Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistakes were made


 * 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. No clear consensus to merge it to a particular article, so best to leave as is for now. Further discussion can be held on the article talk page. NW ( Talk ) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes were made

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is mainly a fairly random list of uses of the phrase "mistakes were made" in news reports. To the extent it does have any substantive content, this is basically covered in the article non-apology apology, which covers precisely the same topic-matter in effect ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 08:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While not the greatest of WP's articles (but still far from the worst), two very good sources are given which discuss the term itself. A list of examples follows, but that is not a really a problem. Merge as suggested by nominator would also be fine, if you think having one second rate article is better than having two. Otherwise I don't see any real advantage to doing that.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh? So you're really proposing a merge, but making a deletion nomination? Merge, as they cover such similar topics and the reader is better served by having one more comprehensive article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many sources do indeed equate the two: "The classic construction of a non-apology is “mistakes were made.” For economy of language, passivity, and evasion of responsibility, you can't beat this phrase." Also etc. etc.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Fences and windows. (and I agree that AfD is not a good place to propose merges). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a merge. I think it should be deleted because the content is already covered in another page. Not could be covered. Is. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this content is not covered there. The phrase "mistakes were made" is a notable example of a non-apology apology and there is sourced content about its use in this article, but it is only mentioned in the See also section of that article, not within the body of the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to non-apology apology, since it is a case of that. I was going to suggest merge to "mistake" since it is a special use of that word, but there is no article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid deletion argument has yet been articulated, certainly not by the nominator who claims this topic is "already covered" in non-apology apology when that is patently not the case (search on the word "mistakes" in that article to see what I mean). Fences and windows provides good examples of usage, but those examples do not "equate" the phrase "mistakes were made" with "non-apology apology," rather the former is a prominent example of the latter per the sources cited. The last source cited by Fences, the Washington Post, argues that employing "mistakes were made" rhetorically "has been a favorite technique of American presidents." That's an interesting (and notable!) detail worth adding to the article, particularly because it supports material already there&mdash;it's certainly not a reason for merging content that is already sourced well enough (via the New York Times and Bill Safire, separately from the Times) to have its own article. I'm only !voting here because I came looking for our article on this famous phrase in U.S. politics and was hoping for some good examples, which were indeed there. Unfortunately it had been prodded (which I removed) and now we are at AfD. Of course this article could be better, but deleting or even stripping content for a merge would be silly and no one has really offered a persuasive argument for doing so, meaning WP:PRESERVE is still operative. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Nothing but definition and usage examples here, which is dictionary content.  Any encyclopedic analysis of the phrase's use that might be added here would actually belong in the article we already have on that topic (non-apology apology).  Powers T 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - a perfectly good stand-alone article, well-referenced, for a cliched phrase. Not exactly the same as a "non-apology apology", and I see no pursuasive argument to delete or to merge it, so neither redirect or merger would improve the encyclopedia.  The nomination is of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being well-referenced is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an encyclopedia article. The problem is that this article has a) a definition, b) usage examples, and c) precious little else.  Powers T 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The NYT article is a solid source. And here's another good source which features it in the title: Mistakes were made (but not by me): why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts.  This book indicates that we might consider merger into self-justification.  There seem to be many ways to go with this material but they do not require deletion and our editing policy is not to delete if we can sensibly avoid it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well established and well sourced concept. The very fact that there was a book written about this concept (the book has its own Wikipedia article) argues for its distinct notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (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.