Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources

 __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:  delete. If someone wishes to turn this into a real essay they can use WP:REFUND. Legoktm (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This essay is just a couple of lines long, and in those lines, it says something that goes against official policy, and without any reasonable cause to make an exception. If a topic only has primary, self-published or unreliable sources available, it shouldn't have an article, period. Being a "parent" article does not grant any special priviledges. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Normally I would suggest userfying fringe essays like this, but the creator is indefinitely blocked so that solution doesn't work and it doesn't belong in the project namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. While I'm a big believer that primary sources are useful, if not essential, for citing fundamental, uncontroversial facts in articles, and I sort of get where this essay is trying to go, it is confusing, incomplete, does not explain how it is consistent with policy (or why it is not), and does not belong in project space. Second choice, userify even though the user is indeffed. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Userify - to my userspace specifically. I think this essay has some potential for elucidating on the specific use cases where WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD applies, but it is, as has been said by Mdewman6, clearly incomplete and has no consensus for being in project space. Still, I agree with the principle being expressed (though it's not worded very well; what the hell is a "parent article"?) so I'd be interested in keeping and improving it myself. I'll tag it with   and flesh it out to actually reflect relevant policy. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within)  01:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there anything worth preserving here? You've already questioned the use of "parent article" so the title isn't even appropriate. It seems like if someone were to develop an essay along these lines, it would be best to start from scratch. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a definition for "parent article" in the glossary at Glossary, and it's used in passing in places like WP:SPLIT and WP:CONTENTFORK, but I agree it's not a common, well-known WP term. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, it is used extensively at WP:Summary style. Basically, my interpretation is that when there is a broad concept article and sections have their own main articles, then the BCA can be thought of as a parent article. I think the current essay may be using the term a bit too narrowly (but at the same time, ambiguously). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Userfy as a disputed single author essay. Userfy for the blocked author. This doesn’t preclude someone else from moving it again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Am OK with deletion, WP:TNT, it is confused and confusing and it’s use as a start point for someone else’s essay would be worse than a fresh start. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Userify to the blocked editor's userspace. To User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, you can just copy the content to your userspace with proper attribution in edit summary if you would like to improve on it. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form. An expanded version of this essay, stating when primary sources are useful, would be good, but this does not have enough material to be a useful beginning.  That, combined with the status of the user, is reason to delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What specific policy or guideline calls us to give weighted importance to the block status of a page creator, unless that particular account was created in violation of an existing block or ban? &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There may be some desire and/or need to write essays on when it is a good idea to use primary sources, but this is not that essay. This is a badly written page of nonsense that shows a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and how this site works. The fundamental premise of this essay doesn't make any sense - why should parent articles (better known as summary style) use primary sources? The whole point of a parent article is to give a high level overview of a topic - these articles need to be written with reference to secondary sources as that is the only real way of ascertaining what academic consensus about a topic is and determining what aspects of a topic are important enough to merit inclusion in an overview. Why would we want the article World War II to be sourced entirely to eyewitness accounts, contemporary documents and the like, while resigning all academic scholarship to increasingly obscure sub-articles? Why would we want an article on a city to be sourced to websites from companies in that city trying to sell you things. This is a ludicrous suggestion.
 * The rest of the page is little better. The reason we don't like using sources related to the subject has nothing to do with "the facts being thrown around" - we don't like using those sources because they are biased and only show one side of a subject. No company in the world is going to have a website stating that they are mainly known for an environmental disaster or some other controversy. No public figure is going to have a website that isn't almost exclusively praise. The essay forgets what it's talking about half way through and goes on an unrelated tangent - the the bullet point list has nothing to do with "why summary style articles should use primary sources" and instead just commentary on when primary sources could be used generally.
 * I don't think the creator's block is irrelevant here - they were blocked for WP:CIR issues, and in my opinion the block shows the pattern of behaviour that led to the creation of this nonsense.
 * In conclusion, this essay needs WP:TNT. More essays on WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD could be a good thing, but they need to be written by someone who actually understands what they are doing. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2022 (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.