User talk:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond

nice. very nice. 24.128.51.51

You suggest: If other pages are just as unencyclopedic, nominate them for deletion too.
Answer: I'd jolly well love to, except that would violate WP:POINT. You see the problem. S B Harris 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, taken as this article suggests, it wouldn't (though others might fallaciously claim so). The purpose of WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is to not intentionally damage Wikipedia just to make a point about policy - this is one case where using the full name instead of the shortcut is meaningful.
 * If you are fighting to preserve an article, and seem to be failing, it would be against WP:POINT to go seeking other articles that you believe are equally bad, and nominate batches of them in an attempt to spread your frustration or to show the "damage" such an action would cause if levied "impartially" across the board - this is, in fact, exactly the cited example. WP:POINT is mainly about an editor believing a given action to be "unfair", and then maliciously attempting to demonstrate that fact by attacking other articles in just as "unfair" a fashion.
 * This essay, on the other hand, doesn't suggest that you maliciously nominate other articles for deletion as a dramatic attempt to save the article you care about, nor out of spite over losing an argument. It is not a case of disrupting the encyclopedia by applying what you  consider to be unfair rules to others.
 * The main thrust is to actually accept that trying to preserve a questionable article by citing another questionable article's existence is a fallacious argument tactic: that each article should be kept or deleted based on its own merits, not in a vicious cycle of "If X exists, Y should!"->"If Y exists, Z should!"->"If Z exists, X should!"
 * Then, when you run across the sort of bad article you would have cited to save your poor article by comparison, you can indeed submit it for deletion with a clear conscience - you aren't making a point, you're honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia. --Narapoid (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Title
I like this; I arrived here from Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons).

I would suggest you move it to … an already polluted pond to generalize it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to main argument
The main argument assumes that having pages of borderline or questionable notability amounts to something vaguely like sewage. Not just debatable, but rather something you clearly and very strongly don't want in a pond your going to swim in. I submit that even clearly non notable pages aren't that objectionable, and in cases where there is uncertainty or debate about notability the whole analogy just falls apart completely. twfowler (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the basic problem is that if I found a polluted pond near my house, yes I would add my sewage to it since I'm not doing any more harm. Why shouldn't I? OldTownAdge (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another example of intolerance and lack of comprimise
This essay is yet another example of tolerance and comprimise, from editors who see wikipedia as a WP:BATTLE. Labeling other editors contributions "sewage" only inflames tensions. If this wasn't userspace I would put it up for deletion immediatly. Ikip (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)