Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The claim of "other stuff exists" most often arises in article deletion debate, where it is often used in the following manner. Examples: Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. –LetsKeepIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04 ...
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.
Insisting the sources must exist without being able to provide them is generally to be avoided in deletion discussions. Hypothetical examples include: Keep – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Prejudger 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Keep – There must be plenty of sources. Presumer 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
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.
Response Stop responding to a 6-word argument with 100 words, you're wasting time and efforts. DeleteItBaby 4:01, 4 April 2004 (UTC) If one editor has a position in an articles for deletion discussion (or any other discussion for that matter), any editor of opposing viewpoint should be allowed to respond to it in good faith .
In short, it states that if one thing happens, another will as well. If that second thing happens, a third will follow it. Therefore, if the first thing happens, it is inevitable that the third will too. [3] It is shown below in logical form. If A, then B If B, then C Therefore if A, then C. When put into words it looks like below.
Wikipedia doesn't "need" anything. It exists because it was created and has continued to receive support by people who "want" it to exist. Naturally, there are rules to follow: policies, guidelines, etc. But "need" is an arbitrary definition that will likely vary from one user to another, from one reader to another.