Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 12:
:'''Delete''' or '''Redirect''' to a suitable target. (Noting that I was made aware of this AfD at my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trainsandotherthings&curid=68304832&diff=1086430389&oldid=1086037176]) The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy, merely saying "we can't delete it because people use GCOR in the real world!" People use textbooks all the time in the real world, that doesn't mean they are Wikipedia notable. Ideally I'd like to see an article on [[Railroad safety in the United States]] or [[Railroad operations in the United States]], where something like this topic could be briefly mentioned. An article's longevity means '''nothing''' about its notability. I once got [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewell train|a 10 year old hoax article deleted]]. That it was present for 10 years did not make it any less of a hoax. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
::"''The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy''". That's wrong. (a) First, I say that WP's policy(!) is a guideline that is ''used'' to establish notability, not a ''law'' that formally excludes objects if they do not fit to the letter. WP:GNG is so short and unclear that various subareas created their own, substantially differing notability guidelines - e.g., academics start with "''The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline''", which is not at all "derivable" from the main guidelines WP:GNG; it is "newly invented as a common-senes guideline". By analogy, this guideline could immediately be adapted for standards: ''The standard has been significantly adopted in its area''. That no-one has done this ''formally'' is no reason at all that it can't be taken as a common-sense guideline.(*) (b) As I said, there are 1000s of documents using, invoking, commenting (via use and selection) GCOR (and NORAC); just work at the FRA.
::What I find astonishing is that someone calling himself [[User:Trainsandotherthings|'''Trains'''andotherthings]] tries to remove an article about an obviously very relevant railroad subject. Why would someone want to do that??? - and not instead try to come up with any sorts of why it should be kept, how it could improved, how we can repair WP if its current practices actually would be inclined to suppress such an obviously relevant topic?? --[[User:Haraldmmueller]] 09:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
::(*) Essentially, you make an ''exclusionary'' argument: What doesn't fit today's "rules", must die. I make an ''inclusionary'' one: What fits a useful interpretation of WP's intention, should remain (or be included).
| |||