Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignore all rules (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ignore all rules
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

IAR is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. But is it notable enough for a stand-alone article? None of the sources included discuss IAR in depth, and most contain only a few passing mentions while presenting a critical view of Wikipedia. Some of the text may be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia, but IAR as a topic fails the GNG. schetm (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's certainly possible to find more external sources about this. For example, in the New York Review of Books, writer Nicholson Baker covered this as one of The Charms of Wikipedia, explaining that this was "the first Wikipedian rule".  Also, there is lots of anarchist theory which may cover this as a general principle under some other heading.  Anyway, the nomination invokes the rule WP:GNG but that's just a guideline which explicitly cites the policy itself: " and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew D. (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Charms of Wikipedia" mentions IAR merely in passing. It's not SIGCOV, and I see no reason why an "occasional exception" may apply here. schetm (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The coverage in that source is not a passing mention; it's a part and parcel of the overall piece.  It certainly passes WP:SIGCOV as it tells us quite a bit about the rule, its authors, supporters and dissenters.  My !vote stands.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: some sources do indeed critique the policy but others detail its origin, critically comment on the rule or even analyse how IAR is used in AfD discussions (ironically enough). There's plenty of coverage of the rule itself, and the topic is distinct enough from Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia or anything else in Category:Wikipedia that a merge would be unhelpful. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sanger interview only discusses IAR in passing and Good Faith Collaboration only presents it within the broader context of Wikipedia policy. Only the third source you mention is SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. This is a relevant topic and it is distinct, and more generally, anarchist theory. The article is referenced well. Lubbad85  (☎)(Edits) 14:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that any other extant sources are much like the ones I analyzed below. They aren't good enough. schetm (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is almost certainly mistitled; it wasn't actually about Wikipedia until it was rewritten by Bilorv last August, and if it were restored to its prior shaped There are no rules would almost certainly be a better title. GBooks returns around 162 times as many hits for the four-word title and GNews returns 197 times as many.
 * On a more humorous note: it should be noted that of the above three keep !votes, none are admins, all seem to want the article kept, and none have actually cited IAR as an argument, which might say something about the amount of stock they actually put in the reliable sources already cited in the article. :P
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons cited above and at first nomination. To be sure there are legal and equitable underpinnings, which can and should be researched more.  But that is a content dispute,, and no reason to WP:AFD.
 * Indeed, article is well sourced already, and there is a blatant violation of WP:Before, which is supposed to both present and potential sourcing. Meets WP:GNG 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What in the first nomination presents a policy-based reason for keep? And what about this AfD describes a content dispute? And, for the record, my standard BEFORE check turned up a few more sources along much the same lines as those I've detailed below - sources that aren't good enough for a stand-alone article. schetm (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been accused of "a blatant violation of WP:Before. This is most certainly not the case and I invite the editor who made the accusation to withdraw it. Let's go through the sources to see if they meet as much muster as the keep !voters say they do.
 * 1: A self-reference to Wikipedia, which this article does far too often. Most of the technical description of IAR comes from WP pipelinks. The result is rather severe OR in the article.
 * 2: Used to source the launch date of Wikipedia; doesn't mention IAR at all.
 * 3: IAR is mentioned twice in a chapter of this 445 page book. The chapter in question is written by Larry Sanger, who formulated IAR and isn't exactly independent of the subject. The first ref to IAR describes the rule in a broader discussion of "the origin of Wikipedia policies." The second is simply Sanger reminding the reader that he created IAR.
 * 4: This New Yorker piece mentions IAR once and simply says that it was the first rule on Wikipedia. It doesn't mention it again.
 * 5: Sanger is interviewed here. The questioner asks why IAR isn't a part of Citizendium and Sanger answers. Contrary to the clickbaity title, the interview isn't focused on IAR, but rather the launch of Citizendium (RIP).
 * 6: Mentions IAR in one section, quotes the rule, and offers no more comment.
 * 7: This one, (found most easily here) is better. It defines IAR and offers commentary within the context of WP policy. But it's still not significant coverage, and there's not enough for a full-fledged article here.
 * 8: This one is also good. I don't have access beyond the abstract, but it appears to be actually about IAR. Chalk this one up as SIGCOV in RS.
 * 9: Another self-reference to Wikipedia.
 * 10: Like #7, this one also defines the policy and offers limited commentary within the context of WP policy. Still not SIGCOV.
 * 11: Like 7 and 11, this one (full text here) defines IAR and offers limited commentary within the context of the governance of online communities. Still not SIGCOV.
 * 12: Another self-reference to Wikipedia.
 * 13: Like 7 and 10, this one (full text here) defines the policy and offers limited commentary within the context of WP policy. Again, still not SIGCOV.
 * 14: Another self-reference to Wikipedia.
 * 15: This one (full text here) mentions IAR in passing, but is really just talking about WP:GAMING
 * 16: This one does much the same thing as 7, 10, and 13. Still not SIGCOV.
 * 17: Mentioned in passing without definition or commentary
 * 18: Mentioned in passing along with BLP, AGF, NOR.


 * Yes, there are a lot of sources here, but four of them are self-references to Wikipedia, 4, 5, 6, 17, and 18 only mention it in passing without commentary, merely acknowledging its existence, 3 isn't independent of the subject, 7, 10, 13, and 15 define the term and offer commentary, but only within a broader discussion of Wikipedia policy. 11 does the same but within the context of online governance, and 2 doesn't mention IAR at all. The only one of these 18 sources the remotely approaches SIGCOV of IAR is #8, but only one instance of SIGCOV in RS isn't sufficient.


 * The fact is that the sourcing available just isn't up to snuff. There's only one article entirely about IAR. Many of the sourcing gaps have to be filled in with self-references to Wikipedia in violation of WP:OR. I don't see how that could change. Sources 7, 10, 13, and 15 put this policy within the context of broader Wikipedia policy, not as a stand-alone section. As such, IAR is not independently notable. We should do the same as the sources do and present IAR with other WP topics, not as a stand-alone article. I suggested one merge topic, maybe there's another. That's why (the stand-alone article) Ignore all rules should not be kept - the sourcing doesn't allow for it to be kept. schetm (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've considered your request, and I find it improvident. I deline to take up your offer.
 * WP:Before make it clear that Deletion — the Wikipedia equivalent of capitol punishment — is last resort.  There are lots of hurdles you should be jumping before you get to that finish line.
 * In any event, it was not an accusation.
 * It is a statement of fact. There is already plenty enough of sourcing, and the article can be developed.  That you read WP:Before] differently than me doesn't make you immoral.  Just wrong.
 * And you are wasting your and everybody's time Tilting at windmills. Surely we have better things to do.  It's a big encyclopedia.  A work in progress with real need for improvement.   Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I jumped the hurdles and was still compelled to nominate it for deletion. The sourcing isn't good enough and, without better sourcing, the article cannot be further developed. And just because you don't like the outcome of a BEFORE check doesn't mean that there's a "blatant violation of WP:Before" going on. schetm (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the sourcing gaps have to be filled in with self-references to Wikipedia in violation of WP:OR. This simply isn't true. Of the four self-references, two are to pages that are about IAR (namely, WP:IAR and WP:IAR?) and the other two (WP:5P, WP:GAME) are to augment commentary made by reliable sources which discuss critically those policies' relations to IAR. Can you please point out a violation of WP:OR or a sourcing gap in the article?
 * As for the thrust of your argument, we simply disagree on what constitutes SIGCOV. Most of the sources were never intended as arguments for notability; that isn't the only reason sources are included in articles. But of course some of them were, and in my opinion #7, #8, #11, #14 are SIGCOV which demonstrate notability. I guess we'll just have to get more opinions on whether they are or not. (Note that a source has since been added to the article; I'm using numbering as of this permalink.) — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to WP:IAR. Self-referential, doesn't need a standalone article. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you choose to merge? Additionally, given that WP:IAR is not a mainspace page, your !vote is essentially one to delete the article (like if I said Justin Knapp should be merged to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koavf User:Koavf] ), but you haven't commented on notability of the topic. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:IAR page is very short, and I think it could use some more explanation. The sourcing's not great here, with lots of tangential coverage - I guess you could make the argument the academic paper that discusses IAR is sigcov, but I really don't understand why this is a stand-alone article, and not part of WP:IAR. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This would require quite broad consensus at a forum like VPP, given that IAR is one of our oldest and most important policies. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to vehemently oppose any form of addition to the prose of WP:IAR. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets coverage in enough places. Just because it isn't something you can write a lot of text about, doesn't make it less notable.  You can't expect anyone to write an entire page in a newspaper about a one sentence rule.   D r e a m Focus  13:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.