Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground (2)


 * 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 keep. ( Radiant ) 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground
Finishing nom for User:Jrockley as requested here. Procedural nomination, I offer no opinion in this nomination, but reserve the right to offer one later BigDT 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC) It's an essay, but a very valid one. I am considering writing my own version on the same subject... --SunStar Nettalk 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See also first mfd --BigDT 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments at the prior MfD discussion. Doesn't purport to be a policy or guideline, acceptable as an essay. I see no apparent inconsistency with policies such as WP:LIVING, but any such should be resolved by editing or in consultation with the creator rather than deletion. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep - per Newyorkbrad - doesn't seem that bad...Moreschi
 * Keep (as creator). Read it, please.  Read the example and see if you can think of any parallels in deletion debates.  The purpose of this essay is actually the opposite of what you might think; it's to encourage people to establish in the article why we should care about their pet subject, as well as a way of guiding people who argue about subjects they can't be bothered to write up in sufficient detail to attract keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - from the first MFD: "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". JzG said that. I agree with it. The fact that there are policies and guidelines relating to WP:BIO has nothing to do with the point of this article. Too many people seem to say "Well, he's not notable but we can find something later", vote to Keep and Cleanup, and the ignore it forever. The essay is a point in trying to show why that doesn't work. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Makes the valid point that people too often refuse to delete things on the grounds they might be cleaned up to show notability/verifiability eventually, despite that not having happened. -Amarkov blahedits 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per NYBrad and inasmuch as, the considerable merits of this particular page notwithstanding, we generally don't&madsh;or at least ought not&mdash;to delete essays that seek to advance encyclopedic purposes or discussions about such advancement. I suppose I can conceive of why one would think the essay to be inconsistent with LIVING, but I can't imagine that any such argument should be persuasive.  Joe 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good advice. --Improv 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ter e nce Ong 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep May need a copy editor or a renaming, but raises good points in a civil way. --Dgies 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A good, non-sarcastic essay with a valid point. Koweja 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Illustrates Wikipedia guidelines and general opinion on bio content/notability masterfully. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And additional note: Yeah, it may need an another title. Look at me, I'm not a native English speaker, and here I am, wondering, in general, why the heck some weird foreign people, counterintuitively enough, compare random passers-by to geographical features... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly under another title. Marked as essay (not policy), begins by pointing reader at the most relevant policy pages.  Makes a bunch of useful points that come up at least several times a day on AfD.  I fear a newcomer may follow an editor's link from an AfD discussion to this page, read only the title, and get offended.  Otherwise it's not sarcastic or excessively ironic, it doesn't advocate anything counter to policy, and it gives a very helpful example to illustrate.  If people told us what is most memorable/significant/etc about a person when they start a bio article, a lot of worthy article stubs would get tagged for sourcing and saved, and hopefully most would get improved soon.  And in other cases we could more easily determine "that's all he's done?, okay, not notable enough for a bio, but merge a line or two into such-and-such topic."  Article seems to meet policy and consensus; editor who requested this listing has made a lot of useful contributions  (and never been blocked), but appears to be trying to get rid of essays that are "uncivil" such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No one cares.  Other than maybe the title, this policy-supporting essay doesn't fall into that category.  Barno 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This explains the notability guidelines for new users well enough, it's an 'alternative' version of WP:NOTE.
 * 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.