUTCOMES is usually on "keep". OUTCOMES are observations, not guideline or policy, and have no weight in an AFD discussion. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Even moreso, OUTCOMES even says to not use that page as an AFD as a core argument (eg the cases Whatiamdoing listed above). --MASEM (t) 02:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Against the addition. No sense wasting time with the same arguments in the same sort of AFDs constantly if you can just cite past outcomes. How about adding something that says:

• Delete because the current guidelines don't say its notable and I don't believe we should be able to keep anything that doesn't meet them.
• Delete because even though 99% of the time these sorts of articles get kept, I still believe people should have to waste time debating it every single time instead of just citing common outcomes.

• That'd be something to avoid saying in a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 02:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Again, even OUTCOMES leads off that you shouldn't be solely citing past outcomes as reason to keep or delete. I'm perfectly fine with OUTCOMES being an enhancing argument to other points. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the addition with WhatamIdoing's examples. As Masem argued, the OUTCOMES page does not recommend using it as an argument as it is neither policy nor a guideline. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I will only support this if the introductory clauses about sourcing (i.e. "There is/isn't any, as far as I can see") are guaranteed to be kept in. I can't support it otherwise pbp 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My intent is captured by the examples exactly - you can't just handwave and say "OUTCOMES, so keep/delete". The goal is not to outright call an OUTCOMES-based !vote as something to avoid, just one that shows no other logic. I fully support the use of OUTCOMES at AFD in, for example, as part of a well-argued point that some likely sources exists (specifically identify these) but may not be the best or can't access immediately, and ergo by OUTCOMES, keeping makes sense. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If someone was to say, "There's no sources, and we usually delete this, so Delete", would that still be a valid argument? pbp 21:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • For me that would be valid. No sources does not meet the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • In considering specifically when OUTCOMES is used as the primary reason, this either means that the !voter is saying "there are no sources but we keep articles like this", or that "there are sources, but we delete articles like this". The argument you present is anti-OUTCOMES in nature: where those that may want to use OUTCOME would say "there are no source but we generally keep articles like this", that's say "there are no sources so we should delete this", an implicit WP:V/WP:N issue (I'm generalizing a whole lot). So that's a valid argument (though I would expect the user to explain to what degree they searched for sources to make it a strong argument). --MASEM (t) 22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• As an example (but not to challenge the result) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang where the keep !votes simply are rehashing OUTCOMES without other statements, specifically against what OUTCOMES suggests doing. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - OUTCOMES describes the de facto consensus of the community and as such it is a perfectly germane argument for or against deletion. Of course it can be trumped by more specific issues of the article but all things being equal, it is a reasonable point. --Cyclopia 12:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • But again, OUTCOMES itself says it is not to be used in this fashion. And a real problem then comes when policy/guidelines are being trumped in favor of blind following of OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Value

I'm wondering about a section that talks about 'adds value' or 'does not add value' arguments that don't go into detail as to how or why. Mkdw 08:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Valuable" and "useful" are very much synonyms in this context; I wouldn't add a whole new section but just add the examples above to WP:USEFUL, where the "you need to say why" argument is already stated. Diego (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility. I had initially considered that except the prose below would separate valuable and useful. Useful as described as providing a service for a reader, as opposed to having something of value that would not provide a service but merely be value or decorative in nature. Mkdw 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and have gone ahead and added the section with some minor grammar corrections I missed in the above proposal. If anyone strongly feels the content is redundant or not a valid addition, please let me know. Mkdw 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Nom

I removed this recent addition as it seemed to encourage vote stacking and non-discussion for merely the purposes of closing an AfD to save time. Mkdw 04:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Red example usernames

I prefer them. For consistency, they should be red throughout the article. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you prefer them red? Have they been red at all in any point other than WP:MUST? Diego (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess the reason is WP:ILIKEIT. But on a less serious note: they actually have been once, but for me it distracts too much from the fallacious arguments themselves, which are the most important. Though to be fair, the black text makes the usernames blend with the text making it less readable… perhaps linking to User:Example (just to make them blue) could help. Keφr 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would we want to draw more attention to these made up usernames? It's the wrong part of the guideline and message we're pulling focus to when readers should be more focused on the actual core contents of the guidelines. Mkdw 20:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps I did not emphasise this enough. I just suggested that they be made slightly visually distinct, to make the examples more readable. Keφr 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the usernames are even useful? Does:

• Delete per nom. UselessUserName 22:00, 27 December 2012 (TUC)

Get the point across better than

• Delete per nom

When pointing out 'arguments to avoid'? Having the signature makes it look like the XfD list BUT the purpose of this guideline is not formatting and usernames -- having the usernames does make each example longer than they need to and in some cases the username and date stamp is even longer than the example itself. Short precise examples are always best to let it sink in. Mkdw 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured article

• Keep Is a featured article

I have never actually seen this brought up in any discussion before. But in theory, any article can be put up for deletion, even a featured article. So does such an argument belong anywhere on this page? Sebwite (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

{{SPA}} tagging

Should {{SPA}} tagging be added as something to avoid in deletion discussions? I frequently happen upon users tagging comments simply because they don't agree with the arguments made in that comment. It amounts to a nil-argument, poisoning the well against what may be a completely valid argument, and it serves zero positive purpose in any of the cases I've seen of the tag being used in deletion discussions. (Good humor virtually demands that someone tag this comment as SPA though...) --87.78.0.235 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

SPA tagging is valid when it is used as intended - to mark accounts that have very few edits and thus a sign of someone only there to comment on the AFD. SPA tagging can be abused - tagging accounts that are clearly not SPAs - but that's remedied by dispute resolution, but it is certainly not an argument to avoid. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

to mark accounts that have very few edits and thus a sign of someone only there to comment on the AFD -- Meaning a registered account created mostly or solely for the purpose of participating in that discussion. Ok, I can agree with that, although I have positively never actually come across such a use. If in doubt, simply refactoring may be preferable. Also, any user and especially the closing admin know how to find a user's contrib history. And lastly, if the arguments made from such an account are in and of themselves valid, what's the problem with those comments? Sockpuppetry is not a valid argument here, since if someone suspects sockpuppetry, they should just come out and say so, or shut up.

Also, what's the possible use of ever tagging a comment posted via a dynamic IP address? --87.78.0.235 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one doesn't have to mark an SPA as an SPA. The only times I've seen active marking of SPAs at an AFD is when there is clearly something external to the discussion drawing in such editors. And this is not meant to invalid a SPA's !vote that actually has merit to it. Basically, the use of the SPA tag is to help the closing admin out, recognizing which accounts are just there to try to swing the !vote by adding to numbers; yes, admins should be competent enough to figure this out themselves and discount the ones that are just meritless "keep" !votes, but this should help. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"possible use of ever tagging a comment posted via a dynamic IP address" It might be used to draw attention to similar edits by different IPs. E.g. this by 213.196.218.39 and this by 87.78.0.235 . Barsoomian (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Where would you even apply the tag for that, funny guy? --78.35.241.177 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet another nice shiny IP. Those of us who sign in use watchlists, so your tagging my page is unnecessary, and unwelcome. Barsoomian (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Tagging your page"? You mean my innocuous and polite notification with {{Talkback}}? Also, please drop the innuendo regarding my dynamic IP address. I have already explained that my IP address changes without my control. I'm simply on a server-side DHCP connection. More importantly, I'm not trying to create the impression that I'm more than one person, as you're clearly implying. If veiled accusations are your best "argument", why did you bother to comment in the first place? --78.35.241.177 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

History of TMBS

The following links show that "There must be sources" (TMBS) was posted on WP:ATA on April 22, 2011 and removed on May 1, 2011, following discussion in which the consensus was that TMBS was not compliant with policy/guidelines.  The links next show that Reyk approached JamesBWatson on May 2, 2011 with the purpose of creating an essay fork of the noncompliant material.  Reyk made the statement, "certain editors seem hell bent on excluding this from WP:ATA".

More than a year passed to 2012-12-07, when JamesBWatson again tried to add the exact identical material, claiming, "Restoring section removed largely at the insistence of one editor, when consensus was clearly against the removal."  This post was completely rewritten on Christmas Day, initially stating, "Remove MUST section that misrepresents policy and didn't have consensus)"

• Misplaced Pages talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 6#Presumption_of_sources
• 2011-04-22
• 2011-05-01
• 2011-05-02 User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 27#There must be sources! section
• 2012-12-07
• 2012-12-25

April 2013

• "he consensus was that TMBS was not compliant with policy/guidelines."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• If you feel that WP:MUSTBESOURCES is so unacceptable that it should not be linked to from anywhere, take it to MfD. Failing that it is very difficult to see how a section of WP:ATA titled "But there must be sources", containing a non-negligible amount of the same content, should not link to an essay elaborating on that. Your unending obsession with censoring this essay has been correctly identified as edit warring, the first time when you frivolously and vexatiously took me to 3RR, the second time when you went fishing for a more favourable second opinion, which I only now realize was the tail end of a nagging campaign lasting almost three months. I've repeatedly asked you to stop trying to troll me on this issue and others. If you have a problem with WP:MUSTBESOURCES, take it to MfD. If you have a problem with me, and clearly you do because you've been following my edits and sniping at me for two years now, ANI is thataway. Or you could do the sensible and decent thing and just let it go. Reyk _YO! 06:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note that the edit summary for the previous comment was, "(April 2013: - I think you're just trying to pick fights.)"  Unscintillating (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Correction, as there was an intervening typo correction, the diff for the edit summary cited is .  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think people can read edit summaries for themselves. People aren't as stupid as you treat them. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, one can discuss any link on the policy talk page without needing there to be an MfD discussion. There is not a black-and-white divide between "essays that are linked from policy pages" and "essays that do not exist." Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, this is not a policy page, it's another essay. As I've said, it's hard to see why a section of ATA titled "There must be sources" should not link to an essay that goes into further depth on that topic. The two share a significant bit of common content, which refutes the idea that it was "removed"; much of it is still there. Anyway, I put the link back where it was and I think that settles the matter. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's working on it

I removed the following bad examples:

• Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This is not the first, not the second, but the tenth time I put this up for deletion, all because the problems were not solved. Each time, User:WantItKept promised they would improve it after the discussion was closed. But that never happened. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his promise. Last straw was long ago, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They are in direct contradiction of policy, specifically WP:BURDEN which states that the burden of proof is on those who want the material included. If the editor challenging the material has tried and failed to fix it, and the defenders of the material have not made the promised improvements, then this can be taken as evidence that the article's problems cannot be fixed. It's not a poor argument to point this out. Reyk _YO! 04:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, surmountable problems are not reasons for deleting the whole article. The arguments above are direct contradictions of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. If the article contains a lot of unsourced content, the correct action is either stubbing (removing unverifiable content per WP:BURDEN but keeping the sourced content, merging or blanking and redirecting, not to delete the article with all its history. Diego (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point, and your objections apply to deletion generally and not this situation specifically. We're talking about whether vague promises to bring the article up to an acceptable standard, in the absence of any evidence that's even possible, is reason to dodge our content policies indefinitely. The answer to that question is quite obviously "no", and saying so in an AfD is to be encouraged rather than avoided. Reyk _YO! 06:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the point. You said failing for some time to follow on promises to improve is a reason to delete the article, but it's not; it's a reason to blank and remove everything that is not compliant with policy, never to perform a full deletion. Even if people promised to work on the article and failed, nobody's working on it still is not a reason to delete because there is no deadline.

Either there is some expectation that the article can improve, or it's not. In the first case, it doesn't disappear because nobody took the effort yet. In the second, the article shouldn't be kept only because promises are made to improve it. In any case, centering the discussion on whether someone promised to improve the article is not a good idea. Diego (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the only way to tell whether the first case or the second case applies is to try to fix the problems. Ideally the argument should be phrased something like this: "Last AfD I argued that the article should be deleted because of reasons X, Y, Z. Others argued that those could be fixed, which I was skeptical of. Now some time has passed and the problems have still not been addressed. I think this is evidence that I was right to say the problems could not be fixed." Reyk _YO! 08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the only policy-based way that matters is for the nominator to try to fix the problems and fail; that's what WP:BEFORE is about. "No one else has fixed it and it's obviously deficient" is not the same as "I gave it my best effort, and was simply not able to fix it." The only one actually entitled to nominate something is not the critic who says "it lacks!" but the content creator who says "I tried, but couldn't." Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The nominator trying and failing would be one of "reasons X, Y, Z." And I see you're still trying to plug the discredited WP:BEFORE as though it's mandatory. It's not, we've been over this. Reyk _YO! 08:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with the argument: time is not a factor that should be usually utilized at deletion discussions, and individual effort is definitely not a requirement. Your case is mainly evidence that nobody took the effort after the AfD was closed, not that it can't be done. The discussion should center around the ways to improve the article, not how much time it would take to do it; wikis need time to grow. If there's no evidence at all the article can be saved, then the offending content can be deleted right now - no need to wait. But if some valid reasons are given as for why the imperfect article can be improved, time will not diminish their validity.

At most, passing time could be a reason to reopen the debate and see if consensus have changed, but shouldn't be used as a factor at the discussion itself. Our policies use time limits to control the discussion process, not the outcomes; particular time limits are always rejected as a criterion for deciding content, and there's a good reason to it. Diego (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record: WP:BEFORE is most certainly mandatory: it's explicit in the wording: Prior to nominating articles(s) for deletion, please be sure to:... I completely agree with Diego Moya on the rest. --Cyclopia 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

BEFORE has never been mandatory. Strongly recommended, yes, and you will be trouted or worse if you nominate something that a simple BEFORE check would have caught. But there are elements of BEFORE that may have various levels of reasonable expectations that make it impossible to make BEFORE a required step. (Eg for source checking, an editor nominating an article for a topic may not find many sources to support it, but an editor well-versed in the topic knows exactly how to pare down the search to show the existence of many articles; it would be improper to tell the nominating editor that they didn't do a proper search for sources before nominating). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

BEFORE doesn't ask you to be an expert or to do an unrealistic amount of search for sources: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." - That's it. All other requirements are also pretty basic. For the rest, practically everything on WP is mandatory at the level of "strongly recommended", apart perhaps BLP and copyvio stuff, which are seriously mandatory. If failing to follow a guideline results in "trouting or worse", I'd say the community considers it pretty much "mandatory". --Cyclopia 21:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen nominators put at task for not looking at page 20 of a Google search to find the proper hit, or adding a search modifier to their google search that "clearly" shows sources. Or even those that do a reasonably throughout search are derided for "ignoring" "obvious" sources that that nominator likely did see but considered unusable within the article (unreliable sources, or the like). What consists of a "Google search" is highly contested and too vague to enforce - hence why BEFORE isn't mandatory implying penalties for not following it to the letter. On the other hand, gross violations of BEFORE will earn that trout or worse. For example, if you nominate an article where anyone else could google search the article title and find a page full of viable hits on the first page, that's a trout right there; repeating this over and over in subsequent noms will likely lead to RFC/U or AN resolution on behavior. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the phrase we're dancing around is "best practice"--and anyone who's been around at AfD long enough to be a recognizable participant should understand that following it reasonably and describing how a search has been done makes an AfD nom that much less contentious and likely to demonstrate to everyone's (well, except they hyper-inclusionists') satisfaction that due diligence has been done and there's really no point in arguing about the deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The status of WP:BEFORE was discussed here, where the overwhelming consensus was that it is not mandatory. Reyk _YO! 22:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Point taken (even if discussion is quite old). But the consensus is also that it is not to be considered mandatory inasmuch it is not something you can enforce and thus punish people on-sight for it, nor it does automatically invalidates the deletion procedure. Yet it is also very much strongly recommended by almost all editors there. It's the best practice, and as such it should be followed unless there are very strong reasons not to. It is not something you can regularly ignore. --Cyclopia 11:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody's working on it" is also a bad example of a bad argument because of BLP. In fact it's a general problem with the way Misplaced Pages policies are phrased. They usually say something that amounts to "eventualism is good. But you can ignore that when removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material from a BLP." The problem is that BLPs can be bad in more ways than just that they contain unsourced contentious material. We end up supporting eventualism for other types of bad BLPs, which is a bad idea. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Example farm

It looks like this page has become a random farm of ridiculous arguments. Clearly, millions of idiots can put millions of stupid arguments, and there is not reason to list them here. A similar situation has been with the page WP:NOT. There are zillions of ways to screw up something, but only a handful of ways to do it right.

IMO this page must document only cases which present difficulty for common sense and repeated mistakes/laziness, from history of AfDs.

Therefore I suggest to restrict this list only to arguments which the contributor may demonstrate have been used at least half-dozen times. 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Searching for a half dozen examples of something is not easy. You are really looking for a needle in a haystack. There have already been hundreds of thousands of AfDs that have taken place in the history of Misplaced Pages (no exact number known, but there are typically around 100 new AfDs formed every day, give or take; multiply that by 365 to get in the ballpark of 36,500 a year, then multiply that by 8 (the number of years AfDs have existed), and you are already talking about several hundred thousand discussions (some with dozens of comments) that a human being must dig through individually to try to prove that such an argument has (or has not) ever been made. Try that yourself. Is that really what we want to put our precious wikitime into? If you really think this list is too long, perhaps holding a discussion considering splitting this page is possible. Sebwite (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to try anything myself. The page says: "The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen", and by wikipedia rules the burden to prove that your pet stupid example "can commonly be seen" is upon you. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Now there's an IP edit warring to keep the example farm. Reyk _YO! 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

lot of new additions, not all having any discussions first

As long as a credible plan for improvement is sketched, No, you don't need that. In AFD you prove the subject is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article, and that it. No requirement to make plans to improve the article. I reverted the addition of the part about 2-3 "per nom" votes extra, since that makes no sense at all. You can't determine how many votes you are going to get. Dream Focus 08:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realize the "credible plan" part you removed was intended to protect articles from being deleted at AfD? It is not worded as a requirement, but as an explanation to make clear that articles must not be lost (per PRESERVE and IMPERFECT) even if they're not in good shape - i.e. that the current condition is not enough reason to delete. Would you agree to add that part without the initial "as long as a credible plan is sketched"? Diego (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• High-impact WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays articles
• NA-Class Misplaced Pages essays
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays pages