On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
Getting a properly reffed article deleted is quite a trick.
It's certainly a trick, but it's not a trick in the sense of being impossible to do. Surely you've heard of the episodes and characters deletion?
I don't recall many of these being deleted, though a lot were merged.
That's quibbling over terminology. A "merge" which deletes all the info in the article is in practice a deletion.
I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-In the context of an article supported by secondary sources-, works are acceptable sources for themselves. However, a primary source can never support an entire article on its own, significant independent and reliable material is required. If no one else has bothered to comment on the (episode|character|whatever it is), then we're acting as a first publisher by doing so, and we don't do that.
In that case, if someone tries, it's entirely proper to trim the unsustainable "article" and redirect or smerge it to a parent article or list. That is not a deletion. A deletion occurs when an admin presses the "delete" button. Anything else is an -edit-, many edits remove. Good editors trim. That is not "quibbling over terminology", it's a statement that you're saying a specific thing occurred (a deletion), and that, in the vast majority of cases, it did not. You can still disagree that the redirects should have occurred (just as you can disagree that any edit should have been made), but portraying them as something other than what they were is the classic [[straw man]] fallacy, and generally the defense for one using that fallacy is indeed that one who disagrees is quibbling over a minor point. If you're against what actually happened, by all means argue against it, but don't misrepresent it to make it look like something other than what it was.