Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid on discussion pages

1008:, therefore it should not be included". On Knowledge (XXG), inclusion of content is determined by a series of policies and guidelines set by consensus, not by people saying "I think this belongs" or "I do not think this belongs". All of that is personal opinion, and the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not. Knowledge (XXG) editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. 4147:, in addition to their primary function, also summarize positions, opinions and arguments. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" or "only a proposal" may be misleading. It also essentially suggests that the opinion of the person citing the page (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented in discussions are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay or proposal" is not one of them. 2982:. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong. On the other hand, even a small amount of information can be eligible for inclusion, provided that the inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be waiting for expansion. Likewise, information being too detailed may be a good argument for moving it to a more specialized article, but is not in itself a reason to remove it entirely. 3657:

linked to from the English language article. It may also be the information is important in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa. En.Knowledge (XXG) also sees more editorial activity on most topics than other-language Wikipedias do. Finally, all of the various Wikipedias set most of their policies and guidelines independently, aside from legal and WMF-mission-related requirements mandated by

2605:. If material is not suitable for Knowledge (XXG) according to the current standards, it will be deleted or corrected regardless of how old it is. Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way. If there is a good reason to remove long-standing text, the length of time it has been there should not be an obstacle. 2628:, a good-faith challenge by an editor nullifies that default assumption. "It's been here a long time" is not the same as "it's had actual consensus for a long time". Material may remain unchallenged due to a lack of relevance, significance or applicability, or because the problems with it were subtle or simply went undiscovered until recently. 46: 3228:, and editors should avoid using one when commenting. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Inclusion is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have 275:, 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. 3997:. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established guidelines on what content should be kept, and a 3823:

On Knowledge (XXG), anyone can create or contribute to articles. This means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page. While consistency with other pages is not a good argument by itself, comparisons between pages are often made in order

1215:

Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need

4267:

A content discussion is about the content in question itself. Though the suitability of related content may be mentioned during the discussion, and some discussions are bundled together, the debate is not about the author or any other editors of the article. Content is to be judged on its own merits

3656:

On the other hand, the fact that corresponding articles at other Wikipedias don't have something that en.Knowledge (XXG) does is not a reason that the information should be removed. It may be the case that nobody has yet added this to the other language's Knowledge (XXG) or that it just hasn't been

2004:

Similarly, whether a merge, split, move, category/list conversion, userspacing/draftification, or other action might entail more long-term work, might not produce immediate major improvements, or exists in a state someone things "begs for attention" of a different kind, is never a rationale to avoid

1992:

editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the content better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the fate of the content is

3140:

significant information, even if it isn't significant within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because information is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality do not mean the information

1980:

Sometimes content is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited in a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the material is unsuitable for Knowledge (XXG); it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. Content should be

1811:

are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If content is sourced to offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Knowledge (XXG) is written collaboratively, it

1599:

be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such content is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and it can still be of benefit to Knowledge (XXG). In

1262:

If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information

585:

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that content should be removed, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that

2789:

be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as important as has been claimed. As well, numerous

2636:). Outside mainspace, material that has become integral to how Knowledge (XXG) operates is also not subject to sudden removal or radical alteration simply because someone isn't clear where consensus established it back when. However, no amount of longevity of some item in an article or other page 1043:

In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as

2337:

On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites

1031:

have been written about them that are relevant to the scope of the article, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient. On the other hand, claims that content

1019:

In Knowledge (XXG), verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its

4287:

and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually adding information that gets deleted or removing good content from articles, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence content

2060:

Conversely, a vague suggestion that something reasonable might eventually come of substandard material is not a very good rationale for retaining it, especially if its compliance with policies and guidelines seems dubious. If the entire page is trash, but the subject does need an article, the

2333:

and personal pages that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these

3824:

to illustrate a more substantial argument; as such, comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning. While relying on comparisons to other articles is generally unconvincing, articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as

3572:

Sources about one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. In addition, information about a parent entity or topic (of a

3993:: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is 3436:

Similar arguments are sometimes made along the lines that the objector's concerns have not been addressed yet, even though a solution to (or refutation of) them has already been provided, and there appears to be no agreement that the objector's position is correct.

3652:

was first posted on Netherlands Knowledge (XXG) and then translated into several other languages, including English. Of course, if the other Knowledge (XXG) articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Knowledge (XXG) article, they can be added to it.

2074:

While "no work" sorts of arguments may not be good ones for removal of content, they often are excellent arguments for a merge of sections or pages in cases where an excessive number of undeveloped sections or redundant pages exist. (A counter-exception is that

4507: 146: 746:

Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.

617:– only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. 416:

Discussions are a place where people present ideas in working toward a solution. Simply going along with the crowd does not present any new ideas. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good.

1802:. Unless we have good reason to suspect that an editor is mistaken or dishonest, we take their contributions to discussions at face value. This doesn't mean we can't doubt what someone says, but it means that we need actual reasons to do so. 1575:

Material that is included on Knowledge (XXG) is judged on its accuracy and strength of sourcing, not on the quality of writing. A paragraph or two that has spelling, grammar, or punctuation problems can always be corrected. Consider that

2133: 1812:

is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the content. That said, all sources must be verifiably

3648:, and many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Knowledge (XXG) articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. The hoax article 4523: 3560:

Content does not qualify for inclusion merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. We can't argue that "____ should be included, because it is associated with

3432:

to insist on its removal pending the citations, especially if the editor who added it has requested help with the sourcing (e.g. because the source is behind a journal site's paywall and they no longer have access to it).

1267:

in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

197: 2631:

There is a big difference between material that no one had bothered to talk about until now, and material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained as the result of policy-based discussion, as opposed to a

1397:, whether content is harmful is often a relevant issue. The rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when 2663:, it is not necessary for any editor to seek "permission" before making good-faith changes. That said, being a new addition that might be improved upon does not somehow "protect" a change from being challenged 3644:; however, this does not indicate, by itself, that it should be included here. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Knowledge (XXG). Other versions of Knowledge (XXG) are not 1480:

the content is or is not valuable; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument.

3836:—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments. 3289:

exist, not on subjective judgments of why there aren't more or newer sources. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not.

1123:. There is actually quite a lot of true and sourceable information out in this world that does not belong on Knowledge (XXG), or in a particular article. For example, Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of 761:, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the content until it meets Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space. 156: 2761:

can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). The

1382:

The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles

4502: 2766:

of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at

151: 4533: 192: 4406:). Most likely if this happened, the negative information was in the news already, so the public already knows. Importantly, all such content must still meet the strict policies found in 3293:

However, especially for science-related material where understanding in the field may change rapidly, old sources that are contradicted by newer, equally reliable ones, must not be given

1967:

We do clearly have two unrelated topics with the same name in this article, but if we split them, we'll end up with very short stubs, and I don't see anyone volunteering to develop them.

4477: 2612:, it is also not an indicator of significance or relevance. Bits of outright hoax material have survived in articles sometimes for years, and proclamations of would-be "guidelines" at 2609: 131: 4554: 4492: 4402:

information within Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. Even if the article says something negative about someone, if it comes from a reliable source, it is perfectly acceptable there (see

3334: 3145: 2520: 1476:

Value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value with out substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion. Remember,

770: 121: 28: 3649: 4528: 4487: 187: 141: 4350:, even if created by that user. Once created, it is open for anyone to edit, and once substantially edited by another user, cannot even be deleted at the request of the creator. 1956:

If we merge these two little stubs on basically the same topic, we'll have one crappy stub that's a little longer. Keeping them forked might attract an extra couple of editors.

261:

serve a variety of functions. One of the main purposes is for Knowledge (XXG) editors to discuss how the article should be written, and what material should be included or not.

218: 3109:

in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that isn't necessarily significant enough to include in a Knowledge (XXG) article. Knowledge (XXG)

4497: 126: 213: 1488:

to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements of

1082:

There are many interesting facts out there. There are also lots of things you may perceive no one is interested in reading. You never know. Once again, this is opinion.

1627:, need to be resolved as quickly as possible. Additionally, if specific problems with content have been known for some time, such as when statements are tagged with a 2342:

to an independent professional writer with a record of reliable publishing. News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper.

1948: 1871: 1359:

about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it

1240: 4451: 3240:

take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

2334:

details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Knowledge (XXG) article.

4482: 136: 4407: 3977:

Yes, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge"

3414: 2083: 1442:: This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our groundbreaking product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Knowledge (XXG)! – 627:

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g.

4068: 4009:'s guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia. 2354:

Without this information and the sources that come along with it, the article will be completely unreferenced, and will be in danger of deletion. –

1004:

Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "

4166:

to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

3594:: given that its also in corresponding articles on other Wikipedias (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. – 2435:. If only the trivia in an article is and can be sourced, it is doubtful whether or not it can be included, and this should indeed be examined. 426: 171: 4268:

and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes make edits that others feel should be reverted, and likewise,

489:

We keep content because we know it can be sourced, not because we assume it can, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be

2877:

The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in a subject, but it does not measure the number of reliable sources or its

620:

Keep in mind that content can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see

2773:

Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet.

1252: 1232: 61:

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of

4299:

Edits by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be reverted entirely. This criterion does not apply to edits made

3839:

When an editor introduces new information to Knowledge (XXG), it may be necessary to consider whether it complies with core policies like

3428:

and sourcing. However, if the addition is not controversial and sources have been identified but not yet added, it may be interpreted as

2641: 62: 1351:. Just because content does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should stay in an article. For example, if there has not been any 244: 2621: 774: 166: 2097:

may simply be deleted, if there is little to no content worth saving. (An article consisting entirely of promo material may even be

1611:

in its current state, then removing it now, and possibly adding it back later, is often a better option. For example, problems like

1379:), keeping it actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. 1143:. Simply saying something is "verifiable" or "sourced" does not show how it is relevant to the subject or why it otherwise belongs. 264:

While involved in a discussion, there are arguments that can make or break a case. Inclusion of material can hinge on what existing

4419: 4114: 4044: 1982: 1585: 1363:

true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for content that does not conform to

3421:

legal reasons) is lack of a citation by itself grounds for deletion of material that clearly can be but has not yet been sourced.

4444: 1588:. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not removed. (If there is 1024:

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other

4559: 4038: 2130:– the related fallacy that someone in favor of a change must satisfy all demands before the change will be accepted by consensus 2648:, and a standard operating procedure on Knowledge (XXG) is the normalization of old material to incremental changes in policy. 3697: 2767: 2685: 2470: 2466: 2462: 1264: 1076: 32: 2817:

such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that content should be kept or deleted.

2524: 1327: 1062: 602: 3565:." If subjects seem to be related, but no sources connect them to each other, making the connection in Knowledge (XXG) is 2254:

is allowed on Knowledge (XXG). Word-of-mouth info that is not from published sources is not considered to be verifiable.

4076: 3825: 3989:, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Knowledge (XXG). Imagine how large 3113:, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Everything in Knowledge (XXG) needs to be 2438:

The subject doesn't have to be the main topic of the source material, as long as we have enough sources to write from a

1283:, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. 4424: 4140: 1194: 268:

allow for. Therefore, all arguments in such a discussion should be based on these, and not one's personal perceptions.

4437: 4388: 2979: 2637: 2633: 1276: 1120: 824:, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up. 2134:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

364:. It helps in reaching a consensus when each person who comments gives a reason why they believe in their decision. 4272:

and those who have created lots of poor content still have the potential to contribute good content in the future.

3978: 3402: 2589:: This has only been here for two days, and the page was stable before that. Why should we keep this addition? – 1813: 1466:: The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. – 1012: 614: 606: 490: 3829: 2446: 1994: 3413:. If the very existence of sources cannot be ascertained, this may be a valid rationale for removal. Only in 1631: 4382: 4368: 4340: 4326: 4303:

the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban).

4249: 4234: 4219: 4126: 4104: 4086: 3971: 3956: 3941: 3817: 3794: 3771: 3756: 3741: 3722: 3622: 3601: 3530: 3516: 3501: 3482: 3379: 3364: 3279: 3264: 3218: 3203: 3188: 3173: 3099: 3084: 3069: 3054: 3039: 3024: 2973: 2954: 2939: 2924: 2909: 2871: 2856: 2841: 2751: 2736: 2721: 2706: 2595: 2576: 2562: 2548: 2421: 2406: 2391: 2376: 2361: 2316: 2301: 2286: 2272: 2245: 2231: 2181: 1974: 1920: 1901: 1886: 1792: 1777: 1762: 1747: 1728: 1709: 1694: 1679: 1660: 1569: 1554: 1527: 1454:: This content is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – 1348: 1342: 1209: 1114: 1100: 1005: 998: 981: 964: 947: 930: 913: 896: 879: 862: 845: 814: 797: 740: 721: 706: 691: 676: 661: 632: 579: 560: 529: 483: 469: 455: 410: 396: 354: 340: 326: 312: 4121:. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than 1271:

There are some pages within Knowledge (XXG) that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—

3990: 3372:

since you didn't resolve the problem I pointed out, and it doesn't really matter if others don't see it. –

1913:

promised they would improve it. But that never happened. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his promise.

237: 3693: 3446: 2117: 1497: 1364: 1259:

for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided unless it supports a cogent argument.

107: 3449:. A call for action by one editor does not create an obligation on the part of any other to act upon it. 1401:

clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

4398:

Even an article about oneself is not owned by that person. Other editors are permitted to add and modify

3438: 2652: 2617: 2477:); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available. 2339: 2109: 2046: 1612: 598: 504: 66: 4122: 3125:. If the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community it's likely ( 3077:

John is the tallest person in my home town so he should be on the list of the world's tallest people. –

4177: 4144: 4020: 4006: 3856: 3675: 3309: 2991: 2613: 2488: 2204: 2147: 2030: 1829: 1620: 1294: 1272: 1154: 1132: 1124: 76: 3749:

You say this is promotional, but there are other articles with content that is just as promotional. –

1702:

Google Books only allows you to see pages 1-45 of this book, and the source claims it's on page 57. –

2883:

if no reliable sources exist at all, then no matter how many editors they are, they will not be found

2651:

There is also a difference between resisting poorly thought-out changes without solid rationale, and

4276: 4151: 4134: 4130: 4058: 3833: 3442: 3225: 2814: 2660: 2105: 2026: 2018: 1808: 1718: 1669: 751: 628: 4129:

of why it applies). If someone links to an essay, proposal or guideline, they are not suggesting "

4284: 4269: 4002: 3658: 3615:: This material about Mexico isn't covered in the same article at the Spanish Knowledge (XXG). – 3429: 3105:

Lots of things are well-known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest

2882: 2878: 2790:

hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X.

2474: 2006: 1624: 1501: 1128: 758: 730: 54: 3641: 2675:, noting that a page or section not being edited in a long time is also not grounds for removal.) 2399:

I heard someone say on the 5 o'clock news that the police have been called to this gas station –

230: 4403: 3294: 3110: 2602: 2094: 2076: 2054: 2022: 2014: 2010: 3524:

her actions shouldn't be mentioned here, she's only known because the U.S. President's wife –

3457:, for the related argument that the content must not be worthy if people aren't working on it.) 2457:(i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write 3441:

need not be unanimous to be achieved, and other editors' efforts to continue improving a page

3132:

Arguments that state a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers encourage a

994: 977: 960: 943: 926: 909: 892: 875: 858: 841: 810: 793: 4392: 4110: 3840: 2963: 2439: 2369:

In all the publicity this school has received, they mention this particular honors student –

2090: 2050: 1879:

I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. –

1616: 1489: 550: 361: 3211:

This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. –

2120:

are typically struck rather than deleted, especially if others have already replied to them.

1020:

editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

17: 4347: 4293: 4289: 4280: 4094: 3998: 3986: 3844: 3609:: there was a long discussion at the French Knowledge (XXG) and they decided to include it. 3425: 3285:

Inclusion of content is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources

3122: 2774: 2664: 2656: 2645: 2570:: I inserted that two months ago and no one objected then, thus it must have consensus. – 2450: 2428: 2098: 2062: 2042: 1998: 1799: 1577: 1485: 1398: 1394: 635:), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above. 569: 519: 272: 4391:. Content about notable commercial enterprises are permitted, but must be written with a 3645: 3566: 3398: 3166:

This information may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. –

3118: 2806: 2443: 2326: 2251: 2192: 2038: 2034: 1981:

assessed on its own merits, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that

1817: 1376: 1356: 1028: 821: 654:

I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? –

610: 546: 542: 265: 258: 2798: 493:, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable. 3994: 3129:) that those sources are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). 3121:

before content can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered

3114: 2881:. An article can be made into a good article, either by one person or by a dozen. And 2322: 2188: 1493: 1372: 1368: 1352: 1280: 1025: 538: 4548: 3636:: German Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have a guideline about this, so we shouldn't either. 3335:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Past inaction by editors

3133: 2779:

Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)

1910: 69:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. 4378: 4364: 4336: 4322: 4259: 4244: 4229: 4214: 4154:

is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us

4099: 4081: 4063: 3966: 3951: 3936: 3905: 3889: 3812: 3789: 3766: 3751: 3736: 3717: 3617: 3596: 3552: 3540: 3526: 3511: 3496: 3477: 3374: 3359: 3274: 3259: 3213: 3198: 3183: 3168: 3094: 3079: 3064: 3049: 3034: 3019: 2968: 2949: 2934: 2919: 2904: 2866: 2851: 2836: 2794: 2746: 2731: 2716: 2701: 2591: 2572: 2558: 2544: 2416: 2401: 2386: 2371: 2356: 2311: 2296: 2282: 2268: 2241: 2227: 2177: 1969: 1958: 1943: 1915: 1896: 1881: 1866: 1787: 1772: 1757: 1742: 1723: 1704: 1689: 1674: 1655: 1580:

and content should not be deleted just because no one has felt like cleaning it up

1564: 1549: 1537: 1523: 1468: 1456: 1444: 1432: 1420: 1337: 1322: 1220:

content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful

1204: 1189: 1110: 1096: 1072: 1058: 990: 973: 956: 939: 922: 905: 888: 871: 854: 837: 806: 789: 771:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Personal point of view

757:

If you feel you need more time to work on new content, an option may be to request

735: 716: 701: 686: 671: 656: 574: 555: 524: 479: 465: 451: 406: 392: 350: 336: 322: 308: 4395:, and are here only to describe the company, and not to promote or disparage it. 4242:

The author has previously been reverted a lot and therefore makes poor choices. –

3257:

None of the source coverage would have occurred had the one event not occurred. –

3146:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Subjective importance

2542:: Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it. – 2338:

including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or

2086:, but which has not been sourced properly (or at all), should be removed on sight. 1383: 4376:

This article is about myself, and I don't want the world to know that about me –

3047:

Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? –

1988:

Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would

3934:

I thought Knowledge (XXG)'s purpose was to provide information on everything. –

3550:

This subject has its own article, so it should be mentioned in this article. –

2802: 2782: 1387: 699:

I am on vacation now, and I won't be able to work on it until I get back home –

2616:

have contradicted actual policy for a long time without being corrected. While

4196: 3418: 2116:

to revert them if the edits were constructive, and even talk-page comments by

1256: 1244: 1136: 3181:

Of course this unreleased single should be included. It's by The Scrotums. –

2699:

There are 345,400 Google hits for this term, so it is clearly of interest. –

3454: 2744:

She's the first Google result for her name, so obviously she's important. –

2672: 1044:

weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions.

714:

I placed this template on top of the page so my work wouldn't get deleted –

4150:

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "

3357:: Nobody has added sources for this information, so it's not verifiable. – 3538:

This is an album by a famous artist, so it's relevant in this article. –

2620:

policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later

4334:

I added this then changed my mind, so my opinion should count for more –

2525:

Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process

1816:

and thus accessible somehow (even if at expense and trouble), as well as

1228: 360:

It is important when engaging in a discussion that your comments are not

2521:

Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Article age

1785:

I won't accept your argument until you cite sources I can check myself.

613:: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet 3847:. Dismissing such concerns by pointing to this essay is inappropriate. 3562: 3344: