Ad
related to: other stuff exists argument example sentence pdf editor
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.
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.
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 subject matter. [1] Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true.
Referencing policies, and where appropriate, guidelines is what will make or break it. Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article.
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.
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.
Why did the editor spend a significant amount of their time to write this one sentence definition, and was that time well spent? 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 ...