Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.|
Spacing and trimming example usernames
I love how the usernames in the examples are witty and fitting with the theme. Some of them, however, are approaching full sentences and include spaces. This leads to confusion when reading the examples, even more so for the editors most likely reading this page who are not as familiar with deletion discussion. Names such as "I just cannot accept it" and "Who has the secret?" read more like continuations of the !vote rather than signatures -- even while I knew that each example was signed I still sometimes got myself confused. I think an easy solution would be to reduce the spacing in these examples, moving ones like "I just cannot accept it" to something like "NotAccepting" and the like, but was wondering if anyone else had other suggestions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
There must be sources
Would it be worth merging Wikipedia:But there must be sources! here? Speculation that articles should/might exist is not the same as citing or linking them for verifiability. And I see this argument more than I'd like. Anyway, the essay already exists and has a similar scope, so I though it would be worth raising. – czar 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- This essay actually started out as a section of WP:ATA but there was a lot of (IMO unreasonable) resistance to it, so we decided to spin it out into a new essay. I think it should probably stay that way, because it has been expanded and improved to be more than just another WP:ATA section. Reyk YO! 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Membership of a royal house was added in September 2011 as being inherently notable. This was later expanded to say that fifth cousins of Queen Victoria are inherently notable. I think this is highly dubious. I see no reason why fifth cousins of Victoria should be notable and fifth cousins of President Roosevelt not. There should be some other reason for notability, such as involvement in a particular event or achievement in a field of endeavor. DrKiernan (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, even the examples linked Royal_descendants_of_Queen_Victoria_and_King_Christian_IX, Walton family and Rothschilds and the existence of such pages seem to reinforce that being related to a British monarch doesn't confer notability. That is, a page for the family or 'line' will list individuals - some with their own notability, and hence with their own articles - and others that are merely listed as part of the family but not notable outside of this connection.Cander0000 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)