Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep; yes, it may be mildly insulting, but so are WP:BALLS and WP:DICK and such. Renaming this page may be appropriate. (Radiant) 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich

This page is an attack disguised as an essay. Some background: It was created by Parsssseltongue (talk · contribs), who was a rather aggressive participant in AfDs, frequently assuming that the nominators were ill-informed and acting in bad faith, even that they hadn't even read the articles they were nominating. He almost always made a "speedy keep" comment for the discussions he participated in, and even closed a bunch of nominations as bad faith, before admins reversed him.

Calling someone an "ostrich" in the middle of a heated debate is almost always going to increase tensions. It is usually an assumption of bad faith (why assume that the nominator hasn't researched the topic) and is an ad hominem argument, when all that is needed is an assertion of the article's merits. It's common use is something like this: [1] (note that article was deleted unanimously besides his comment). I encourage readers to take a look through Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Don't_be_an_ostrich. Every single incoming link I checked was from Parsssseltongue using this ostensibly benign essay of his to disparage nominators.

Essays do not exist on Wikipedia to encourage battleground mentality and assumptions of bad faith, and this one is being used exclusively for that purpose. Please delete. Dmcdevit·t 01:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• This was originally Wikipedia:Don't be lazy, and a rancourous MfD was cut short by author request for deletion, with this as a revamp. It still takes the wrong approach to AfDs, that of insinuating that articles are innocent until proven guilty. Examples where the bad approach of the essay shines through are "Assume good faith in new editors" (WP:AGF has nothing to do with article content, it's a policy on editor conduct) and the advice to do a search engine test and to check what links to the page, neither of which show notability or other reason to keep an article. The notion that wikilinking something in another article makes it a more notable subject is especially dubious. The essay appears to be there just to put editors off nominating pages for deletion, and we have to realise that discussion is never a bad thing if initiated in good faith. Delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Using 'what links here' can be helpful, as it can indicate that something may be needed at the article being proposed for deletion, needed because people are linking there. It does require judgement though, to distinguish a walled garden of links from a genuine set of independent links towards the article. It doesn't establish notability per se, as you say, but a large number of links can be a first step for an editor who has never heard of the topic to find out more about it (especially for articles that haven't been wikified yet). Carcharoth 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the above. Badbilltucker 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia space should really be reserved for policies, guidelines, and the like. This is really nothing more than a personal essay, and clearly lacks support from the community. --Cyde Weys 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmcdevit. This is not good essay to keep around (bad faith), and it's fairly good that the essay is not widely cited by more than just Parsssseltongue. This essay exists to disparage AfD nominators. --Coredesat 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I really hate it when people make essays/proposals and then start citing them as reasons to establish their viewpoint. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this reeks of inclusionist-creep. POV on a heavily disputed area. Moreschi 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shimeru 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a neutral observer of the page (as opposed to of Parssseltongue, who I saw in action with the invalid speedy keeps), I'm not seeing any personal attacks. As it appears from his contribution history that PT has not completely left, my second recommendation is to userfy which is what we often do to essays that don't have much community support but aren't anti-wiki. -- nae'blis 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to a less inflammatory title. There are some good points made in this essay. Mainly that people shouldn't (unless it is an extreme case) nominate poorly-written or unsourced articles (which should be improved or sourced, rather than deleted, or tagged for clean-up). I still remember the first article I nominated for deletion, which was rescued, tidied up and sourced. I learnt a big lesson that day - deletion is not for bad articles, but is for inappropriate articles. Carcharoth 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps rename. As a neutral observer like nae, I don't see any obvious personal attacks here. The title needs changing, but other than that, it seems like a good essay. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or userfy; generally harmless in my view and makes some arguably useful points. Eluchil404 11:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cute. Delete per nom. riana_dzasta 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But the language and tone of the essay must be edited anywhere it constitutes a personal attack, and it should not be accompanieed in the deletion debate by any personal attack. I have seen nominations where deletionists DO stick their heads in the sand, in that doubt is expressed that a professor exists, or that scholarly (non-online) journals cited exists, where a little research online would have confirmed their existence. At the same time, it is unreasonable to leave an article without reliable and verifiable independent citations to show notability, and to claim in voting "Keep" that everyone should look on the internet and find them. That shifts the burden from the proponents of the article to the opponents in an unreasnoable way. Edison 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I do not see any reason to assume bad faith on the part of AfD nominators and call the targets of the article anything as this essay does. The premise of the essay is founded on the assumption that there is a problem with certain editors rather than the articles up for nomination. There is plenty of room to disagree on whether or not an article ought to stay or go, but it should not involve slapping a label, however mild, on an editor voicing his or her opinion on the article. Agent 86 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename per DarkShikari. I'd like to point out that I've never heard of this or seen it used before, and just finished reading the essay. It makes some good points, but I agree that it may just inflame the situation if someone calls another voter an "ostrich" with a link to this essay. -- Renesis (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and modify to exclude the negative viewpoint and factual inaccuracy while retaining the helpful advice. --Gray Porpoise 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename/rewrite to avoid anything with a whiff of a personal attack. The core point - that nominating an article for prod or AfD just because you're not familiar with its subject matter is inappropriate - is a good one. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite XOR userfy this partially reminds me of WP:HOLE, and I fail to spot any obvious personal attacks. CharonX/talk 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and... edit out some of the more divisive elements. The page is a good reference point by the looks of things. Keep... Spawn Man 03:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and modify, or else userfy. Could be useful, but isn't right now. ♠PMC♠ 08:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have seen far too many Wikipedians, on AfD and elsewhere, behaving in an eerily ostrichlike fashion. I have also seen this cited constructively in AfD discussions. The claim that it's an "attack" page is rather difficult to understand, although it's becoming clear to me that there is a growing community of people for whom deletion is a personal, and deeply unwholesome, principle; however, attacks against that should only be welcomed. I would recommend that this essay be supplemented with Wikipedia:Don't be a porcupine, addressing the tendency to regard support for deletion (and occasionally inclusion) as a personal attack. Wikipedia:Don't be a lemming would also be very relevant to the current AfD culture. -- Visviva 12:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The specific AfD I'm remembering was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benardete, the attempted deletion of an article about a flagrantly notable classical scholar. In that case WP:OSTRICH was put to good and appropriate use by a user who was not the essay's author. -- Visviva 13:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, His or her explanation about the deletion policy in Wikipedia is very critical point. --Hairwizard91 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fix an important concept, and can be rewritten. Dar-Ape 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, reanme, rewrite I don't see what's wrong with this. It tells you a bunch of useful guidelines. And it actually speaks the truth. Just rename, and rewrite it.-- Kyo cat^(Talk) 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It is possible that the essay could be worded better, yes. But, as is noted in XfDs with some frequency, this is Miscellany for deletion, not for copyediting. And the base point of WP:OSTRICH is an essential one: notability and encyclopediac impact extends beyond the personal familiarity of any given editor. With the huge number of field-specific contributors we have (not to denigrate them), its an easy lesson to forget. It is a counterpart to WP:BIAS -- both in that under-represented cultures seem on their face less notable and in that subcultures that are well-represented appear just as foreign to those unfamiliar or far removed from them. This needs to be said, somewhere, and this is as memorable and appropriate a place as any. Serpent's Choice 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I don't see any personal attacks here. Dave 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Utterly useless and stupid, against our deletion policy (I don't know your company, but I'm still going to delete it!) and was rather rudely shoved in my face in the past. As far as I can tell, all this is being used for is for trolling. And I don't use that term lightly. Grandmasterka 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.