Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 7

It's useful considered harmful
I've edited the "It's useful" section to reinforce the main idea that usefulness should be explained in debates. I've found that it's being used to mean that usefulness of content is not important at Wikipedia! In a recent discussion an editor explicitly said that usefulness on it's own isn't a great enough reason for having content, linking to this essay for explanation. People isn't even reading the whole section before making judgement calls; in the case I commented, the argument for usefulness was explicitly described in this essay as a valid one. Diego Moya (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked a sentence, just for the syntax. I think your premise is perfectly sound. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I was not sure that a bold edit of a popular essay would stay without being discussed at the talk page first.Diego Moya (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I said usefulness on it's own is not enough to categorise a video game as a fictional character. Don't take my reasons out of context. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I removed the link to the discussion. But you still were linking to wp:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to support an argument of yours that doesn't refer to deletion discussions, and when this section is about too short arguments that don't provide reasons - not to the validity of usefulness itself as a basis for reasoned arguments. (Besides, your intervention is not the only time I've seen this essay being used in that harmful way). Diego Moya (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, about 85% of the fallacious arguments presented in this essay are broadly applicable outside of discussions per se. Really, this page should be moved to Arguments to avoid in Wikipedia discussions or something, since most of this is applicable to merge discussions, arguments about inclusion or exclusion of facts in articles, split/WP:SUMMARY debates, renames, etc., etc., etc.  Many people cite its logic, when applicable, and probably shouldn't be taken to task for it, even if you want to argue about other stuff with them. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. I'd support that name change, but this should be done as a formal proposal at the Village Pump. Diego (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Subjective importance?
The section on Subjective importance states several times that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, but that is against the description of the first pillar: "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I will rework it to keep the bit about importance "not sufficient on its own", but remove everything about local fame being a hindrance for notability per wp:NOTPAPER; the inclusion criteria should be the existence of reliable sources per WP:GNG, even if they are local. Diego Moya (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Wikipedia also contains glossaries, although in the past I've seen well written glossaries AfD'd with reasons such as WP:DICTIONARY, WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. While this problem isn't entirely related to WP:ATA, it is related to the first pillar and something I've been unable to figure out how to fix. I've been seeing more and more of these at AfD lately and we even have one such article at DRV right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic glossaries are generally kept these days, with the key word being "encyclopedic". Lists of words with dictionary-like terse definitions that don't provide encyclopedic detail generally don't belong here. Contrast wordlists of that sort with, say, Glossary of cue sports terms, a richly-developed article. Anyway, I think Diego is misinterpreting the pillars point. Wikipedia  a general encyclopedia, the world's most. It  permits super-geeky specialist-encyclopedia information, and info that would be found in other tertiary sources like almanacs and gazetteers, short of being a general directory or repository for trivia. But it  first and foremost certainly a general encyclopedia, and this page isn't wrong to re-make this point, even if the wording for doing so may need tweaking. As for "local fame" issues, I think that's matter for WT:N and what is said here should reflect what WP:N says by consensus, which will already have taken WP:NOTPAPER into account.  It would not be wise to remove material from here on the basis of your personal interpretation of NOTPAPER without first being very sure that WP:N's interpretation is not being misrepresented here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like it" - a personal attack?
Is it a personal attack to say that arguments for deletion are "I don't like it"? I made such an argument at ANI. One of the involved editors scolded me for doing so, saying I'd attacked him. I see that there are over 5000 inbound links from WP:IDONTLIKEIT alone. If it's true that referring to this section and redirect are personal attacks then we should delete them. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    02:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the broadest sense, no - because we are assuming that even if its an argument to avoid, it is an argument on the article itself and not the editors involved (per AFG). I can see in exceptional situations where editor A and B have been at each others throats, that B responding to an AFD of A's article and saying "I don't like it" could be taken as a personal one, but again, look at the amount of setup I have to create to make that case even plausable. --M ASEM (t) 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. IDONTLIKEIT, however personally grating some may find it, is fundamentally an argument about the argument, not the person making the argument.  I think it's entirely possible to AGF that an editor means well, yet is making poor arguments based on personal biases.  My most recent essay, WP:NIME, expounding on this point. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But in this case, I think it's all about the editor. Will Beback has my talkpage watchlisted, sticks his nose into events that he knows nothing about and has trumped up evidence at ArbCom against me.  I'm tired of him following me around and I've had it.  His comments are personal attacks against me and I want him to leave me alone if that's all the commentary and 'assistance' he can provide.  If he continues this current course of action, then I'll bust him in the nose every fracking time (virtually, natch... :)).  His continued statements saying that I deleted an article and blocked an editor merely because "I don't like it", is indeed a fracking comment on the editor and not the reasoning.  It needs to stop now.  Dreadstar  ☥  03:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my latest "I don't like it and have presented no other reasoning" according to WBB: Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2. Yup, you bet your ass I don't like it, and neither does BLP Policy.  Something else I don't like, those little violations of policy.  Dreadstar  ☥  03:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not just me. Dreadstar  ☥  03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That last remark seems totally off-topic and could be described as "poisoning the well". The only matter for discussion here is whether referring to "I don't like it" as an invalid deletion reason is a personal attack. Let's stick to that.   Will Beback    talk    04:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Goes to recent motive regarding this entire issue and adds to the pejorative evidence against you. I had a good reason, BLP; yet you continue to attack.  There's a reason for that, it goes way back.  This isn't some isolated incident. Confirms the above suggestion that "I can see in exceptional situations where editor A and B have been at each others throats, that B responding to an AFD of A's article and saying "I don't like it" could be taken as a personal one", you've been at my throat for over year and you continue to be so.  Stop it.  Dreadstar  ☥  05:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are having a problem with an editor, and you can't work it out with him, it is best not to canvas boards to get someone to agree with you, but instead take it to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U or barring that, ArbCom, to resolve it. --M ASEM (t) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that this shouldn't be taken up here, because obviously it is justifiable to refer to this policy, just like any other - it's no more a personal attack for you to say Dreadstar is violating IDONTLIKEIT than for him to say that Cirt and Kiwi and so forth are violating BLP.
 * Those unfamiliar with the underlying dispute should note that the santorum (neologism) argument is tied into the fundamental inclusionist-deletionist debate, an older conflict between Scientology and its critics, an RFC/U about User:Cirt etc. The situation has become very much partisan, with fundamentally different ideologies about what Wikipedia is about, and there is very little middle ground.  I feel that my side remains true to the inclusionist spirit of the pre-2007 Wikipedia, while the other side, among other things, embraces a metastatic BLP policy when it pleases them, and harangues editors for leaving out such things when it does not. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, Wnt, if I say I deleted an article because it was a poorly sourced, contentious BLP, then to you it's the same as if I said "I just didn't like it"? Dreadstar  ☥  23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing any guideline here incivil if the one citing it is doing so in an incivil, ad hominem, personally attacking manner.  The idea that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is  incivil or a violation of WP:NPA is absurd. It's like blaming a hammer for blunt force trauma committed by a killer. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Assertion of notability
Now that we have the GNG, can we add "does not assert notability" to the list of arguments to avoid in deletion debates? If it's an A7 candidate and doesn't assert notability, it should be speedied; otherwise, assertion of notability is irrelevant and has been for years. Yet I see it brought up at AfD all the time. Can we be done with it? —chaos5023 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing your point, but the hurdle at AfD is notability, while the hurdle for CSD A7 is credible assertion of importance. Despite many examples where editors mistake the two concepts, they are not the same, and deliberately so. Many, many articles fall into the gap wherein they contain a credible assertion of importance, yet do not satisfy the criterion of notability. This is intentional.--  SPhilbrick  T  18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, you missed my point. My point is that "assertion of notability" shouldn't be brought up at AfD because, as you say, the hurdle at AfD is being notable per WP:GNG, not the article saying the topic is notable.  Which is why I would like to see "does not assert notability" added to the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  (I don't much like the concept of "assertion of notability" in the first place, because the unencyclopedic gee-whiz language that gets added to articles in order to satisfy obscure Wikipedia process seems like a negative outcome to me, but CSD A7 is a windmill I don't feel up to tilting at today.) —chaos5023 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we really see this, um, strange complaint very often (at an article on a notable subject)? Or is this maybe evidence of ignorance, e.g., inexperienced editors letting us know that they believe A7 requires articles to contain the words "is notable because...", and that we should therefore discount their ill-informed opinions?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My subjective and anecdotal belief is that I see it a lot, yeah, most often as part of a boilerplatey-looking nomination. I don't think it shows up in post-nom opinions nearly as much.  I can poke around for examples if there's interest.  I'm not really sure how often it shows up on notable vs. non-notable topics, but really my point is that it shouldn't matter; if assertion of notability was at issue, the article should've been A7ed, not sent to AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, see Articles_for_deletion/August_Gebert. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we need not only "no assertion of notability", but also a new section, ==Nobody has typed the names of reliable sources onto the page, and I'm too lazy to look==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a really popular one lately. I'm going to see if I can draft some sensible language around assertion of notability.  Wish me luck. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. Diff here.  BRD powers, activate! —chaos5023 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I tried reaching out to the nominator from the August Gebert AfD above and the response was the articulation of a commitment to unresearched AfD noms for the purpose of extracting labor from other volunteers under threat of content destruction. So that's wonderful. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironic example
I notice that the example used to illustrate the flawed Keep argument based upon Page view stats exists. Wouldn't it make more sense to illustrate the point with an article that had high page view stats and resulted in a Delete decision?-- SPhilbrick  T  00:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems logical, if you can find one that fits, I see no issue with changing it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally tracked any examples. But I can imagine it happening quite a lot. Articles get created about current events that fail NOTNEWS. Also, just the fact that an article is up for deletion can lead to it getting viewed a lot as those considering commenting in the discussion view the article. Sebwite (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wild egotism of endless, anonymous editors

 * Almost all of this article, and so much similar Wikipedia "policy," is aimed at empowering the organization's few and dubious insiders to make unilateral decisions about inclusion based on absolutely endless, arbitrary and unknowable subjective criteria.


 * Is about dancing on head of a pin by a few hundred, or a few thousand, individuals, who lack verifiable credentials apart from their list of contributions (typically limited to strange lists and breath-taking telephone book-type projects).


 * How Wikipedia actually works, or equally, how it is so often disfunctional, is based on such entirely opaque "policy." Yet this simply isn't a credible form of knowledge theory.


 * Rather, it is a reflection of Wikipedia's "local politics" as practiced by its most active handful of individuals, who are genuinely unaware of basic epistemology,  and who certainly lack even an awareness of the potential constraints and conventions imposed by a sizable and cautious for-profit copy desk.


 * I would suggest deleting this entire entry, and much else of Wikipedia policy.
 * If facts can be sourced to a known copy desk, then good. If not, then delete.
 * Expand Wikipedia on this basis.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relax.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Relax?" My few points are so bleeding obvious, yet despite this, of course, obviously, nothing can change and discussion cannot be meaningful. All the Wikipedia jerks remain, certainly, jerks.


 * On this basis, then certainly, relaxation is very good advice.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll probably get much better responses if you don't call people jerks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also if your proposals weren't vague and totally ridiculous, but that's another matter.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that Calamitybrook wants a response that is different from the one he has obtained? Perhaps he just wanted to express himself.  Perhaps he wanted to prove yet again that most Wikipedians disagree with him.  Since his comment was so effectively aimed at provoking this sort of response, it is not entirely unreasonable for us to assume that it is the result of intention and skill.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I just like to assume the best in people, while simultaneously assuming the worst.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * These policies are to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible. But I also say, why are some people not following these guidelines? Also, why does Wiki decide to make itself like a school, making many rules and policies? WWEWizard (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because thousands of editors act like raging, hormonal, uneducated, undisciplined, fighting, immature schoolchildren, and the resulting work would be a ridiculous shambles. Are there  rules? Sure. That is of course not a rational call for sheer anarchy, however, even if some ranters make that call. PS, to Calamitybrook: Yes, there are many "insider", know-it-all, holier-than-thou types on Wikipedia. Just learn to work around them. There are also lots of whiny, noob twits who want to do stupid, selfish things and have to be reigned in.  Work around them too.  Your time here will be much happier.  I guess I'm kinda saying what Yaksar is, in different, more cynical words. >;-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:INHERITED
(It may or may not be obvious that this proposal is a result of a recent deletion discussion, but please let's confine ourselves to the actual merits of the proposal, rather than providing our personal opinions about that discussion.)

I'd like to propose a small amount of text to add to our guideline on "Notability is not inherited." Something along the lines of:
 * This guideline is not intended as a means of second-guessing sources. A subject may gain coverage in reliable sources that he or she would not otherwise gain if not related to a notable person, but if that coverage is of them and their activities rather than of the notable person, standard notability guidelines apply.

I propose this because I feel that, in a laudable effort to apply NOTINHERITED, we may be going too far and setting a higher bar for the relatives of notable people. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the DRV to conclude before we take any action here. Reyk  YO!  05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh - I certainly don't expect that anything decided here will be used as an argument in the DRV, either way. It's just called my attention to something that I think should be clarified, either by the addition of more language or by the rejection of said language. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think INHERITED is really at issue at all in that case. More like deciding how well WP:WI1E describes when WP:BLP1E applies. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I obviously disagree and think it would be good to add some sort of clarification to the guidelines - do you actually oppose it, or just think it wouldn't have made a difference in this case? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... as I believe that we ought to have a somewhat higher bar for every living person, I'd rather not try to push down the standards in the one group of BLPs for whom (IMO) we're almost getting it right. Also, I suspect that it would confuse people and therefore not actually be helpful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an underlying problem we're missing here, in that the "celeb" press like to manufacture pseudo-celebrities out of the spouses and dates and roommates and nieces and landlords and whatever of genuinely notable people. It's their bread and butter. These "fifteen minutes" types can  temporarily notable, like because People and Cosmopolitan and Soap Opera digest all publish articles about how some soap actor's college roommate is gay, but this is basically just .  It should not be confused with genuine notability.  Another issue is that people go out of their way to "complete collections", like if Greg Evigan rightly has an article, his fans want to create articles on every one of his kids, even though of them hasn't done jack other than have a couple of roles as an extra or whatever. I AfD'd one of those (forget the outcome).  Because papa Evigan is notable  paparazzi rags are going to follow his kids around and take pictures of them and try to make them the talk of the party circuit or whatever (otherwise they're wasting their time and money - no one wants to buy magazines about random nobodies).  It's actually a WP:RS problem at its core - not all big-publisher brouhaha about someone is necessarily the real deal. People magazine is not in fact a truly reliable source about much of anything, it's just a popular and allegedly entertaining one. Anyway, this discussion really doesn't belong here, but at WT:N. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Poorly sourced articles on potentially notable topics
In recent days I have come across some articles that share the following characteristics:


 * 1) The sources that were actually being used in the article were insufficient to establish notability.
 * 2) There was a significant likelihood that sufficient sources are available to establish the notability of the topic.
 * 3) The articles were not written based on the independent, secondary sources, but drew primarily from self-published sources, primary sources, sources that were ideologically affiliated or close to the topic. (Many also used blogs and other unacceptable sources, but this is not important with regard to this request.)
 * 4) In some cases, editors who have created or have worked on the article appear unwilling to write the articles bases on independent, secondary sources, and to prefer sources that a close to their personal point of view.
 * 5) Reliable sources are sometimes not easy to find, and rewriting an article based on those sources takes time. In addition, there is the possibility to generate a heated controversy with editors who would support the original version of the article.
 * 6) The topics were controversial, and it was difficult to determine whether the presentation conformed to WP:NPOV without a thorough research of sources that were not actually present in the article.

I find in unacceptable that editors who intend to avoid having controversial material on Wikipedia that is not properly sourced are effectively subject to doing the work of finding and evaluating sources, because there is not explicit guideline that potentially biased articles on controversial topics can be deleted, even if proper sources may be found, and may be actually included in the article at some future date. We need to state clearly that it is the responsibility of editors who create articles on controversial topics to actually use adequate sources, and that failure to do so may lead to the deletion of articles on controversial topics that are not properly sourced. I would also include biographies (in my view, both bios of living and of dead people, but I would restrict my suggestions to BLPs at this point), while I would be more lenient, in an eventualist perspective, with regard to poorly sourced articles that are not controversial. Cs32en  Talk to me  20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always remove undersupported assertions per WP:BURDEN--it's not just for completely unsourced material. I agree that the shifting of the efforts onto those trying to clean things up is problematic. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it also possible to blank an article, as an alternative to nominating it for deletion, in those cases where, for example, inadequate sources are being used to support the main aspects, with some acceptable sources only used to support minor details? Cs32en   Talk to me  21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking a page is almost always something that should be avoided, except in regards to copyright issues, I guess. If a page is so bad or biased that an entirely clean start is needed, a better idea would probably be the cut it down to the bare sourceable essentials. If these aren't available, deletion is probably a smart option. We really do want to avoid entirely blank pages.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was assuming that we do not want to have entirely blank pages on the project. But if I see about 20 articles that have no admissible sources, that can't mean that I would have to look for 20 sources on 20 different topics and write a sentence based on each respective source, can it? Cs32en   Talk to me  23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you link to some of the articles to which you're referring? I just want to get a better sense of the issue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Calcutta Quran Petition, 23 Years, and "The Force of Reason" illustrate the problem.  Cs32en   Talk to me  23:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, what you're talking about is called WP:Stubbing. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me to that guideline. I think that the possibility of stubbing an article should be mentioned in Afd. This list creates the impression that an editor needs to spend about 2 hours of work before even thinking about nominating something for deletion. Cs32en   Talk to me  23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it would be pointful; it might just give editors the impression that they need to do three hours' work first. Stubbing is often the best (albeit hopefully temporary) solution to wildly biased articles on notable subjects.  You don't want to delete an article merely because it needs a lot of work.  We'll never get anywhere if only perfect articles are allowed to stay.  I think occasionally about a different kind of clean up tag:


 * It's exactly the kind of thing we'll never do, but it would be appropriate for some of these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just stubbed the article Rutherford Institute. Let's see what happens. (For the changes that I have made to the article, see here.) Cs32en   Talk to me  03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe this would be a good topic to write an essay on. Sebwite (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New essay related to this one
I've started a special page to propose a new essay that is related to this one. Recently I've noticed recently, editors aren't being considering to others, or rather they post long posts unrelated to the topic at hand, or avoid elaborating key points presented by that editor. This essay is different to this one as A) It will relate to debate tactics more than just avoiding the bad ones specific to deletion. and we could summarize this essay by allowing the proposed essay to cover them. B) This is related to more intentional misguiding a discussion or to trick potential third opinion and avoid key issues in a debate that are important. So basically Bad faith (where in this essay good faith is mostly assumed). Allowing Admins to intervene more quickly. The essay is Wikipedia:Gaming the discussion and I feel this can help editors eradicating tigers. If others would like to help to turn this into a full-fledge essay (and hopefully in a nutshell), it would be greatly appreciated.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Delete" examples for "It's in the news"
There should be some contrary "delete" examples for the "It's in the news" section. While Wikipedia is not a source of routine news, some events are notable, and it should be pointed out that being in the news alone is not a reason for deletion. Some I have thought of are:


 * Delete A news event sourced only by the news.
 * Delete There has been no coverage about this event for two years already.

Sebwite (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've encountered what I beleive to be misuse in the applciation of WP:ROUTINE. I have observed editors state that feature articles in national newspapers are simply "routine coverage" (primarily at sports-related events).  Their point is "this is the same kind of coverage that we would expect for such a sporting event--it's just routine" -- and that makes me think that perhaps "this is the same kind of coverage that we would expect from any attack on Pearl Harbor--it's just routine."  I think there is merit in the WP:ROUTINE concept, but I also think there's more to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand it in the light of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:INDEPTH. If the event has lasting significance and/or has received much more coverage than other similar events, it doesn't matter that it's covered in the regular sections of national newspapers, it's not routine anymore. Diego (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)