Wikipedia talk:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments

Needs touchup

In order to give visibility to this essay so others may add, enhance, and adjust it as well as begin referencing. This is much less likely to be seen and thus helped or used in userspace.

Give it some time; I'll move it to userspace if it doesn't gain those improvements soon.

This article needs some touch-up, and in part for that reason it's in the Wikispace for the moment. If it can gain that help and be used as a reference in other discussions, great! If it does not begin to gain that use, I'll move it into userspace. But let's at least give it a little time so it has enough visibility to get that expansion, adjustment, and referencing. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreements

Here's another example of precedent: Pavel Borisenko is a hockey player. The page makes no assertion for awards, recognition, first, or anything that makes him any different from any other non-NHL pro hockey player. Do all pro hockey players get a page? I don't think that simply being paid to play a sport makes one notable. Now, Wayne Gretsky, Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic. and Paul Kariya are clearly notable, but they have much more reasoning behind them. It would be wrong (and an incorrect use of WP:OSE) to state "these players have a page, so this one should" because they are clearly different, and different by a lot. OSE can work both ways and only applies to clearly similar article series. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon seeing an article like Pavel Borisenko, I don't see why anyone would even think of comparing it with the most famous hockey players they know, so this is a rather extreme example. You might of course compare it to the more fringe players. For cases like athletes, there should be plenty of precedent based on Wikipedia:Notability (people), any relevant WikiProject guidelines, and past AfDs. In this case, playing for his national team and the World Juniors is a valid claim to notability, but there seems to be no reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of him. So you'd compare it to others in the same circumstances. –Pomte 10:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. As stated above, "It would be wrong (and an incorrect use of WP:OSE) to state "these players have a page, so this one should" because they are clearly different, and different by a lot." VigilancePrime (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it's unlikely anyone would make that sort of comparison. Usually, it's up to debate and that's what AfD is for. –Pomte 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedent definitely helps these arguments, but how far do we push on precedent? In the previous Laurel McGoff discussion I made a potentially explosive comparison between Laurel and an American astronaut. Upon reflection I shouldn't have pushed that particular comparison, but fortunately everyone seemed to take it in stride. I suggest that somebody start a list of examples of varying degrees of popularity/political-ness so that in the future we can hit back quickly with a precedent article instead of scrambling around like I did. DoubleVibro (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreements

Precedent

This entirely misses the point of precedents. When you have a rule structure, and people interpret those rules through some structured process recognized as having some authority, the conclusions reached can be used as precedents. Thus, deletion debates can function as precedents for future article inclusion and exclusion to an extent, noting of course that consensus can change and that there are precedents of higher and lower authority. This essay, however, turns WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on its head in a logical morass. The sheer existence of articles serves as precedent of nothing. You quote a portion of the existing essay and then utterly misinterpret what it means, or reach a new conclusion that doesn't follow at all. The ability of anyone to create articles on anything to which our policies have not been applied through any process does not serve as precedent of anything. Analogizing this to legal precedent, as you have in the essay, your logic is something like this: The conclusions of tribunals in criminal legal cases serve as precedent for other crimes--->There are many crimes which have not been prosecuted-->ergo, other crimes are not really crimes. No. You have taken something that has nothing to do with the process of forming precedent and given it precedential value.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: The essay you refer above (actually, it'a s tiny section in an essay) is fallable inasmuch as it denies precedent totally. It already is a logical morasse, as you say. It is designed for the sole purpose of hyper-active deletionists to say "it doesn't matter if Wikipedia has always had these types of articles, I don't like this one and therefore will fight to delete it!" Whether this is the intent or not, it is the result. This essay provides a logic-based explanation of precedent that follows legal tradition and common sense. It, too, is "only" an essay.

Lastly, your logic is flawed in your attack on the premise. This is not to say "since you haven't been charged with a crime you've not committed one." Instead, it sayd "across the country these actions are expected to protect rights of citizens; you failed to do those actions and therefore violated his rights." This is the way precedent works and has worked ... Think Miranda. Interpretation of the constitution became the "law of the land" because of precedent. Can precedent be changed? Absolutely.

THIS ARTICLE needs to be improved and touched up and I INVITE ANYONE to do so, provided they do so in the same viewpoint in which the article originally was intended. This is a crucial point for Wikipedia and may be indelibly linked to Wiki's future growth, utility, and credibility.

Thanks to all. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The rightness of the argument "page X exists, so page Y should exist" seems to depend partly on how similar in topic X is to Y, and how notable that class of topic is. If the result is a desire to delete a whole class of pages, in many cases that should be decided by AfD, not by such things as User:TTN's bulk undiscussed controversial redirecting of pages about fictional events around 13 December 2007. As regards the summary line ""Other Stuff Exists" is absolutely not a reason to delete (e.g. "delete because OSE is not a good enough reason").", I agree: whether to delete (speedy or prod or AfD) would depend on whatever other issues are raised. But, if "other similar stuff exists" means that several pages can be classified in a category, then that may make that category noteworthy. Many of the affected articles are descriptions of fictional events, and to many people this or that fictional scenario IS noteworthy. E.g. I have no interest in Coronation Street, but I do not go around deleting every page about Coronation Street characters. Another intruding factor here is: "The matter so far in Wikipedia, what percentage is it of total maximum storage space allowed?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean by that last question? WP:PAPER and WP:PERF may be relevant. –Pomte 21:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not necessary complete disagreement here, I just want to reiterate along the likes of Anthony states above: if very similar items X,Y, and Z have pages, and Q is very similar to those, there is a reasonable expectation that Q will have such pages. "very similar" is qualitative, but there are very obvious cases of dissimilarity and obvious cases of similarity. This is sorta outlined already in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but needs to be restated. And again, it should be pointed out that this should be applied only towards deletion/merge/what to do with existing article debates; this should NOT be used in the article creation process. In starting a new topic it may become apparent that it is worthwhile there may be need for an equivalent article, but editors should go into completely ignoring how other similar items are structured until its time to deal with them. --MASEM 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• One little thing I would add: while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS helps to set precedent, there will be users that try to use previous deletions as precedent as well. Precedent is a wonderful thing, but it's not necessarily an argument winner with me. That other stuff exists is a strong argument in favor of keeping something, but if we're arguing to keep something kinda dumb because other things exist that are equally dumb doesn't get us anywhere. This argument may need a little further development, but I want to get it in the open while I still have it on my mind. DoubleVibro (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that precedent can also work against keeping; this is not exclusively a KEEP article. The problem is that the OSE rationale currently is used effectively for deletion, which is why this seems like a KEEP-friendly essay. In another discussion I used a wild example of having a precedent set that every model year of a car has a justified page, and thus creating an article for every model year of another vehicle (assuming many, many cars had these) would be rational. By the same token, if some people had created these sort of pages and every one was eventually pulled together and deleted or merged into a single page for the model irrespective of year, that would have been precedent-setting for the merging of a new set of model year articles into a single model page. The OSE essay hopes to illustrate both of these methodologies. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording

"Other Stuff Exists" is absolutely not a reason to delete (e.g. "delete because OSE is not good enough").

No one is denying this. If someone says "delete because OSE is not good enough" only, call them out on it and ask them to give positive reasons for deletion.

Wikipedia Precedant is set by what already exists throughout the project

Precedent is set by past consensus. What already exists may not have consensus to exist if there hasn't been any centralized discussion on it. Asserting implied consensus is not a strong point to make, and if you face a lot of opposition while doing it, then that suggests the implied consensus isn't really there.

Without equivalency across the project, content would be based on I Like It and I Don't Like It arguments.

This doesn't follow. The scope of each AfD only lets us focus attention on the articles nominated. It's definitely possible for there to be consensus both to keep and delete different articles of the same nature. This doesn't mean that the arguments are all ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT.

Some participants from reality shows are seen as deserving of their own page (usually because they are extremely recognizable or featured through the show)

I'm not sure of what you mean by extremely recognizable, as there are certainly a lot of people who don't recognize them. Being extremely featured through a show doesn't warrant an article on the subject either. Perhaps "notable" is a better description here.

To deny this would mandate the removal of all other pages for the sake of consistency.

It is mandated, and wider community discussion is encouraged. –Pomte 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that the first line is used in discussions, a lot, and if anyone dares challenge that person, the argument is made again in a belittling way. That's the problem and I've seen it a lot just recently. This makes AfD's into fights of ILIKEIT or, more importantly, IDONTLIKEIT. Recently I challenged these concepts on two different articles, one with questionable notability and one of much less notability. The prior was up for AfD, and when I put a PROD tag on the other one, I was personally attacked by the same person who had started the AfD on the first. Now, I have no problem with AfD (well, those are different opinions), and I think the PROD tag is great as it allows one to informally assess notability and who's actually working on a page, but I take exception when I'm attacked for sugesting a non-notable article may be deletable by the same person who is demanding deletion of a more-notable article. The essay DOES need work and some better writing, and that's why I have asked others to come and work on it. Someone far smarter and much more eloquent than I could say what this essay is trying to say in a much better, more understandable way. I don't expect that because one thing exists something else should, but when many, many, many things exist, another of the same type and kind obviously should. That's all. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If the first line is used and it seems to affect the closing admin's decision, I suggest linking it as an example either here or on your admin abuse page. It may not affect the closing admin's decision if the delete voters have stronger arguments than keep voters anyway, disregarding any use of the first line. For example, if someone votes keep citing OSE, and another person votes delete saying that OSE isn't a reason to keep, their "votes" effectively cancel out.

I hesitated editing this page because you seem to be making a much stronger point than what seems to be common sense, but I'll see what you think about any edits I make. –Pomte 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Perhaps the viewpoint is shifted a little extreme, but if so that is only to counter an equally extreme position already existing in the other direction. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

more narrative

Pomte, I like what you did and it's helped a lot. I went in and added more, rewrote the nutshell and standardized the headings.

One difference was delinking (and removing reference) to the WP:ATA/WP:WAX. That seems (I think at least) to give the impression that this article is either in competition with or opposed to the Arguments to avoid. I see this as incorporating it (speaking of how "simply because OSE" doesn't work) and expanding it, illustrating the difference beteen a legitimate OSE and a non-legitimate OSE statement.

That's really the only major point. I don't know how lucid my writing is overall; please feel free to come and clean up some more! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

musings

Vigilance asked me to contribute to the essay, and I'm not sure what to do exactly, so I am going to provide what I thought of as I read through it and the talk page, and I suppose we can talk about it more.

• Common sense is important. Precedence arguments need to incorporate common sense, and if it seems obvious to most that a precedent argument is weak, it should therefore be rejected. Common sense is important because topics are so vastly different. Until the encyclopedia is big and old, and thus has precedence for many, very diverse topics, we need to exercise common sense in setting all this precedent which will affect the encyclopedia for the rest of its existence.
• Precedence needs to be tempered. It has been pointed out before that the argument: X and Y are similar. X exists. Therefore Y should also exist. may be flawed. It is possible for X to be unworthy of existence. When cases of notability are brought up, in looking for precedence, we should look first to similar articles which have been subjected to AfD or Prod investigations. If X survived this, then it is strong grounds for Y's notability; likewise, if X was deleted, so should Y be. In the absence of an X which has been subjected to the deletion process, editors should return to the first point: common sense. If it seems like X is nn, then its existence is not precedent for Y's continued existence, and they should both be deleted.

Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree.

(BTW: Thanks for the spelling fix. I don't mind at all, other than that I mind I made the mistake in the first place!)

I like the perspective of the PROD/AfD comparisons. In the same way I recently pushed for an AfD to end normally instead of being retracted (which had been suggested) so that it would have the status of having been found a "Keep on AfD". I hadn't thought to include that in the essay and think it would add tremendously.

What you focused on - common sense - really is the heart of this. Comparisons must be equal, comparisons must be logical. One couldn't compare episodes of Firefly (TV series) to episodes of Star Trek. But one could compare Optimus Prime and Ultra Magnus to Megatron and Starscream.

I worked a bit last night on this and it needs additional touch-up, but I think the direction is good. Ultimately, it would be nice if this incorporated the entirety of this subject from the WP:ATA and was pointed to from that essay as a standalone essay. The goal is to present both proper and improper use of an OSE argument.

~Thank you, Carl. VigilancePrime (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, comparisons have to be logical. In an AfD process, if someone is arguing precedent, it has to be analogous. If other editors call someone on this, and give good reasons for why the two articles being compared are not analogous, the so-called precedent is not precedent in the given situation and should be ignored. And you're welcome, Vigilance. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's one HUGE point of this article. In appropriate comparisons, deleters will answer, simply, "OSE is not a reason to keep" without actually addressing the comparison. Many will claim that any OSE-based argument is not valid simply because it is OSE. That's not the case. Some are very valid. This essay needs to illustrate proper use of OSE reasoning as well as improper use. I have a vision, and I would appreciate any help in getting this essay there (because I think that vision is the same as many, many others in effect). VigilancePrime (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could policy become that burden of proof is on the people arguing against OSE in a given debate? ie OSE is assumed valid until the comparison is demonstrably inapt. I think it would make sense, but is there too much resistance to this in WP as a whole? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that'd be valid, but there would be resistance. The assumption is supposed to be to Keep unless Delete rationale can be clearly demonstrated, but the reverse is what is actually happening lately. The burden of proof should be on the Delete to show beyond a preponderance that the article is deletable. That's the whole point of AfD's... to determine when an article is keepable and can expand or if there is no chance at a decent article. Unfortunately, some have actually said to delete articles because of their small size or simply due to being unreferenced. (Interestingly, this same logic is used on images, that a free image COULD be made a fair-use one is deleted, but this is the same logic in the opposite direction!) VigilancePrime (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I think the new section needs to be greatly expanded, Vigilance. It's not very strong as-is. I would try my hand at it, but I'm just not sure I have as firm a grasp on the envisioned policy as do you. Also, I'm not sure about the example you gave. It's not clear to me how it relates to OSE. It needs more explanation, or a better example. Maybe I'm forgetting if I read it before, but is there precedent for an OSE argument being successfully used? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I added it as-is to get the ball rolling. I think it gives a hint at the purpose (which is a noble and right one, IMnsHO), but it needs attention of people like you, who are far more WikiEloquent and WikiSmarter than I. If it makes any sense at all, please feel free to word it up and around. (Meaning if what I added made sense at all.) Thanks bunches! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

redirect modification

I noticed tonight that another Wikipedian moved the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS redirect to this page. Awesome! I made the necessary adjustments to the Arguments to avoid... page. I think that's great. This page still needs a lot of work to be more streamlined and clearer, less wordy and more prosaic, but I think we finally have a good essay that defines how precedent on Wikipedia works and does not work, one that is evenly distributed, so to speak, for both deletions and inclusions, as precedent should be used. Thoughts? • VigilancePrime • • • 03:38 (UTC) 9 Mar '08

Rename to Precedent

This article seems to have transformed from a dismissive essay about why "other stuff exists" is not a good reason for making decisions, to a more measured, considered guideline regarding the correct and incorrect use of precedent on Wikipedia. The article should be renamed from "Other stuff exists", which is dismissive in tone, to "Precedent", which is what this article now discusses. The essay has the makings of a constructive guideline, but it needs further refinement as suggested elsewhere on this talk page and a more neutral title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My Username

Since when is it alright to use contributers usernames in policies and essays? KingOtherstuff (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it. You can fix this stuff yourself, you know. Kauffner (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? You call that fixing? Dude, pick a name that is not used, am I clear? LetsKeepit! (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where ever you go, there's always a wiseguy. Kauffner (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

When first saw the title of this article, I figured it was about the duplication argument. By this I mean when an editor argues that some piece of information shouldn't be included in one article because another more appropriate article exists. For example, I was warned not to put anything about a movie's historical accuracy in a movie article because history should be in a history article. Should there be really be only one unique spot on Wikipedia for any given piece of information? This might be the practice of a paper encyclopedia, but IMO this would be covered by WP:NOTPAPER. (Although the issue is not explicitly addressed there either.) Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Essay is tedious reading

04-Dec-2008: Man, that essay "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" is hard to read, in case you thought you were falling asleep. Regardless, the content seems sound. However, I would also use the essay as an example of excessive obfuscatious explanatory descriptive verbosity: too many words. Even at the top, it uses bizarre long-winded terms, such as "logical rationalization" (meaning "a reason"?) or "discussions erroneously" and such. Note, I'm not saying to change the essay: it is still readable, to a point, and it is an excellent example of unusual, long-winded writing, in recent times. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Change to nutshell

This may seem obvious, but it should probably be in the nutshell, which is the initial premise that OSE is, with the stated exceptions, an unproductive argument for deletion discussions (and other discussions for that matter). Since WP:OSE now redirects here instead of the "arguments to avoid" page, that should probably be stated a little more prominently. SDY (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yoda/Mace Windu example makes no sense

The reason it would be ridiculous to consider deleting the Yoda article is because the subject matter clearly meets our standards for notability. The existence of other Star Wars characher articles is irrelevant to those considerations. If there is an instance when 'other stuff exists' is a valid argument, it would need a better illustration than this one. Dlabtot (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This essay is very bad

It offers no clear explanation or principles. It qualifies its basic principle so much in both directions as to be useless. 271828182 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this essay is hopeless and harmful, and tends to be used as though it were a guideline or policy

Even the nutshell is self-contradictory, with the first bullet contradicting the second two.

Worst of all, the first little bit of this ESSAY (but never the rest) gets used by people as a weapon in defense of inconsistancy, when it serves their purposes to do so. Even in guideline and policy related debates. Example: [1]. I may die of shock if I ever see this essay brought up FIRST in an argument by somebody who wants to use the second and larger half of it, which argues in the opposite direction. But on the whole, what good is this thing? It's not just "cute," it's actively harmful since it cannot help but be misused (however it is "used").

Could we delete it, please? Oh, no-- let me guess: you're going to say that other "guidance essays" just as stupid as this one exist, right? ;0

Well, name one. SBHarris 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully in agreement with you. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree, this should be deleted; it is primarily used to back up an inconsistent argument that deserves to lose.William Jockusch (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. The people who read beyond the first bullet point are not the people who try to cite this essay.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lists and other non article situations

I am having a dispute with another editor over the interpretation of this guideline. Since this is only dealing with article creation another editor has said the guideline is only for creating/deleting articles. Since this is what all the references in the article are relating to I can understand if disagree with that interpretation But to me "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" is a pretty straightforward statement. I interpreted "the nature of Wikipedia" as being more the just Wikipedia articles. This cropped up when I added red links with reliable sourcing to the List of New Wave bands and artists article. Edkollin (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede mentions "keep", "delete", and "create", and I see the essay used in deletion discussions such as those at WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011_June_28.  Also, this is an essay not a guideline.  Beyond that, I'm not aware of people that have actually read this essay (I haven't).  I see it always used as a riposte of a keep argument with no depth of analysis; but the lede states, "The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded...".  Hope that helps.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The precedent - written or not I don't know - is to list only notable bands in the various music-related lists. If the bands are notable, the answer is simple - create a stub article for them. If not, I think it's a terrible idea to start including them in lists. You will end up with a terrible-looking list like this. That is what people do to music articles - add themselves and their friends and family and anyone they know who has ever picked up a guitar. Everyone I know has been following this precedent since at least 2006 (like this) and this is honestly the first time I have heard anyone opposing. Wknight94 ^talk 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not favor of putting friends and family in either and in the music articles and lists I do edit 95% of what I do is delete or put citation warnings up for a month or two and then delete. But these red link acts are reliably sourced and don't fall into the category of wanting to see a friend in Wikipedia. In lists I have dealt with with the exception of one, "notable" has definitely not been the precedent. Based on the discussion pages I have been involved with a majority of people want obscure acts in the list and much much more relaxed interpretation of guidelines or whatever you want to call them for "regular" articles and I am usually the strict bad guy. Edkollin (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this will help... See #3 of MOS:MUSIC#Lists: "3. Lists should not generally include musicians who do not have an article." Wknight94 ^talk 01:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The word generally indicated this is not a strict "rule". Properly sourced red links could be an appropiate exception.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A "properly sourced red link" should be turned into a blue link. Then this whole argument is moot. Just because a band gets mentioned in a single online newspaper post does not mean it's appropriate here. Otherwise, every local band that has ever been included in a local newspaper review in any city in the world could be included. Probably millions, including several of my own family members. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wknight94 ^talk 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a guideline, it's a muddled, self-contradictory essay which is extremely harmful to the wikipedia project. Do not treat it as a guideline, please. The actual applicable guideline for lists is WP:LSC. Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think a band is notable enough to include in Wikipedia, you should create a properly-sourced article for it. Dlabtot (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I will second Dlabtot's statement. IF they're worthy of being on that list, then they are hopefully worthy of having their own proper article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Consideration for precedent and effort

This policy seems to me a rather unpleasant one for new editors. It essentially means that new writers cannot read Wikipedia to learn the "flavor" of content that is desirable, because any apparent precedent can be reverted at any time. In an extreme case, a person may find a topic with 90 articles on it, put a great deal of time and effort into writing a 91st (even with full verifiability), only to get all 91 articles removed just because another editor noticed the 91th and not the previous 90. If Wikipedia is - as it appears - now having a system of administrators "patrolling" new pages, surely this should come with some responsibility to respond within a reasonable timeframe, too? Hyphz (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nutshell and first section re-write

This article evolved in way that made it somewhat hard to understand. It started out by noting that in AfD discussions, precedent arguments were often hilariously bad, if they consisted of simply noting that "this or that crappy thing exists, therefore my sort-of-the-same-thing should exist also." But then, a lot of editors noted that a strong form of the same precedent argument had been used successfully, and indeed (in some cases) was only way to establish questionable notability categories, so that SOME version of this argument was a good one. That resulted in a nutshell that was contradictory: it said the precedent aguement was a bad one, but sometimes could be a perfectly good one.

So, I've fixed it. Now, the guideline says the precedent argument can be good, but only when broad and tested precedents have been followed by the community, so that there is already a sort of de-facto consensus. However, just tossing out a few precedent examples, in the form of articles that exist (but also perhaps shouldn't!), is not enough, by itself. Though not a terrible thing, as people do tend to think this way, generalizing poorly from a few specifics. NOW this essay sort of makes sense. Though it still needs some more work.

At least, however, it's no longer an affront to common sense. SBHarris 03:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a big change! OTHERSTUFF used to say "justify the change/deletion of this article—other stuff may have similar problems and other content is not a reason to keep this". Now, OTHERSTUFF can be read as saying "this article can be justified because of other articles". I understand that analogy is sometimes very helpful, and pointing to other stuff that a commentator may not be aware of could be very helpful because the other stuff shows the logical consequences of arguments presented. But I suspect that is an exception, and should not be the focus of this essay. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the page originally said: Every change must justify itself independently of any case law previous to it. But not only did this cause consternation and cries of lack of due process (no legal system or any formal system can run without case law and stare decisis), but it was also apparent that there were lots of decisions that actually were not covered in the "FIVE PILLARS" and basically were matters of "this is what we like to do". Which in turn gave rise to arguments about what others had done in the past, and so on. It's inescapable.

The original essay was crappy and wrong and tended to make WP into a something that would have required a Supreme Court Constitutional Case for every last problem. Then, people noticed that the Supreme Court didn't even rule on a lot of stuff, but it was just up to local custom, private custom, and local consensus. And the monstrosity that previously was this essay, resulted.

A lot of people complained about it for years here on TALK (see above), and a lot of people were asleep for years and nobody disagreed that something had to be done to fix it, but nobody did. So, finally, I did. Nobody was following the original guideline, as set out in OSE anyway. It was impossible, in practice. The thing slowly evolved into describing what people actually do on WP (as with the notability of high schools), and that is why it was so contradictory. It wasn't useful. It was less than useful. It was worse than nothing. So finally we needed to rewrite or delete the thing (see the comments above).

That said, feel free to rewrite it so it makes sense in terms of all the problems it addresses, acurately reflects WP practice, and can serve as a guideline as intended. What you're reading is my first shot at that, but I'm not pretending it's the best one. Only that it's an improvement on something that could hardly have been worse. SBHarris 05:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sbharris. Let me put it straight: I don't understand your message, your edit summaries and the prose that you added to the essay. To me, everything you have written so far is jumble of incoherent words that do pass through my grammar filter but fail to achieve any sense in discourse, pragmatic or even semantic level.

I'd revert the article to the version before you touched it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've granted your wish. You deserve it. The last paragraph in the first section is a particular masterpiece, and I don't know what I was thinking to change it. "Precident" was a single misspelling of a word spelled many times correctly. Since precedent is what this essay is about (see comments above) I wonder if English is you first language? The lead section does not summarize the essay, as it says nothing about which precedents are valid and which are not. So please leave the old nutshell alone. You are so far the first editor to argue for the old writing, so I presume you have backup for that. If not, I'll be glad to revert you to keep the old nutshell. Be carefull what you wish for next time. SBHarris 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Keep - This is a Good Article", etc. in deletion arguments

If anyone talk-stalks this page, does what I described in the section header fall under "other stuff exists", and if it does, does it merit a mention on this page? Essentially, it's saying that an article exists because it fits a set of criteria completely unrelated to inclusion policy (one of the very few things that really matter in deletion discussions) that other articles that do pass also share. Ansh666 08:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Good article criteria already includes all article inclusion criteria (including the infamous notability) plus some more. A Good Article that still meets all its criteria must certainly not be deleted.

And no, it does not fall under "other stuff exists". In fact I am surprised to see someone having thought of writing such a thing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see WP:Notability in the GA criteria. WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research, yes, but there are other criteria that may disqualify an article for inclusion. See this for more. Ansh666 19:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you look carefully, GACR requires "in-line citations from reliable sources" too, which implies secondary sources. GACR also requires "Broad in its coverage". Therefore, an article that provides broad coverage from reliable secondary sources is, by definition of WP:N, notable.

The essay to which you linked mentions that there are criterion overlaps (which I explained above) and says notability issues should be taken to WP:AfD. I believe the essay means to dissuade users from resolving to forum shopping by taking notability issues to a Good Article Review.

Still, none of these pertain "other stuff exist" angle.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by proposer. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists → Wikipedia:Uses and abuses of precedent on Wikipedia – The current title suggests that precedent has no value. That's harmful. In practice, this essay is frequently used to support inconsistent decisions. That's harmful, too. The suggested title is more neutral; it suggests that sometimes, precedent is a good thing, and other times, it's not. William Jockusch (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Added the project namespace into the proposal, fixed capitalization, may have something to say later. Ansh666 23:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose discussion based on a premise for which no consensus has been shown. If there is a specific issue of OTHERSTUFF being repeatedly abused, discuss that. If there is a specific issue of whether precedent is sometimes a good thing, discuss that. Do not propose renaming a very widely known and widely used essay without pointing to a prior discussion of claimed problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see how "Other stuff exists" carries any connotations at all. If concrete examples are given that show a trend of misuse based on the title and aren't just isolated incidents (or one isolated user; that's a user problem and not a problem with the essay), maybe we can consider it, but in my months of AfD-trawling I haven't seen such a trend. Ansh666 01:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is about "other stuff" not "precedents", there's a whole class of precedents not covered by this. If the precedent is set in a discussion but is not article content/title then this essay does not cover it. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hi. I disagree with the nomination. The title suggests no such things unless the reader take for granted that whatever exists lacks value. Furthermore, a rename won't stop people from saying

  "Well, that's a classic example of '[[Wikipedia:Uses and abuses of precedent on Wikipedia|other stuff exists]]' discussion."

  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• The sky is blue. Water flows downhill. Hot air rises. The earth is round. Other stuff exists. So what. This essay, which I trust will always be just an essay, doesn't deserve to to honored with the word precedent in its title. Precedents should be respected. There is a whole body of case law based on precedents. This essay—or at least the majority of editors who link to it in arguments—disrespect that. I see that William Jockusch expressed the sentiment that the essay should be deleted just before submitting this move request. I'm not sure that's realistic, but what you can do is just start your own Wikipedia:Uses and abuses of precedent on Wikipedia essay which actually discusses the topic in a logical and coherent manner, which this essay fails to do. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Proposer would not mind withdrawing the proposal at this point It's clear what the sentiment is, so I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. But I don't know how. I'll start collecting what I believe are abuses of this as I see them. If the collection gets large enough, I'll start a thread on this.William Jockusch (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Delete

I think we need to revisit the utility of this essay, particularly in light of the fact that as the lifetime of the average Wikipedia article has gotten longer, the likelihood of pointing to other articles and making no point of value since those other articles are just as deficient is becoming gradually less. If a hundred articles have been been around for years and thousands of editors have gone over each of them and nobody has seen fit to make a particular sort of change, it is worthwhile inviting someone insisting on making that particular change to the hundred-and-first article to ask themselves why start on the hundred-and-first and not those other hundred articles. It's an invitation to think about consensus more broadly. In my experience WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used to divide and conquer; that is, it is used to enforce the doctrine that every article has to be treated in isolation such that consensus is defined by only the editors at that particular article AND only at a particular time. Someone tries to challenge these "pioneers" to consider why the "The Wisdom of Crowds" hasn't taken Wikipedia down that road already in the similar cases that have come before and the "pioneers" just cite this essay in order to suggest the facile answer that the other hundred articles are in just as much need as remedy as this the article, ie two wrongs (or a hundred) don't make a right.

I don't see the point of this essay beyond two wrongs don't make a right. When someone is, indeed, pointing to a couple other bad and neglected articles one doesn't need this essay to explain that two wrongs don't make a right. An essay should be used when one wants to give a nuanced, extended response to simplistic reasoning and would like a condensed way to give that response. In practice this essay gets used the other way around. Someone tries to get what I'll call an "article isolationist" to broaden their perspective and think about why there is so little precedent for what they they want to do and they get this essay thrown back at them with the message being that Wikipedia doesn't have such a thing as precedent. Without this essay, people would actually have to respond, "two wrongs don't make a right." Currently, they don't have to care about whether the premise that the other article(s) are deficient is true or not, they can just cite this essay (or WP:Ignore all precedent) to say consideration of other articles is irrelevant. If this essay were titled "Other BAD stuff exists" users would at least be encouraged to spend a moment considering whether it would make a difference if the "other stuff" constituted good precedent or bad precedent. If it would make a difference the material pointed to should be assessed instead of summarily dismissed.

If this essay were to reserve itself to making the point that if there is truly an accepted Wikipedia precedent then a policy has likely emerged on the point and that policy should be referred to instead of "current practice," that would be a legitimate point, but usually an edit war occurs when formal policy is not clear one way or the other, and in those cases if there is INFORMAL policy, that ought to count for at least something. Informal policy roughly means pointing to the article space instead of the WP: space. This essay excuses not thinking about these larger questions. I don't believe people typically JUST point to other articles without advancing any other argument such that there is a danger of giving too much backing to a "precedent policy" in the absence of this essay. Typically, people make their arguments and then point to other articles as examples, examples that suggest that if the person pointing to other articles was way out on the fringe, all else equal it should be relatively difficult to come up with examples of implementation elsewhere.

The bottom line is that pointing to other article(s) MAY or MAY NOT be relevant. This essay gets automatically cited by those saying other articles are not relevant. In other words, it is precluding inquiry and excusing intellectual and/or investigational laziness. If editors don't have this essay, they'll have to acknowledge the possibility, however small, that looking beyond the article at hand to other articles MIGHT be illuminating and then explain why, in fact, such inquiry would not be illuminating. Take away WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and edit warriors will be forced to engage in long form responses instead of just squeezing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS into an edit summary as if that always and fully refutes references to other articles.

An alternative to deletion would be to just strike the first, headline, bullet point that says "That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid... It will typically be dismissed."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. Too long; didn't read. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's your executive summary then: "That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid" should be removed from this page because it is far too broad an instruction.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that "Other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid" is the entire reason for the existence of this essay in the first place. That's what this essay says. So basically, you're arguing for deletion of this essay. To which I say: Now, you're getting it! By the time you get done with the qualifiers you need in making that argument, you have a (better) essay about precedent in editing WP. But it won't be THIS essay. Deleting this particular confused essay is a good idea, but not to the taste of the reactionary editors you're dealing with. So, you're screwed.

The people here who want things the way they are, do not have the patience to read your arguments, and do not have the intelligence or writing skill to fix it themselves. All they know is they don't want you to do it. Soon, you'll figure that out and quit pushing this ball up the hill. This essay, and this talk page, are very WP:LAME indeed. Fortunately, none of it is policy. It's just a mind-numbing waste of time, and a honeypot for people who come to WP thinking they're actually going to get policy as it would be worked out by bright people. LOL. SBHarris 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A nutshell too big...

Hi

After reviewing edit #593593512, I decided that it was too problematic for a fix and chose to revert it. Perhaps the biggest problem with this edit is its huge nutshell! While the {{nutshell}} template must be one or two sentences, if it is stay faithful to its purpose, in this particular edit, the nutshell template contain more contents than the lead itself.

So, can't we move the contents of the nutshell template to the lead and write a smaller nutshell? Well, the revert essentially does that but the problem with the edit is its defiance of WP:WTA, causing large size through wordiness. For example "in content disputes, deletion discussions, and other discussions" is unnecessary, because it does not limit the context of its sentence to any certain form of discussion. After all, if a discussion is not a content dispute or a deletion discussion, it is "other discussion"! Likewise, "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, templates, etc.," is no more informative than "In discussion". Mention of assuming good faith and most of the second paragraph add nothing to the text because in their absence, the meaning remains the same.

Another problem is the introduction of a highly specialized topic such as notability in the nutshell. But if that is not bad enough, there is vagueness and lack of context in it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support the revert by Fuhghettaboutit that restored the established nutshell. While length is a problem, the fundamental purpose of a nutshell is to provide a helpful summary of key points—the established nutshell does that well, while the proposed replacement just presents a puzzle. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. It appears Fuhghettaboutit himself is no longer supporting that, as he has changed it to a much better one that no longer has the length problem or the hardcore-content-for-the-hardcore problem. I guess it was not as "established" after all. And no, "the fundamental purpose of a nutshell" is not "to provide a helpful summary of key points". That's the fundamental purpose of the lead. The fundamental purpose of the nutshell is to impress the reader with one impressive sentence.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Fluff

@Fuhghettaboutit: Hi. Look, you are starting to violate WP:BRD. You're an admin, not some newcomer. When I revert your changes, I expect something less vague and confusing than "you have bowdlerized it, radically changing the meaning and impact" as justification for your counter-revert. Maybe I did mean to do exactly that. Now, if you explain your purpose, I might be able to understand better. We'll see what should be done next.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, your editing is WP:POINTy and I see no sign of you ever participating in the discussions before. Either you are mistaking this article with WP:WAX or simply cannot imagine it ever becoming something beyond a fattened and fluffy version of WP:WAX. Either way, you are edit warring and I am allergic to edit warriors, be it ordinary or admin. Fleet Command (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fleet Command. Must I comment on this proclamation, or must I not because it might attract the non-speaker? Tough choice. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating needed, as comparing to existing articles is more and more relevant

This essay was justified back in 2007-2008, I assume, when Wikipedia has hit-and-miss in its coverage. But Wikipedia has filled out a lot since then, and there are more and more comparable articles, and consistency matters. This essay does explicitly allow for "valid" OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, but is cited too much in AFD processes, as if comparing one article at AFD to other similar articles is invalid. This essay needs to be updated.

At a current AFD, I argued (self-quoting, sorry):

It is said above that "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not [a valid] argument. In fact, the existence of other comparable list-articles DOES matter, is relevant. We need to work towards consistency now. It used to be that Wikipedia was so incomplete that it was hard to make reasonable comparisons. Now there are reasonable comparables. They do matter. Why indeed these 2 list-articles, when not others on the navbox linking amongst [articles like these]?

We should not encourage AFD-participating editors to be routinely unfair, dismissing good arguments, by giving them too easy ammunition here. This needs to be kept, but toned down and given some historical perspective/spin. It is relevant still in new topic areas, where existing articles are uneven. But the focus in AFD processes and general editing needs to be directed towards developing explicit, reasonable, science-based(?) standards of notability in more and more topic areas. We need to discourage repeated rehashings of similar AFDs, e.g. about list-articles of tallest buildings in X, in which all precedents and other articles are ignored. We need to encourage focus on developing reasonable standards, taking into account the broader existing landscape. For example, perhaps "given that we have similar list-articles for all cities larger than population Y, and this one is larger than Y, too, and we now see there are reliable sources about tall buildings available for all cities down to size Z, then we oughta decide this list-article is okay, and so are all for cities from Y on up. And maybe for Z on up?".

I am not sure how to put this refocus onto consistency into this essay, but may try to edit the essay. Comments, feedback welcome. --doncram 04:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, doncram

Looks like someone is treated badly in one or two AfDs. But honestly, if I am to support any update to this essay, it is to updated with the suggestion of capital punishment for those who mentions the notion of other stuff existing or cross-article consistency. People abuse this so much. The other day, I was in some RFC about –

Oh, wait a second; I am not sure if you want to read a whole page about by bad OSE experiences. If you do, just say the word.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, and I made some proposed updates to that effect.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Inherent notability?

I find this section confusing.

This is the text:

While the Wikipedia community discusses the concept of "inherent notability"—meaning that there is a class of subjects in which every subject in the class could have a stand-alone Wikipedia article—the concept is in limited practice through the use of precedent. As an example, generally speaking, any high school is very likely to be deemed sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of "other stuff exists".

The whole section is confusingly worded but seems to be using this essay to make an argument about the whole schools notability debate. If the point is to identify a sort of scenario in which an "other stuff exists" argument has validity via precedence, there are plenty of topics with that status in the policies and guidelines. I'm not trying to debate school notability or the outcomes essay here, but if the point is to explain the way precedent guides later decisions, we should be pointing to policies and guidelines. For example, census-designated places, Oscar-winning actors, countries' heads of state, and many other topics all have significant enough consensus to be codified in a policy/guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There are definitely other examples that would be better for making the point. While I am a supporter of our current approach towards school articles, I do recognize that our approach is very complex, and requires a lot of nuanced caveats (it is complex enough that explaining it requires a lengthy essay of its own). That complexity makes it a poor example to use here. We should use something that is more obvious. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The converse

Currently, Wikipedia:Other stuff does not exist redirects here, but I don't think the essay describes that, equally faulty, argument ('most other X's don't have pages on Wikipedia, therefore this X shouldn't'), in any detail. There's one example towards the top of 'deletion of articles', but otherwise both that section and 'creation of articles' describe the argument from 'most other X's have pages', rather than '... don't...'). I'm not sure if it would be better to replace the redirect with a new essay on that topic (with recriprocal 'see also's), or edit here to rebalance, perhaps with a new section. Since this is a popular essay I'd rather not make either kind of change without getting a few other opinions. What do people think? Mortee (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new essay. So I think adding a section here as you suggested would be the way to go. Skemcraig (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Users should not hide behind this essay!

A user has recently AfD'd an amateur sports club's article. That clubs article is no more or less notable than all the other clubs playing at it's level or equivalent level in other sports, yet when I questioned about why the nominator has singled out that specific club without nominating all the other equivalent club articles for deletion too, the user simply tried to hide behind this essay. I believe that this is a misuse of this essay and I think something should be added to this essay that warns against using it to justify singling out specific articles for deletion templates/discussions. Skemcraig (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Skemcraig: A late reply: By that logic, you could never delete any of these articles, because there would always be enough similar articles to justify keeping. If the article should be kept, this should be justified based on the Deletion policy, not the existence of other articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Update is needed

The inherited notability section should use a different example, or at least make note of the RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists → Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments – This is a notoriously misunderstood essay frequently cited as "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" in AfDs without apparent concern for the essay's actual argument. It appears to be widely interpreted on the basis of its title as an argument against using arguments based on precedent or existence of similar articles, when the text of the essay is nothing of the sort and indeed repeatedly, explicitly cautions against such readings. It appears prudent to rename this essay to something that more accurately expresses its position, even if it's less concise. Vaticidalprophet 11:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think people mean to link to this essay at all, they are meaning to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF and assume WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has the same target. Support this move, and then retarget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to WP:OTHERSTUFF. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, WP:OTHERSTUFF says pretty much the same thing, including the same "don't namedrop this without explanation" disclaimers. Vaticidalprophet 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The increased clarity is worth it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and retarget to WP:OTHERSTUFF._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - for sure a vastly misunderstood essay. ɱ (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Always invalid"

This edit to the TL:DR by 109.175.155.100 states that referring to what other cases in similar circumstances have done is always invalid, using this barely related comment by JJMC89 to justify the change. I think this is pretty obviously incorrect, being the previous wording the appropriate one: citing other stuff may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them. What's done in previous, similar circumstances may be valid if it was done according to consensus and p&g, just that it won't be valid merely by already existing. —El Millo (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

How is a comment that specifically links to the essay "barely related" to the essay itself? If what the essay states is true, that "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others" and "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid", why wouldn't JJMC89 have said something to the effect of "Supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work in this specific context because XYZ"? It surely would be very odd to flatly and bluntly assert that ""Supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work" and then pipe it to an essay which itself says "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others" and "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid". The title was recently changed from "Other stuff exists" to "When to use or avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments", the rationale being that it's a "notoriously misunderstood essay" as people assume the argument is always invalid and use the essay as a weapon to block constructive dialogue. But unless you want to tell me that JJMC89 himself was confused about the meaning of the essay, my only conclusion can be that what the essay says is actually wrong, and arguments like this are always invalid. The essay title should instead have been changed to make this clear. The JJMC89 quote is a perfect candidate for a title. If you want a reason why the rationale is always invalid, it's because it operates on the mistaken assumption that the Wikipedia community has an at least basic level of competence. So assuming that all other things being equal, a modicum of consistency is desirable, isn't going to work. What definitely is going to work though, is obstructive Wikilawyering by rogue admins. 109.175.155.100 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That comment was in a specific context, it didn't refer to the totality of arguments referring to how things are or were done somewhere else before a current discussion on an issue. We use decisions made in previous similar cases all the time, and rightly so, if both that previous case and the current case prove to be analogous. Otherwise, the same discussion would have to be had from scratch thousands of times. We have something called WP:CONSENSUS, which we use to make decisions that will then carry precedential value. If someone points to some "other stuff" where something was decided by consensus and according to policies and guidelines, then that does have precedential value, and it's a valid argument. If that "other stuff" that it brought up as an argument was the way it was because some editor did it ten years ago and no one seemed to notice, then the argument isn't valid. —El Millo (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Facu-el Millo's comments, I think it's worth pointing out that directly above this conversation is one about retitling the article in order to make it clearer what it's about. The new title is "When to use or avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments". If the answer to "when to use" was "never", that would be a strange title to use to make things clearer - surely something like "Avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments" would have been far better. That conversation only closed on May 6 - less than two weeks ago. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"WP:Other stuff exists" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#WP:Other stuff exists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Shotcuts

I attempted to correct the use of shortcuts for this essay, but consensus from the RfD discussion above was to point all of them to the section at the deletion arguments essay, because most users think of OSE negatively. Accordingly, all of the shortcuts were removed from the lead. It would be good if we could come up with a new shortcut so anyone who actually wishes to point to this essay in discussion and elsewhere can easily do so. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)