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.
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.
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.
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.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample. [55] Argument from anecdote – a fallacy where anecdotal evidence is presented as ...
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.
Therefore: All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted. Wikipedia decision-makers are urged to make one sentence "articles" a speedy deletion category as there is no purpose for them. While one sentence may make a good summary, it truly is not an encyclopedia article.
A couple may be relevant to other discussions but most are specific to AFD and some, like WP:USEFUL and WP:PRETTY could actually be valid arguments in other types of deletion debates like FFD and TFD. As an essay it doesn't really matter, but as a guideline, misinterpretation could cause problems.