Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. For instance, upon the sudden death of the actor Heath Ledger in 2008, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in the article on The Dark Knight , a film in which he had a major role.
This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep", "delete" or some other objective.
Unlike a deletion discussion, where people "vote" with terms like "keep," "delete," and a variety of other actions, talk page discussions are not as formal and can follow any number of structures. The examples below use terms like "include" and "remove" just to get the point across. But a real discussion may appear quite differently.
The new title is "When to use or avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments". If the answer to "when to use" was "never", that would be a strange title to use to make things clearer - surely something like "Avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments" would have been far better. That conversation only closed on May 6 - less than two weeks ago.
Of the many and varied argument forms that can possibly be constructed, only very few are valid argument forms. In order to evaluate these forms, statements are put into logical form. Logical form replaces any sentences or ideas with letters to remove any bias from content and allow one to evaluate the argument without any bias due to its ...
A favourite line from a movie or catchy lyric, a potent phrase used in argument, juicy facts of interest to fans, a punch-line or zinger; these are all very interesting, but usually all that can be informatively written about topic "X" is: "X is a _____ found in _____." Just about everything listed on Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool.
The last question can be answered definitively: NO. If an editor cannot find enough information on a subject to be able to write at least four non-repetitive sentences about the subject, then the article should not be started until there is sufficient information to "do it justice."
I have seen people use text from the "Notability is not inherited" guideline to attempt to override Wikipedia's basic notability guidelines. Not only is this crazy and misguided (this page being an essay and not a guideline or policy), but I think it results in confusing deletion discussions with (a) a lot of conflict and (b) occasionally, deletion of notable material.