Wikipedia talk:Blow it up and start over

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interesting[edit]

Interesting article. Its purpose? Its notability? It seems (so far) to be opinion based upon observation... and not backed up by any sourcing., making it WP:OR. Will this change? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia space stuff wasn't constrained by WP:V. I haven't linked this anywhere, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I did not realize the difference between "wikipedia space" and "wikipedia". Since this is not an article then, I have no concerns. Is "wikipedia space" similar to user space? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Project namespace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool... and here I thought the only place for non-articles or articles under construction was user space. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My questions about this[edit]

I don't understand why you want to destroy everything, and start over from scratch. Just make a list of what content is worth keeping, discuss what should be done on the talk page, and work on it. List all relevant facts, and organize them in a proper manner, then write them out in a coherent manner. Can you provide a list to articles you believe should be Blown up and started over? Dream Focus 02:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Read more carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If the subject is clearly a valid one, then you can find valid content. There would surely be something out there someone could find to write about it. As for your statement, "Sometimes, the damage is completely irreparable", I'm curious. Do you just not like how it is written, or do you mean it fails the current notability guidelines? Dream Focus 02:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
What is "it" in this case? This isn't just about articles, and has little to do with notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you rewrote this page[edit]

Glad you rewrote this after I mentioned it elsewhere. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been hammering it around into a lot of different shapes, so don't go assuming causality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I did assume was that you would deny I had any part in mellowing it down. I think the nuclear bomb picture was a nice touch. Ikip (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It was a little too snarky. There are two kinds of different deletes: blowing things up and starting over, and nuking and paving. A simple G5 or copyvio deletion is the simplest form of the former, while salting a Really Bad Article Idea or listing a policy proposal on WP:Perennial proposals is the simplest form of the latter. You run into a lot of problems when a proposal or consensus to do one is mistaken for the other.
Describing either isn't more or less mellow, but being snarky invites people who think they're clever citing this to say "BLOW IT UP LOL" without, you know, reading this. WP:ATA is a useful object lesson in this regard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
you mean this shouldn't be mentioned in AfDs because of WP:ATA? well, good luck. houston out. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't. I don't want to see a repeat of WP:ATA's problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not just for articles[edit]

This concept can also occasionally apply to "defective" AFD discussions such as this one (new AFD) and this one. (new AFD) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

In my experience it is far more common to find {{afd}} contributors who argue for deletion of articles they consider hopelessly flawed, and incapable of improvement, where there is no sign that anyone made any effort to raise their concerns on the talk page, or anywhere else. In my experience the more controversial the topic the more likely it is that those favoring deletion will skip the step of explaining their concerns.

Last summer I encountered a clique of nationalists who were block-voting against articles related to a neighboring nation, populated by a rival ethnic group, who routinely jumped directly to nominating for deletion articles and other material they characterized as hopelessly biased without making any attempt to coherently voice their concerns, much less see if other people could address them. I tried to make the point that topics weren't, in and of themselves, biased. And I found I was interacting with a clique who seemed to honestly believe opinions that did not comply with their POV were "hopelessly biased".

I suggest following the advice in this essay is only appropriate when concerns have been thoroughly and coherently explained on the article's talk page, and, after a decent interval, it is clear good faith attempts to address the voiced concern have failed.

I suggest the essay should be amended to warn against trying to delete articles when no effort has been made to voice concerns, or no good faith attempts to fix voiced concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

We could use WP:KILLITWITHFIRE as a redirect. Perhaps?--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You can, but there is a limit of 5 items in the box at the top of the page. I "cheated" by using the hatnote at the top of the page. There are so many other possibilities as well, including WP:EXTERMINATE, WP:STERILIZE, and more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)