Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites

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

The result of the discussion was  Keep. --RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

External links/Perennial websites
This Essay has does not have support of the community and yet certain editors have been using it as a link in edit histories as a policy justification for mass elimininating links to Find a Grave and other sites. Additionally, some of those same users are now using the talk page of this Essay as means to "discuss" mass deleting Find a Grave because they know that few users watch the talk page and therefore knowone will complain. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notification of this nomination has been posted at External links/Noticeboard Moxy (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is not a good idea to fork off consensus matters best handled at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If this page is reflective of consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, then move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If not, then delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uzma, the primary point of the page is to describe common outcomes from recurring discussions about WP:External links, which are not WP:Reliable sources. The essay was created because of an extremely long discussion at WP:External links/Noticeboard.  As a result, I think it completely inappropriate to tie it to RSN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. About time too. This is exactly what I was talking about since it was first brought up at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. People are treating this page as a policy/guideline as if consensus exists when it doesn't. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - does no harm to let our editors know how people feel about this links.  Moxy (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Since when is quoted as policy a valid reason for the deletion of any essay? Would this not be a case of addressing user conduct? Yoenit (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't bother and in fact I left this for a long long time past when I wanted to submit it. The problem with this Essay is that it is not and should not be used as a policy nor is it an appropriate place to discuss the mass deletion of given links. Further, this essay represents only a few users opinions and all efforts by the other group including myself was immediately reverted. IF this essay is kept it needs to be NPOV and represent both sides of the argument, not just the side that favors eliminating it. Additionally the Find a Grave issue was continuously resubmitted and continuously got no consensus to be eliminated. It continues to be submitted and discussed and the proponents simply refuse to hear that some editors think the link is useful. --Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I partly agree with you there, but I still think the solution is to take editors involved to ANI for their actions rather than deleting this page. Do you really think they will stop removing FaG links if you succesfully delete this page? Yoenit (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well ANI is a good place to go if editors are doing something wrong but in this case I believe the editor feels that are following a policy since they are directly referencing it in their edit summaries. Plus as I mentioned the essay is very one sided and doesn't accuratrely cover the topic. --Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unimpressed by the "quoted as policy" claim, because I've never seen anyone claim it was a policy. I would have guessed that the translation of this line was "linked the page in the edit summary", combined with a belief that other editors are such idiots that they'll think anything in the Wikipedia namespace is a policy (fewer than one in 10,000 pages in the Wikipedia namespace is a policy), but the MFD was prompted by Otr500's recent comment, and Otr500, at least, doesn't appear to be mentioning the essay anywhere. This is a randomly selected edit from this last week, and his lengthy talk-page explanations cite several policies, but never this essay. Oh, and if you actually look at the diff, "mass eliminating" is hardly an accurate description, since he re-formatted and retained the external link to Find-a-Grave. I see no reason at all to delete this essay. I do see reasons for Kumioko to calm down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to disagree about it not having the support of the community. From my quick perusal of the postings, it looks like a lively debate is going on about different topics in the Noticeboard.  I don't want to weigh in on one side or the other of the particular topics, but saying that it does not have support might actually mean "People are not agreeing with my inputs."  (Am I reading this wrong?) The whole debate is rather abstruse though.  Indeed, this is a debate about the debate!--S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Candidly, this nomination strikes me as sour grapes:  As far as I can tell, Kumioko disagrees with only about 10% of the page (the parts that discourage, but do not prohibit, links to Find-a-Grave). He was unable to gain consensus for anointing Find-a-Grave as a desirable external link in a talk page discussion involving more than a dozen editors, so he's now demanding that the whole essay be deleted, including the uncontested advice related to YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, IMDB, Wikileaks, etc.  The essay does not encourage or authorize mass deletions or any type of mindless editing.
 * Im not upset in the least and I apologize if it appears I am not calm. I do agree with many of the comments on the essay and I even agree that Find a Grave isn't the best source. The problem stems from the Essay being considered by some users as a policy and that some are using it as a justification to mass delete the Find a Grave link from dozens of articles. --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not seeing any clear rationale for deletion. Yes, editors are trying to apply the reasoning within the External links/Perennial websites (ELPW) article to their editing. Perhaps some of these editors are doing so as if ELPW were already a guideline. Neither is a reason to delete the article. The article addresses difficult, long-term problems. While it may not even become a guideline, it is at minimum a useful reference for discussions about such external links. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007. Oops I cited an essay as policy, better delete it now.AerobicFox (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommendation: Start a WP:Kick the ass of anyone who cites WP:EL/Perennialwebsites as a policy, and then site that article in response to cites of the above article. That's about the best I can think of.AerobicFox (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article isn't policy and if someone cites it as then there are other ways to handle it. This article is useful to cover long-term EL/RS issues, sort of like an FAQ or WP:PEREN. I think it is good to show consensus overtime so when the problem comes up, it can be engaged more easily. Instead of typing a 500 word response, a user can cite the essay. Even if the essay doesn't represent consensus right now, it is there for that. No reason to delete. The page is probably better off in WP:RS and maybe as an eventual information page, not as essay.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As advice about what to add, this page is mostly good. This advice needs to be readily available. It needs to be clear that it's not policy (mostly OK). Its use as a justification for edit warring is not a justification for removing the good advice, it's an argument for improving it. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is useful to explain the many conversations at the external link notice board and the different articles that have these types of external links. I agree with what the others above have to say about why this should be kept and not deleted.  I have removed the Find a Grave site from articles that had it as a reliable source which I believe everyone who discussed this in the last round of discussions agreed that it was not to be used as a reliable source.  I have also removed it from external links when another more reliable source was used in the article that showed the same picture and information.  I have to say that I agree strongly with what WhatamIdoing says.  There is no reason given to justify the deletion of this essay.  If people use it as an explanation, which I have done, it doesn't mean I think it's a guideline or a policy.  It just means that I think this essay explains why some actions were taken to remove or relocate the link of F-a-G.  The only thing I would have done differently would be to put that it's an essay in the edit summary along with the rest of my reasoning so there would be no confusion. I think the essay should stay and maybe even worked on so that maybe it could qualify to become a guideline for the uses of these different external links that are constantly being argued about.  I don't know how that is done so I would have to watch and see and help where I could.  I just don't see any justifications for the deletion of this essay and I truely believe that this essay is a useful essay esp. when discussing the reasons for deletion or moving. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's an essay. As such, it doesn't have to represent the consensus of the whole community, but it does seem to have the support of at least a significant part of it. Perhaps it could be edited to note that some editors disagree with the views it expresses; but if you disagree with it, why not just write your own essay like WP:Why Find-A-Grave links should be included (or whatever) instead? Robofish (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move this page away from a subpage of WP:EL, perhaps to Perennial external link matters. That should take care of a lot of the issues brought up here, because an essay shouldn't be on a subpage of a formal guideline.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for, say, Reliable sources/Cost, Child protection/safety measures, Neutral point of view/Examples, Non-free content/FAQ, Abuse response/Schools aren't the only networks who respond to abuse reports, Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation, Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, RFC/How to present a case, Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material, and all the others? I don't actually object to moving the page to another name, but I think that the current name is fine, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are no justifiable reasons to delete this essay. Accusations have apparently been seen as smoke and the essay has an importance that, as listed above could be;  "...worked on so that maybe it could qualify to become a guideline for the uses of these different external links that are constantly being argued about." , and with the help of other editors this could be accomplished. None of the opposing comments would be solved by a move. Early on (14 January 2011) because; "...it might be perceived as policy or something...", I suggested adding a This page in a nutshell template, found here, that stated,  "This essay and the talk page is currently an on-going discussion to find consensus to improve Wikipedia concerning external links. This essay contains certain opinions that has not reached consensus and is in no way to be regarded as policy ", and am sure I commented on it again. It was apparently not important then but now it is an issue? Otr500 (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit to ensure that it reflects consensus. It is a good idea and a nice resource aimed at a beginning editor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep very useful page that should help cut down on often-asked questions about external links. As it stands it is mostly on-target with our external links guidelines, although as a new essay it isn't yet perfect.  Kumioko's opposition to the consensus on find-a-grave websites should be noted.  Them  From  Space  15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, it is an essay, one does not have to agree with it (well, people do not even have to agree with our policies and guidelines), so that is absolutely not a reason to delete this. This is also not the venue to oppose parts of an essay, or even make a point in your disagreement with (parts of) our policies and guidelines.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as the claims it does not have community support is both untrue and irrelevant for an essay. Furthermore, we should do what we can to promote it to full guideline or policy. Share it with fellow editors, as it is essential reading. DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would take this whole process as a gleaming endorsement of the essay Moxy (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But certainly not as an endorsement of the current version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree most think that the idea of the essay is useful and there is some truth to that and many believe that since its just an essay its not hurting anything. However, an essay is also not a policy or guideline and when users are referencing it in discussions against the use of sites like Find a Grave or using it as a justification in edit summeries that is what concerns me. It is getting better though and some changes have already been made since this MFD started so hopefully the remiaining problems will get sorted out as well in time. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Until it was edited on the essay that Find a Grave can be used (Almost never means there are exceptions) as a source or reference (this needs serious attention) I was a proponent of Find a Grave (and have even defended the site against black listing) as an external link. Now I am inclined to agree with other editors that Find a Grave, as it now stands, is doing more harm than good. I will continue to oppose the use of the site, as a reliable source or reference, no matter how good some of the information might be. The policies and guidelines that prohibit the use currently has consensus. Circular discussions that there are some things good with an unacceptable site does not change the policies and guidelines. If we gave as liberal interpretation as possible, maybe even with one eye closed, Find a Grave fails under more that one prohibitive policy or guideline concerning the use as a reliable source or reference. That is the purpose of the external links section. The fact that the site is and has been used as a source or reference is why I have been fought tooth and toe nail. I did not know this at the beginning but now it is clear. This is amazing to me because I have continued to state that I like Find a Grave and IMBD but my ignored concerns, that there are problems with the project instructions and grave errors in the way the site is being used on Wikipedia, have continually been argued in meaningless discussions with disregard of policies and guidelines. This is not a new problem as it has been going on since 2005 and has caused some editors to stop contributing to the Find a Grave project. I have been asking for editors to fairly seek consensus on the essay as well as a solution to the problems. I have not even made any edits to the essay but only suggestions to get consensus. To me (my opinion) I have been fair and impartial but the issues I have brought to light will not go away just by ignoring them. I also stated that I would not continue to be a party to consensus by silence if there was not progress toward a solution or should my concern be ignored. There are articles that have been created using Find a Grave as a source or reference. Sometimes there will be no source or reference but Find a Grave (IMBD or both) used as an external link. This masking of an improper source has apparently went unnoticed. Doing this also subjects the links to be in violation of WP:EL policies and guidelines. This makes the entire article subject to WP:OR and failure to meet several other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The argument that the site has information not available elsewhere, as an important reason to allow any use of Find a Grave as a source or reference, means such an article fails WP:NOTABILITY. My concerns (and edits) have strictly been because of any site being used as a source or reference that does not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines or the improper use of external links. I have posted (as referenced above) the rationale in the edit summary and article talk pages. I explicitly use policies and guidelines and not essay guidelines. I also examine each article and only copy the many used policies and guidelines for ease of editing and never just delete. I was transferring Find a Grave to external links when appropriate but with no help, and the regards of some editors that doing the right thing is wrong, I will let someone else do this. I do not use the site so by compromising (which was not appreciated anyway) I actually have been using the site but I will not do this anymore. I am actually at a lost to understand what exceptions some editors are choosing to invoke to give special allowances to Find a Grave. If IMBd, that has managerial editorial over site, is not acceptable then what gives proponents of Find a Grave (please note the current RS edit on the essay) reasons to continually claim exceptions? Because there is some good information on an unacceptable site (for source or reference) just does not "cut the mustard" to me. There are acceptable ways to try to get the policies changed that have consensus. If editors do make a deletion from information that is found on an essay, that is within the scope of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not grounds to revert the edit nor does it make the edit or deletion invalid. The mass deletion claims are false and this was noted by another editor. Because I choose to adhere to the fact that the many mentioned policies and guidelines are not trivial and feel edits are needed on articles that are in blatant violation of these, is nothing less than good editing. I can not just let this go as some apparently would like. If it is found that I am in error then I will correct such error. Correcting errors and mistakes found on articles is a fundamental process of Wikipedia. I feel concern with the betterment of Wikipedia and not circumvention of policies and guidelines should be of utmost importance. The essay actually has a more far reaching need than I thought but needs neutral editorial help. I am glad to see the essay nominated (even if for no valid reason) for this MFD. The exposure, even though probably not the intent, of something so important will benefit Wikipedia and editors now and in the future. With the current support and a consensus to keep the next step possibly would be to nominate the essay for advancement to an Infopage or Draft proposal then a Proposal. With closure of this MFD, and a consensus to keep, criteria for a draft proposal will have actually already been achieved. I do think that more work is required with more editors before any additional steps are taken. Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the consensus seems to be to keep the essay as advice and that people don't have to agree with it and might be helpful. Many also indicate that it is not a policy and that it could stand improvement. Your fairly long comment only advocates why it should be eliminated so that it doesn't become a policy or guideline. The Find a Grave site IS NOT harmful to Wikipedia and IMO and the opinions of others provides information that we would not be able to otherwise find a reference for which I freely admit should only be allowed by exception and with strict limitations. Banning the site (or IMDB) would likely lead to the deletion of vital data (namely Birth/death and burial information) from many articles and potentially deletion of the otherwise notable articles themselves. Aside from that it does no harm to have Find a Grave or several of the other sites listed as an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a user who has been mass removing the links to Find a Grave . --Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't be daft. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.