Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why should I care?


 * 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. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I care?
The page encourages people to ignore consensus guidelines, and vote delete for things that the guidelines indicate should not be deleted. Personal opinions like this are ok to hold, but belong in userspace, to indicate they are just the views of that user. Rob 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * False. This explains why, when people fail to include any evidence whatsoever that a subject meets inclusion criteria, it might be nominated for deletion. This is the opposite of the stated case; it encourages authors to go with consensus by includion evidence that the subject meets guideliens and policy. Keep. Just zis Guy you know? 08:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You called my point false, but didn't actually address it. You're talking about the message you wanted to send authors.  I'm talking about the message sent to AFD participants.  AFD participants should *not* be asking "Why should I care?".  They should be basing their decisions on guideline, policy, and what external reliable sources say.  People need to leave their personal bias at the door.  I don't care about pokemon, or "death metal".  Yet, I don't vote to delete those articles if found to be notable, based on reliable sources.  What you or I care about personally, simply doesn't matter.  And it should be left out of Wikipedia.  WP:NPOV is core policy, and the very title of this page, goes against it.  --Rob 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I called it false because that was not my intention in writing it. The point is, if the author does not care enough to make the case for the subject, why should anyone else?  There are some editors who delight in creating large numbers of stub or sub-stub articles, tagging them with {expand} and wandering off.  No problem with listing these things at requested articles, but it's hardly unreasonable to expect them to at least try to write a couple of paragraphs - we allude to this in WP:BAI. Just zis Guy you know? 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it help you to cite some examples of this happening ie guidelines for notability are clearly met, but article is deleted for non-notability because of lack of supporting evidence? Or article is important but deemed WP:VSCA, and deletion rather than fixing is taken as the easy option? Stephen B Streater 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I had an article deleted for just the reasons given in this article. If I had known about this article, it would have saved a lot of time. Stephen B Streater 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And why is this *and* I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground both needed? Are we going to have a new page for every catch-phrase somebody can think of?  If people find what's here useful, put it on the appropriate guideline and/or policy page (or some high visibility page). --Rob 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be useful too. Or a link to the article from there. It's more the contents that are useful ie this is how Wikipedia works in practice. I've found people can sometimes ignore guidelines, or not know they exist, and knowing this is useful. Even the software notability guideline discussion starts off saying there is no current guideline, when there is. Stephen B Streater 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concede this is often how AFD does work. People do ask  "Why should I care?", and vote to delete, based soley on their own personal lack of concern for something.  This page would have some utility if it warned authors of the problem, and discouraged voters from pushing their personal bias in AFDs.  But this page doesn't discourage use of the approach, but actually encourages it.   --Rob 09:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * {sofixit} :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. This violates it, and is beyond repair.  --Rob 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes discouraging arbitrary deletions. Stephen B Streater 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep.. It may benefit from expansion, but OTOH, it is admirably focussed, terse, and clear. Midgley 13:00, 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 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tag as essay. Useful, concise, and to the point. -- Krash (Talk) 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is an essay so its fine. --Ter e nce Ong 10:59, 30 March 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.