Wikipedia:TNTTNT



In deletion discussions, some pages are seen to be so full of problems that editors want to blow it up and start over (i.e. with WP:DYNAMITE or WP:TNT), that is, delete the page and all its contributions so that a new article can be started from scratch. This argument is almost always invalid (blatant BLP violations, copyright violations, and sockpuppetry/trolling are exceptions). If "WP:TNT" is invoked as the primary argument in an AFD, the process could quickly end with a "keep" decision.

When the "TNT" is claimed:
 * It is acknowledging the validity of the page's topic.
 * It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article
 * It is setting up future confusion over history of article and alternative points of view, and unhelpfully disconnecting from any previous discussion of the topic (because the Talk page itself will be deleted, including its links to any previous AFDs)
 * It is effectively calling for other editors to review every past version of the article for merit. (If the article could be reverted to any past version, then deletion is not valid.)  Usually the one calling "TNT" is not trying to salvage anything of merit, so they are just foisting work upon others.
 * It may come across as provocative and insensitive to all of the contributors who added anything to the article
 * It causes more work by categorizers and every other type of editor, when the article is recreated.
 * It can hide a history of COI editors working to get some topic into Wikipedia, or POV editors striving for some particular slant, which other editors deserve to know about, rather than having to reason with less evidence about the same behavior in a new article.
 * It might be irksome if this would be about someone seeking credit for creating the topic anew.
 * A WP:TNT vote in an AfD asks a logical impossibility of a future editor who accepts the responsibility to "start over", creating a new page. It is impossible for the future editor to determine if the page is actually "new", or not. Without any history, the "new" article may be reproducing parts, even large parts of the "blown up" content.

Note the essay WP:TNT states that "Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over." Certainly it is sometimes useful to call for a total rewrite of an article. But why should the edit history not reflect the fact that a previous version existed?

In practice, calls for WP:TNT are self-defeating, because many editors recognize the nature of the argument.

Consider tagging an article for a complete rewrite instead, by Rewrite, and explain your criticism of the current article at its Talk page.