Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was No Consensus. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground I am not familiar with this person
Simply an uncivil attitude, that is used in AFDs. It's a poor excuse for people to work "I don't know this person from a hole in the ground". People should do research in their nominations, and delete votes, and not try to delete articles for anybody they haven't heard of. --Rob 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a way of explaining why, when absolutely no evidence whatsoever is provided of the notability of a given subject, some people at AfD will vote to delete it, because in the end it's not really right to slap an article in and then expect somebody else to prove that it should be there by finding the evidence of notability. Article creators should, at the very least, provide basic evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have WP:BIO to say any consensus view of this. This is just a classic "fork" opinion page, which gives somebody the chance to say something, that might be reverted on WP:BIO.    --Rob 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We also have many other similar essays stating in accessible terms what is meant by policy, or explaining people's thought processes. WP:NFT is another example. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've always wanted to nom a MfD... thanks for giving me an idea! OK, kidding. I already said keep but my question here is what's the harm in keeping these around? Especially when a Noted Deletionist wrote it and has to defend it... maybe he's reformable! OK, kidding again... + +Lar: t/c 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a nice statement of the nature of some pages that are put up making mention of a person by someone who neither knows them nor cares about anything except one aspect of their life.  Midgley 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag it as an essay, seems a useful enough page. I would not be opposed to a merge with some other page but it does present a unique perspective. Keep + +Lar: t/c 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tag as essay. -- Krash (Talk) 14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JzG and Midgley. JoshuaZ 14:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsurprisingly, it's only uses so far are quite uncivil -- although this may be a problem with the editors referring to it rather than the page itself. Rudeness is pretty fundamental to the culture of AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant and unnecessary. --Hyphen5 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Not itself uncivil; and articles on non-notable people should be deleted - and should not be written. If this helps make the points: write about notable people and establish notability, that's a Good Thing. Septentrionalis 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: no less civil than WP:BEANS, WP:BALLS or WP:STUPID, and just as useful. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to concede there is well established precedent for being needlessly rude in Wikipedia, with a page like this. However, I feel that's a precedent that shouldn't be respected.   --Rob 08:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or move back to userspace of whoever created it. I dislike nn/vanity bios as much as any wikipedian, but the logic here is flawed: notability is not based on simple recognition.  Moat people aren't familiar with Frank Welker, but he has 500+ movie and TV credits spanning 5 decades, including The Lion King and The Simpsons.  I doubt most folks would recognise Shigeru Miyamoto if they saw him walking by, but he's a founding father of (and major player in) a $30-billion-a-year industry.  I'm completely unfamiliar with Nana Mouskouri, yet she's one of the most successful recording artists of all time, with more than 300 million records sold.  Notability is absolute, recognition is highly subjective and means very little.  Besides, this is already covered much better under WP:BIO and elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point of this essay-let: "non-notability" is a criterion upon which many deletion nominations are based, partly because the nominator might have been somewhat lazy and not bothered to check, and partly because the article fails to establish notability sufficiently. What you are saying here is just what this essay is also saying, but you're being slightly less brutal. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The "point" of this is essay-let is so that somebody can say "Delete - I haven't heard of him from a hole in the ground". That's it.  That proud statement of personal ignorance (translation:  "I don't know about it, so delete it"), with a nifty link, is the *sole* point of this essay.  Actually, the contents aren't even that important.  It's the title and ability link to it, which is what this is all about.   Some people come to this encyclopedia to read about things they don't already know about (no point only reading what I already know).   Sadly, others come to delete anything they don't know about.  That's the issue underlying this. --Rob 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this essay has already been used in deletion debates as though it were a policy or guideline, as in "Delete per WP:HOLE". Articles for deletion/Jerry Johnson for one example (not that I disagree with the deletion of that article, of course). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I know what the intent of the author was. It was this: if the article's author has not, by the end of the article, established enough information about the subject that we, the readers, would as a result know him from a hole in the ground, then either the subject is non-notable, or the article has signally failed to do its job.  Although there is a difference between a non-notable subject and a subject whose notability is not established by the article, it is not always visible to the naked eye and if AfD fails to spot the difference it is hard to blame those taking part. Just zis Guy you know? 16:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How about keeping the essay, but deleting the WP:HOLE shortcut, so as to discourage it being cited as a deletion reason on AFDs and such? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I renamed it, and dropped the display of the shortcut (but the redirect still functions, for those who already used it). I think this is an interesting test.  We'll see if the purpose of this was to express a legitimate view (as said above), or was to call people names (e.g. a "hole in the ground").  I'll know the answer depending on whether I'm reverted.  --Rob 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On a PC note, the new title is now gender neutral. --Rob 23:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a fairly important essay on deletion policy.68.192.25.106 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I expanded the thing to deal with the argument's main flaw. Keep as expanded. Xoloz 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, straw man argument that I see a lot from people complaining about AfD but that nobody ever uses as a deletion argument. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the original version of the article, and who made it. The original author is no strawman.  The logic (of the original version) was and is used to remove material from Wikipedia, and keep it removed, on a regular basis.  Check the backlink for WP:HOLE to see how often its been used already.  A classic quote "He scores only about one tenth the number of Ghits that I do, and I am my own benchmark for non-notability. I call WP:HOLE.".  In other words, if somebody hasn't heard of somebody, and they don't get enough google hits, its ok to delete.  People have good reason to complain about AFD. --Rob 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your own words show that what you are claiming is not true. The argument was that there was no proof of notability, not that the voter had never heard of the person.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 10:29, 1 April 2006 (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.