Wikipedia talk:List of bad article ideas

Churches (congregations)
Should we add one about local church congregations and parishes? (As distinguished from denominations.) We're running a about 5-10 through PROD and AFD per day, on average, with (at least for AFD), a deletion rate in excess of 90%. I'm not sure if that is enough volume to merit a mention here.

I'd suggest "Your local church, congregation, mosque, parish, synagogue, temple or other place of worship unless it runs its own broadcast media station or accredited college or has ___." The blank should address historically significant churches.

See Articles for deletion/North County Community Church for a live discussion, Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska for a recent group AFD closed as delete, Articles for deletion/Trinity Church, Greenwich for a recent AFD closed as merge to the town article, and Articles for deletion/Pillar of Fire Church as an AFD closed as keep due to being an international denomination instead of a local congregation. GRBerry 22:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After stumbling upon an article on the Willowbrook Shopping Centre (which has neither willows nor brooks but includes important landmarks as The Bay, Sears, Zellers, Toys 'R' Us, and Sport Chek) and a list of shopping malls in Canada, it's hard to make a case against churches. Granted, many feel shopping is a religious experience …


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shopping in Canada is both a religious and a polite experience. – AndyFielding (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Number the list
Doing so would make it much easier to cite something on this page. It can easily be done by replacing the asterisks by "#". Whaddayasay guys? Noroton 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Status change: essay
After looking at this list and its various versions, I don't see why it should be a guideline. There's nothing on the list of 12 items that I disagree with, but this page seems largely redundant to other existing pages. I'm not particularly opposed to anything this page says, but I see no need for it to be a guideline. In addition, the edit history of the page shows that it was made a guideline in January 2006 in the absence of any discussion about the issue. I propose that this page be tagged as being an essay. -- Black Falcon 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) is covered by Conflict of interest;
 * 2) is covered by Notability;
 * 3) is covered by Merging and moving pages;
 * 4) is an extension of #1;
 * 5) is an extension of #1;
 * 6) is covered by No original research;
 * 7) is covered by db-nocontent and/or db-nocontext;
 * 8) is covered by Avoid trivia sections in articles;
 * 9) is covered by Notability and Verifiability;
 * 10) is covered by Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not;
 * 11) is covered by Neutral point of view and Content forking; and
 * 12) is covered by Notability and, in extreme cases, by No original research.


 * I am new to Wikipedia but what excatly is "Subject known to only few people" as of point 9. Who really decides which subject is being studied by how many people. Even a subject like Occult might have few or many students depending on how it is defined Saraswatishagnik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

Youtube
Would anyone be opposed if I added "Something you just saw on Youtube" to the list? Someguy1221 08:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if you didn't also add something of the sort to WP:STUPID. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Darn, I just realized it kind of bundles into the last bad article idea, maybe {{WP:STUPID]] then. Someguy1221 09:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD or AFD?
Hi there. Number 12 reads as follows: Any subject which can only be documented by reference to the original, be it film, recording or picture. Have you watched every single episode of Star Trek until you can document the proportion of sacrificial red shirts who have black hair? That'd get you a barnstar at Memory Alpha, but probably a WP:CSD here.

This is surely wrong, as I have read WP:CSD and original research, or statements verifiable only by reference to the original do not satisfy any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I tried to change this to WP:AFD as this is clearly more accurate, but I was simply reverted with the summary "rvv". I take it I'm not supposed to change it back, so does anyone else want to? ;-) Tree Kittens 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, my bad. Fixed. (I was going after .) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww, cheers dude :-) Tree Kittens 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 12
Hello there. I am sill confused about number 12. I want to write an article about the book, The Origin of Economic Ideas, Guy Routh, by way of a critique of current orthodox economic paradigm. What is wrong with that kind of article?--Janosabel 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd have to ask somebody who's more familar with our standards on non-fiction books, but I'd ask "can you demonstrate notability?" If the answer to that is "yes", then you might get all sorts of tags (NPOV, one source, cleanup, ad nausium), but probably not deleted. Number 12 was intended for such things as "number of Red Shirts who get killed who have black hair", not for actual notable things. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 1
I am a writer-in-training, and I'm confused about number 1. "YOU or your COMPANY, or a BAND you are a member of, EVEN if it is NOTABLE."

Does this mean that, even if I get famous, no one would be able to get me into Wikipedia, only because I am a member?

... You rejected my message the first time and gave me a Denial-of-Service attack, why not do it now?

Llamagnu (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Posted by Llamagnu on Sat, Nov 17, 2007, at 17:34 (GMT+01:00)
 * No, if you get famous, someone else will want to create an article about you. That other person can create the article because that other person isn't you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Important 'notability' issues
Considering the medium here is a computer database, not a paper based product sold in shops, does the idea of notability really make sense? Surely the more data, no matter how obscure - as long as it is of acceptable encyclopaedic/wikipedic standard - is harmless and, more importantly, possibly useful... How would adding data that, at first glance, no-one would ever read, invite it's deletion unless space was an issue? I suggest space is not an issue therefore obscure topics that seem worthless should be kept in case, maybe in future times in circumstances we cannot predict, the information in question is exactly what someone is looking for. Too many times has information been lost, for example via librarians who have the horrible dilemma: the only way to fit new books on shelves is to sell off the books that have least been borrowed. We do it each year and regret that our favourite childhood books are lost and regularly realise, after the fact, that some things should be kept regardless of contemporary fashion. As a (former) librarian I am constantly amazed about the diversity of people's enquiries and how much information we would have been able to provide if we hadn't thrown it out.

Here, in cyberspace (customary derisive giggle), we don't have book-shelves and our library is as big as it needs to be. Why cull information if keeping it isn't a disadvantage? Jp adelaide (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ever hear of Information overload?
 * Telpardec (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the issue. No one is forced to read articles or obliged to read new ones. PRL42 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons. Two that spring to mind are trivialisation and the enormous, probably impossibly large, amount of work that would be involved in ensuring that, if you opened the floodgates, the surge of new articles could be checked to ensure that they followed all the other necessary rules, particularly with regard to accuracy and references. PRL42 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 6
Any objection on N° 6 if I include a suggested alternative link to WikiLeaks?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Number 2
I just stumbled upon this essay, just a few moments after redirecting to the Wikipedia article on Thyagaraya Nagar from Google Maps. Why does a street have to be "internationally famous"? What does "internationally famous" even mean? Aren't all streets notable? Well atleast the ones that can be seen on Google Maps/Google Earth? I think WP:PAPER applies more than WP:DIRECTORY here. If we're gonna go around calling AfD on articles like T. Nagar, where is Google gonna go for its sum of all knowledge about everything stationary on the planet? Number 2 should be either removed or changed to something far more unambiguous than "internationally famous". -- Karunyan, 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConductDiscuss (talk • contribs)

Miley Cyrus boyfriends
Име:Лиам Хемсуърт

Професия: Актьор

Връзка: 2009-2010

Статус:Не се знае

История: Майли се запознава с Лиам от снимките на филма "Последната Песен"Във филма играят двойка, а след това стават двойка и в реалния живот. В средата на 2009 г. Лиам показва любовта си към Майли,но първоначално не е така.В края на 2009 те съобщават,че са заедно. Връзката им продължава повече от една година,те се ръзделят и събират 3 пъти. Причините за раздялите им не са изяснени. -- -- Джъстин Гастон

Име:Джъстин Гастон Професия:певец,модел

Връзка: 2008-2009

Статус: Разделени

Story: Майли разбрала за Джъстин от баща си, Били Рей. Джъстин е кандидат в телевизионното шоу на Били "Nashville Star". Майли го харесала веднага и нейният баща е бил много развълнуван за Джъстин. Средата на 2008 г., Майли и Джъстин са заедно,но пазят това в тайна. В средата на 2009 г. те со разделени, тъй като те са имали проблеми за известно време. Майли работи и пътува толкова много, така че е било трудно. -- -- Ник Джонас

Име: Ник Джонас

Професия: музикант (група: Jonas Brothers) Връзка: 2006-2008 Статус: Разделени

Story: Когато Майли и Ник са срещнали за първи път, те веднага се влюбили, но трябвало да запазят връзката си в тайна. Връзката им продължава две страхотни години. Двамата са разделени, тъй като са много успешни в бизнеса и имат малко време един за друг.

Miley Cyrus boyfriends
Име:Лиам Хемсуърт Професия: Актьор Връзка: 2009-2010 Статус:Не се знае История: Майли се запознава с Лиам от снимките на филма "Последната Песен"Във филма играят двойка, а след това стават двойка и в реалния живот. В средата на 2009 г. Лиам показва любовта си към Майли,но първоначално не е така.В края на 2009 те съобщават,че са заедно. Връзката им продължава повече от една година,те се ръзделят и събират 3 пъти. Причините за раздялите им не са изяснени. -- -- Име:Джъстин Гастон Професия:певец,модел Връзка: 2008-2009 Статус: Разделени Story: Майли разбрала за Джъстин от баща си, Били Рей. Джъстин е кандидат в телевизионното шоу на Били "Nashville Star". Майли го харесала веднага и нейният баща е бил много развълнуван за Джъстин. Средата на 2008 г., Майли и Джъстин са заедно,но пазят това в тайна. В средата на 2009 г. те со разделени, тъй като те са имали проблеми за известно време. Майли работи и пътува толкова много, така че е било трудно. -- -- Име: Ник Джонас Професия: музикант (група: Jonas Brothers) Връзка: 2006-2008 Статус: Разделени Story: Когато Майли и Ник са срещнали за първи път, те веднага се влюбили, но трябвало да запазят връзката си в тайна. Връзката им продължава две страхотни години. Двамата са разделени, тъй като са много успешни в бизнеса и имат малко време един за друг. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.111.72.24 (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fish. – AndyFielding (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEANS
This is one big violation of WP:BEANS.

Walex03 (phone?) (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Items 16-21
Are self-evident, and as far as I know do not " show up repeatedly in Articles for deletion". I propose to remove them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

"Disclaimer"
Point 19 says "Any article about a disclaimer." I was wondering where this point came from; have there ever existed articles on disclaimers? ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Should that line be removed then? I mean, if a disclaimer on its own reaches significant coverage... ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

New editors advice
I suggest that most new editors should not create a new article, ever.

Why?


 * 1) Most new editors intend to do a new article for reasons on this list.
 * 2) Most new editors do not know enough information details for a new article. They should edit existing articles on the subject first.
 * 3) Most new editors do not know any of the technical details for a new article. They should edit existing articles on the subject first.
 * 4) Most new editors do not know enough about Wikipedia. They should read a book.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep—one should never even consider starting a WP article till they got themselves plenty o' them there information details. – AndyFielding (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Number 8
Number eight says that anything fictional is a bad article idea. This sounds misleading as you may want to write about something that was previously conceived and notable such as a fictional character or science fiction. MeWhenTheWhenMeWhenYour (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't be certain, but I think that means you shouldn't create articles that are, themselves, fictitious, such as "Garden Gnome that Have Magically Come to Life" or "Miley Cyrus's Chastity Tips". – AndyFielding (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are things that we now know don't exist, or on which there is general consensus that they don't exist, but that are generally considered suitable topics for encyclopaedas. Examples include unicorns, the Philospher's Stone, and methods for trisecting an angle using only compass and straightedge. There are also things subject to dispute, such as sasquatches, yetis, and angels. This problem is resolved if AndyFielding's interpretation is adopted, but I think that it isn't clear whether that is the intended interpretation. Perhaps the statement in the article should be clarified.Bill (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)