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 Keep. --RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites[edit]

This Essay has does not have support of the community and yet certain editors have been using it as a link in edit histories as a policy justification for mass elimininating links to Find a Grave and other sites. Additionally, some of those same users are now using the talk page of this Essay as means to "discuss" mass deleting Find a Grave because they know that few users watch the talk page and therefore knowone will complain. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of this nomination has been posted at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Notice Moxy (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I wouldn't bother and in fact I left this for a long long time past when I wanted to submit it. The problem with this Essay is that it is not and should not be used as a policy nor is it an appropriate place to discuss the mass deletion of given links. Further, this essay represents only a few users opinions and all efforts by the other group including myself was immediately reverted. IF this essay is kept it needs to be NPOV and represent both sides of the argument, not just the side that favors eliminating it. Additionally the Find a Grave issue was continuously resubmitted and continuously got no consensus to be eliminated. It continues to be submitted and discussed and the proponents simply refuse to hear that some editors think the link is useful. --Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with you there, but I still think the solution is to take editors involved to ANI for their actions rather than deleting this page. Do you really think they will stop removing FaG links if you succesfully delete this page? Yoenit (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well ANI is a good place to go if editors are doing something wrong but in this case I believe the editor feels that are following a policy since they are directly referencing it in their edit summaries. Plus as I mentioned the essay is very one sided and doesn't accuratrely cover the topic. --Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not upset in the least and I apologize if it appears I am not calm. I do agree with many of the comments on the essay and I even agree that Find a Grave isn't the best source. The problem stems from the Essay being considered by some users as a policy and that some are using it as a justification to mass delete the Find a Grave link from dozens of articles. --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation: Start a WP:Kick the ass of anyone who cites WP:EL/Perennialwebsites as a policy, and then site that article in response to cites of the above article. That's about the best I can think of.AerobicFox (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would take this whole process as a gleaming endorsement of the essay Moxy (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But certainly not as an endorsement of the current version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree most think that the idea of the essay is useful and there is some truth to that and many believe that since its just an essay its not hurting anything. However, an essay is also not a policy or guideline and when users are referencing it in discussions against the use of sites like Find a Grave or using it as a justification in edit summeries that is what concerns me. It is getting better though and some changes have already been made since this MFD started so hopefully the remiaining problems will get sorted out as well in time. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until it was edited on the essay that Find a Grave can be used (Almost never means there are exceptions) as a source or reference (this needs serious attention) I was a proponent of Find a Grave (and have even defended the site against black listing) as an external link. Now I am inclined to agree with other editors that Find a Grave, as it now stands, is doing more harm than good. I will continue to oppose the use of the site, as a reliable source or reference, no matter how good some of the information might be. The policies and guidelines that prohibit the use currently has consensus. Circular discussions that there are some things good with an unacceptable site does not change the policies and guidelines. If we gave as liberal interpretation as possible, maybe even with one eye closed, Find a Grave fails under more that one prohibitive policy or guideline concerning the use as a reliable source or reference. That is the purpose of the external links section. The fact that the site is and has been used as a source or reference is why I have been fought tooth and toe nail. I did not know this at the beginning but now it is clear. This is amazing to me because I have continued to state that I like Find a Grave and IMBD but my ignored concerns, that there are problems with the project instructions and grave errors in the way the site is being used on Wikipedia, have continually been argued in meaningless discussions with disregard of policies and guidelines. This is not a new problem as it has been going on since 2005 and has caused some editors to stop contributing to the Find a Grave project. I have been asking for editors to fairly seek consensus on the essay as well as a solution to the problems. I have not even made any edits to the essay but only suggestions to get consensus. To me (my opinion) I have been fair and impartial but the issues I have brought to light will not go away just by ignoring them. I also stated that I would not continue to be a party to consensus by silence if there was not progress toward a solution or should my concern be ignored. There are articles that have been created using Find a Grave as a source or reference. Sometimes there will be no source or reference but Find a Grave (IMBD or both) used as an external link. This masking of an improper source has apparently went unnoticed. Doing this also subjects the links to be in violation of WP:EL policies and guidelines. This makes the entire article subject to WP:OR and failure to meet several other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The argument that the site has information not available elsewhere, as an important reason to allow any use of Find a Grave as a source or reference, means such an article fails WP:NOTABILITY. My concerns (and edits) have strictly been because of any site being used as a source or reference that does not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines or the improper use of external links. I have posted (as referenced above) the rationale in the edit summary and article talk pages. I explicitly use policies and guidelines and not essay guidelines. I also examine each article and only copy the many used policies and guidelines for ease of editing and never just delete. I was transferring Find a Grave to external links when appropriate but with no help, and the regards of some editors that doing the right thing is wrong, I will let someone else do this. I do not use the site so by compromising (which was not appreciated anyway) I actually have been using the site but I will not do this anymore. I am actually at a lost to understand what exceptions some editors are choosing to invoke to give special allowances to Find a Grave. If IMBd, that has managerial editorial over site, is not acceptable then what gives proponents of Find a Grave (please note the current RS edit on the essay) reasons to continually claim exceptions? Because there is some good information on an unacceptable site (for source or reference) just does not "cut the mustard" to me. There are acceptable ways to try to get the policies changed that have consensus. If editors do make a deletion from information that is found on an essay, that is within the scope of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not grounds to revert the edit nor does it make the edit or deletion invalid. The mass deletion claims are false and this was noted by another editor. Because I choose to adhere to the fact that the many mentioned policies and guidelines are not trivial and feel edits are needed on articles that are in blatant violation of these, is nothing less than good editing. I can not just let this go as some apparently would like. If it is found that I am in error then I will correct such error. Correcting errors and mistakes found on articles is a fundamental process of Wikipedia. I feel concern with the betterment of Wikipedia and not circumvention of policies and guidelines should be of utmost importance. The essay actually has a more far reaching need than I thought but needs neutral editorial help. I am glad to see the essay nominated (even if for no valid reason) for this MFD. The exposure, even though probably not the intent, of something so important will benefit Wikipedia and editors now and in the future. With the current support and a consensus to keep the next step possibly would be to nominate the essay for advancement to an Infopage or Draft proposal then a Proposal. With closure of this MFD, and a consensus to keep, criteria for a draft proposal will have actually already been achieved. I do think that more work is required with more editors before any additional steps are taken. Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the consensus seems to be to keep the essay as advice and that people don't have to agree with it and might be helpful. Many also indicate that it is not a policy and that it could stand improvement. Your fairly long comment only advocates why it should be eliminated so that it doesn't become a policy or guideline. The Find a Grave site IS NOT harmful to Wikipedia and IMO and the opinions of others provides information that we would not be able to otherwise find a reference for which I freely admit should only be allowed by exception and with strict limitations. Banning the site (or IMDB) would likely lead to the deletion of vital data (namely Birth/death and burial information) from many articles and potentially deletion of the otherwise notable articles themselves. Aside from that it does no harm to have Find a Grave or several of the other sites listed as an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a user who has been mass removing the links to Find a Grave [1]. --Kumioko (talk) 19:15, 20 March 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.


More