The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was userfy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions

[edit]

While minority viewpoints are sometimes welcome in Wikipedia namespace, this one is essentially saying that GNG can never be used argue for the deletion of an article, but only as an argument for keeping an article. It's essentially WP:Wikilawyering by one contributor, and it contradicts the WP:FAILN part of GNG: "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives." I think this ill-conceived essay should be moved to user space. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly goes against accepted use and practice here and, frankly, one of the weirder pieces of wikilawyering that I have yet encountered. --Crusio (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Its incorrect. concerns about GNG being used improperly can be taken up on an individual basis. the validity of GNG is self evident. pure wikilawyering.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.9.165 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikilawyering and misunderstanding of GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
See also previous discussion in WP:GNG archives. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As currently written, the essay has little persuasive force with me, but perhaps creator can expand his theory at some point. So, if consensus is to delete, allow it to be moved to userspace of the creator (as the nominator suggests) as a personal essay, see, e.g., User:Mike Cline/Archimedes was deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, at option of author, Userfy. The argument does not persuade me, as it is essentially sophistry, but the author should be welcome to develop it in their userspace if they so wish. SamBC(talk) 11:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point userfying, as it's simply wrong. If the author wishes to amend GNG to suit his views, he should take it up there, not add misleading essays to Wikipediaspace. Prioryman (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFD is a means to judge how best a negative has been proven (The lack of sources for notability) for several years. --MASEM (t) 12:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to user space. None of the comments/votes above justify removing my opinion essay from the WP namespace. It is a (apparently) a minority opinion. If it is so unpersuasive it will be ignored. However, I suspect that the desire to remove my opinion is because it is troubling to many editors, because the logical fallacy I describe is inherent in many AfD GNG discussions. In my opinion, the editors time would be better spent reaching a consensus about GNG that is logically consistent. This was the purpose of my essay and until consistency is reached, my opinion is still relevant. If the editors choose to remove my opinion from the WP namespace, I request that they have the courtesy to move it to my user space. Thank you. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG is not math or accounting. It says in-depth coverage → presumed notability (not a guarantee either, see for instance WP:BIO1E). It also says no in-depth coverage → usually deleted (but may also be merged etc.) Conveniently for you, you ignore this second clause. Even if you reduce these to boolean logic by ignoring the "presumed" and "usually" qualifiers, you get "in-depth coverage" → notable/keep and ¬"in-depth coverage" → non-notable/delete. So there's no fallacy. Q.e.d. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Author wants to keep it, but it violates WP:ESSAYS (it contradicts widespread consensus). --N Y Kevin @014, i.e. 23:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - minority opinions are fine for personal essays. Buddy431 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as an honest statement of a users mistaken opinion. As it blatantly contradicts widespread consensus (opinion and practice), it doesn't belong in project space, and probably shouldn't even be allowed in userspace without a disclaimer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I disagree with the premise, the author has as much right to express his opinion on what the GNG means as I have. It's hardly the most crackpot thing I've heard regarding notability anyway. Userfication is the right option here though as it's obviously a very minority opinion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or userfy: Does this policy make almost no sense? Yes. Can a user still have the opinion? Yes. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy- People can be as wrong as they like in their user space, but essays which go against current practice, consensus and common sense do not belong in project space. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.