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.
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.
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 topic on which no published, reliable, third-party sources exist – see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Verifiability. A person, place or idea that you or your friends made up. Anything about which you are not going to write at least one complete sentence.
Your bouncing bundle of joy on the way does not qualify to have an article simply because they will exist. Leprechauns and fairies do not qualify to have an article simply because people think they exist – but their place in the world's culture makes them notable. If any of those have articles, then there are other reasons why they are notable.
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.