From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Active Discussions

[edit] redirect modification

I noticed tonight that another Wikipedian moved the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS redirect to this page. Awesome! I made the necessary adjustments to the Arguments to avoid... page. I think that's great. This page still needs a lot of work to be more streamlined and clearer, less wordy and more prosaic, but I think we finally have a good essay that defines how precedent on Wikipedia works and does not work, one that is evenly distributed, so to speak, for both deletions and inclusions, as precedent should be used. Thoughts? • VigilancePrime • • • 03:38 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

[edit] Archived Discussions

User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Collapsing

In order to give visibility to this essay so others may add, enhance, and adjust it as well as begin referencing. This is much less likely to be seen and thus helped or used in userspace.

Give it some time; I'll move it to userspace if it doesn't gain those improvements soon.

This article needs some touch-up, and in part for that reason it's in the Wikispace for the moment. If it can gain that help and be used as a reference in other discussions, great! If it does not begin to gain that use, I'll move it into userspace. But let's at least give it a little time so it has enough visibility to get that expansion, adjustment, and referencing. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreements

Here's another example of precedent: Pavel Borisenko is a hockey player. The page makes no assertion for awards, recognition, first, or anything that makes him any different from any other non-NHL pro hockey player. Do all pro hockey players get a page? I don't think that simply being paid to play a sport makes one notable. Now, Wayne Gretsky, Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic. and Paul Kariya are clearly notable, but they have much more reasoning behind them. It would be wrong (and an incorrect use of WP:OSE) to state "these players have a page, so this one should" because they are clearly different, and different by a lot. OSE can work both ways and only applies to clearly similar article series. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon seeing an article like Pavel Borisenko, I don't see why anyone would even think of comparing it with the most famous hockey players they know, so this is a rather extreme example. You might of course compare it to the more fringe players. For cases like athletes, there should be plenty of precedent based on Wikipedia:Notability (people), any relevant WikiProject guidelines, and past AfDs. In this case, playing for his national team and the World Juniors is a valid claim to notability, but there seems to be no reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of him. So you'd compare it to others in the same circumstances. –Pomte 10:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. As stated above, "It would be wrong (and an incorrect use of WP:OSE) to state "these players have a page, so this one should" because they are clearly different, and different by a lot." VigilancePrime (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it's unlikely anyone would make that sort of comparison. Usually, it's up to debate and that's what AfD is for. –Pomte 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedent definitely helps these arguments, but how far do we push on precedent? In the previous Laurel McGoff discussion I made a potentially explosive comparison between Laurel and an American astronaut. Upon reflection I shouldn't have pushed that particular comparison, but fortunately everyone seemed to take it in stride. I suggest that somebody start a list of examples of varying degrees of popularity/political-ness so that in the future we can hit back quickly with a precedent article instead of scrambling around like I did. DoubleVibro (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreements

Precedent

This entirely misses the point of precedents. When you have a rule structure, and people interpret those rules through some structured process recognized as having some authority, the conclusions reached can be used as precedents. Thus, deletion debates can function as precedents for future article inclusion and exclusion to an extent, noting of course that consensus can change and that there are precedents of higher and lower authority. This essay, however, turns WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on its head in a logical morass. The sheer existence of articles serves as precedent of nothing. You quote a portion of the existing essay and then utterly misinterpret what it means, or reach a new conclusion that doesn't follow at all. The ability of anyone to create articles on anything to which our policies have not been applied through any process does not serve as precedent of anything. Analogizing this to legal precedent, as you have in the essay, your logic is something like this: The conclusions of tribunals in criminal legal cases serve as precedent for other crimes--->There are many crimes which have not been prosecuted-->ergo, other crimes are not really crimes. No. You have taken something that has nothing to do with the process of forming precedent and given it precedential value.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: The essay you refer above (actually, it'a s tiny section in an essay) is fallable inasmuch as it denies precedent totally. It already is a logical morasse, as you say. It is designed for the sole purpose of hyper-active deletionists to say "it doesn't matter if Wikipedia has always had these types of articles, I don't like this one and therefore will fight to delete it!" Whether this is the intent or not, it is the result. This essay provides a logic-based explanation of precedent that follows legal tradition and common sense. It, too, is "only" an essay.

Lastly, your logic is flawed in your attack on the premise. This is not to say "since you haven't been charged with a crime you've not committed one." Instead, it sayd "across the country these actions are expected to protect rights of citizens; you failed to do those actions and therefore violated his rights." This is the way precedent works and has worked ... Think Miranda. Interpretation of the constitution became the "law of the land" because of precedent. Can precedent be changed? Absolutely.

THIS ARTICLE needs to be improved and touched up and I INVITE ANYONE to do so, provided they do so in the same viewpoint in which the article originally was intended. This is a crucial point for Wikipedia and may be indelibly linked to Wiki's future growth, utility, and credibility.

Thanks to all. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The rightness of the argument "page X exists, so page Y should exist" seems to depend partly on how similar in topic X is to Y, and how notable that class of topic is. If the result is a desire to delete a whole class of pages, in many cases that should be decided by AfD, not by such things as User:TTN's bulk undiscussed controversial redirecting of pages about fictional events around 13 December 2007. As regards the summary line ""Other Stuff Exists" is absolutely not a reason to delete (e.g. "delete because OSE is not a good enough reason").", I agree: whether to delete (speedy or prod or AfD) would depend on whatever other issues are raised. But, if "other similar stuff exists" means that several pages can be classified in a category, then that may make that category noteworthy. Many of the affected articles are descriptions of fictional events, and to many people this or that fictional scenario IS noteworthy. E.g. I have no interest in Coronation Street, but I do not go around deleting every page about Coronation Street characters. Another intruding factor here is: "The matter so far in Wikipedia, what percentage is it of total maximum storage space allowed?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean by that last question? WP:PAPER and WP:PERF may be relevant. –Pomte 21:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not necessary complete disagreement here, I just want to reiterate along the likes of Anthony states above: if very similar items X,Y, and Z have pages, and Q is very similar to those, there is a reasonable expectation that Q will have such pages. "very similar" is qualitative, but there are very obvious cases of dissimilarity and obvious cases of similarity. This is sorta outlined already in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but needs to be restated. And again, it should be pointed out that this should be applied only towards deletion/merge/what to do with existing article debates; this should NOT be used in the article creation process. In starting a new topic it may become apparent that it is worthwhile there may be need for an equivalent article, but editors should go into completely ignoring how other similar items are structured until its time to deal with them. --MASEM 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• One little thing I would add: while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS helps to set precedent, there will be users that try to use previous deletions as precedent as well. Precedent is a wonderful thing, but it's not necessarily an argument winner with me. That other stuff exists is a strong argument in favor of keeping something, but if we're arguing to keep something kinda dumb because other things exist that are equally dumb doesn't get us anywhere. This argument may need a little further development, but I want to get it in the open while I still have it on my mind. DoubleVibro (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that precedent can also work against keeping; this is not exclusively a KEEP article. The problem is that the OSE rationale currently is used effectively for deletion, which is why this seems like a KEEP-friendly essay. In another discussion I used a wild example of having a precedent set that every model year of a car has a justified page, and thus creating an article for every model year of another vehicle (assuming many, many cars had these) would be rational. By the same token, if some people had created these sort of pages and every one was eventually pulled together and deleted or merged into a single page for the model irrespective of year, that would have been precedent-setting for the merging of a new set of model year articles into a single model page. The OSE essay hopes to illustrate both of these methodologies. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

"Other Stuff Exists" is absolutely not a reason to delete (e.g. "delete because OSE is not good enough").

No one is denying this. If someone says "delete because OSE is not good enough" only, call them out on it and ask them to give positive reasons for deletion.

Wikipedia Precedant is set by what already exists throughout the project

Precedent is set by past consensus. What already exists may not have consensus to exist if there hasn't been any centralized discussion on it. Asserting implied consensus is not a strong point to make, and if you face a lot of opposition while doing it, then that suggests the implied consensus isn't really there.

Without equivalency across the project, content would be based on I Like It and I Don't Like It arguments.

This doesn't follow. The scope of each AfD only lets us focus attention on the articles nominated. It's definitely possible for there to be consensus both to keep and delete different articles of the same nature. This doesn't mean that the arguments are all ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT.

Some participants from reality shows are seen as deserving of their own page (usually because they are extremely recognizable or featured through the show)

I'm not sure of what you mean by extremely recognizable, as there are certainly a lot of people who don't recognize them. Being extremely featured through a show doesn't warrant an article on the subject either. Perhaps "notable" is a better description here.

To deny this would mandate the removal of all other pages for the sake of consistency.

It is mandated, and wider community discussion is encouraged. –Pomte 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that the first line is used in discussions, a lot, and if anyone dares challenge that person, the argument is made again in a belittling way. That's the problem and I've seen it a lot just recently. This makes AfD's into fights of ILIKEIT or, more importantly, IDONTLIKEIT. Recently I challenged these concepts on two different articles, one with questionable notability and one of much less notability. The prior was up for AfD, and when I put a PROD tag on the other one, I was personally attacked by the same person who had started the AfD on the first. Now, I have no problem with AfD (well, those are different opinions), and I think the PROD tag is great as it allows one to informally assess notability and who's actually working on a page, but I take exception when I'm attacked for sugesting a non-notable article may be deletable by the same person who is demanding deletion of a more-notable article. The essay DOES need work and some better writing, and that's why I have asked others to come and work on it. Someone far smarter and much more eloquent than I could say what this essay is trying to say in a much better, more understandable way. I don't expect that because one thing exists something else should, but when many, many, many things exist, another of the same type and kind obviously should. That's all. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If the first line is used and it seems to affect the closing admin's decision, I suggest linking it as an example either here or on your admin abuse page. It may not affect the closing admin's decision if the delete voters have stronger arguments than keep voters anyway, disregarding any use of the first line. For example, if someone votes keep citing OSE, and another person votes delete saying that OSE isn't a reason to keep, their "votes" effectively cancel out.

I hesitated editing this page because you seem to be making a much stronger point than what seems to be common sense, but I'll see what you think about any edits I make. –Pomte 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Perhaps the viewpoint is shifted a little extreme, but if so that is only to counter an equally extreme position already existing in the other direction. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more narrative

Pomte, I like what you did and it's helped a lot. I went in and added more, rewrote the nutshell and standardized the headings.

One difference was delinking (and removing reference) to the WP:ATA/WP:WAX. That seems (I think at least) to give the impression that this article is either in competition with or opposed to the Arguments to avoid. I see this as incorporating it (speaking of how "simply because OSE" doesn't work) and expanding it, illustrating the difference beteen a legitimate OSE and a non-legitimate OSE statement.

That's really the only major point. I don't know how lucid my writing is overall; please feel free to come and clean up some more! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] musings

Vigilance asked me to contribute to the essay, and I'm not sure what to do exactly, so I am going to provide what I thought of as I read through it and the talk page, and I suppose we can talk about it more.

• Common sense is important. Precedence arguments need to incorporate common sense, and if it seems obvious to most that a precedent argument is weak, it should therefore be rejected. Common sense is important because topics are so vastly different. Until the encyclopedia is big and old, and thus has precedence for many, very diverse topics, we need to exercise common sense in setting all this precedent which will affect the encyclopedia for the rest of its existence.
• Precedence needs to be tempered. It has been pointed out before that the argument: X and Y are similar. X exists. Therefore Y should also exist. may be flawed. It is possible for X to be unworthy of existence. When cases of notability are brought up, in looking for precedence, we should look first to similar articles which have been subjected to AfD or Prod investigations. If X survived this, then it is strong grounds for Y's notability; likewise, if X was deleted, so should Y be. In the absence of an X which has been subjected to the deletion process, editors should return to the first point: common sense. If it seems like X is nn, then its existence is not precedent for Y's continued existence, and they should both be deleted.

Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree.

(BTW: Thanks for the spelling fix. I don't mind at all, other than that I mind I made the mistake in the first place!)

I like the perspective of the PROD/AfD comparisons. In the same way I recently pushed for an AfD to end normally instead of being retracted (which had been suggested) so that it would have the status of having been found a "Keep on AfD". I hadn't thought to include that in the essay and think it would add tremendously.

What you focused on - common sense - really is the heart of this. Comparisons must be equal, comparisons must be logical. One couldn't compare episodes of Firefly (TV series) to episodes of Star Trek. But one could compare Optimus Prime and Ultra Magnus to Megatron and Starscream.

I worked a bit last night on this and it needs additional touch-up, but I think the direction is good. Ultimately, it would be nice if this incorporated the entirety of this subject from the WP:ATA and was pointed to from that essay as a standalone essay. The goal is to present both proper and improper use of an OSE argument.

~Thank you, Carl. VigilancePrime (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, comparisons have to be logical. In an AfD process, if someone is arguing precedent, it has to be analogous. If other editors call someone on this, and give good reasons for why the two articles being compared are not analogous, the so-called precedent is not precedent in the given situation and should be ignored. And you're welcome, Vigilance. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's one HUGE point of this article. In appropriate comparisons, deleters will answer, simply, "OSE is not a reason to keep" without actually addressing the comparison. Many will claim that any OSE-based argument is not valid simply because it is OSE. That's not the case. Some are very valid. This essay needs to illustrate proper use of OSE reasoning as well as improper use. I have a vision, and I would appreciate any help in getting this essay there (because I think that vision is the same as many, many others in effect). VigilancePrime (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could policy become that burden of proof is on the people arguing against OSE in a given debate? ie OSE is assumed valid until the comparison is demonstrably inapt. I think it would make sense, but is there too much resistance to this in WP as a whole? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that'd be valid, but there would be resistance. The assumption is supposed to be to Keep unless Delete rationale can be clearly demonstrated, but the reverse is what is actually happening lately. The burden of proof should be on the Delete to show beyond a preponderance that the article is deletable. That's the whole point of AfD's... to determine when an article is keepable and can expand or if there is no chance at a decent article. Unfortunately, some have actually said to delete articles because of their small size or simply due to being unreferenced. (Interestingly, this same logic is used on images, that a free image COULD be made a fair-use one is deleted, but this is the same logic in the opposite direction!) VigilancePrime (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I think the new section needs to be greatly expanded, Vigilance. It's not very strong as-is. I would try my hand at it, but I'm just not sure I have as firm a grasp on the envisioned policy as do you. Also, I'm not sure about the example you gave. It's not clear to me how it relates to OSE. It needs more explanation, or a better example. Maybe I'm forgetting if I read it before, but is there precedent for an OSE argument being successfully used? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I added it as-is to get the ball rolling. I think it gives a hint at the purpose (which is a noble and right one, IMnsHO), but it needs attention of people like you, who are far more WikiEloquent and WikiSmarter than I. If it makes any sense at all, please feel free to word it up and around. (Meaning if what I added made sense at all.) Thanks bunches! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

User talk:VigilancePrime/Templates/Collapsing