Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignore all rules (3rd nomination)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somehow Wikipedia's least notable policy has a separate article about it. The sources on the article are either from the Wikimedia Foundation (not independent) or from news outlets talking about Wikipedia (non-reliable). It seems to not have any actual coverage that is about the rule itself; any source that mentions it does so in passing. The General notability guideline states that an article must have significant coverage to be notable, then defines "significant coverage" as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and is "more than a trivial mention". All sources on this article are a trivial mention. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia can be notable in the outside world, and if people write about it, we can too. And people write about it. The notion that "news outlets talking about Wikipedia" are by default "non-reliable" is fallacious. To call "all" sources in the article trivial, makes me seriously question the nominator's judgement. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a major writer. There is substantial coverage of the concept from several different angles: the history of the rule; analysis of the rule and its meaning; specific analysis of usage in practice (e.g. how it applies to AfD). I don't know that I can outline this better than the article does. Of course the Wikipedia references are not intended to contribute to notability. Other sources evidence non-trivial mentions (it's not the only topic covered in the sources, but there is major coverage). I've no idea why it's our "least notable policy" when it is the one of the most historically rich, and remains extremely regularly cited. I also don't understand what's unreliable about Slate.
There's a real WP:BEFORE failure in assessing what "seems to" be the case with the sources given—the nominator should be able to access them all, I believe, and also has a responsibility to search for more if they find the current ones lacking. I would be surprised if they have read sources such as the (in-depth) American Behavioral Scientist study. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News organizations can be reliable, and this is covered by academia too like [1] and [2].--Mvqr (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the WP:GNG is clearly met with third-party reliable sources. BD2412 T 23:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with a side order of FISH - Well sourced with SIGCOV from secondary sources. Rationale, in my best assumption of good faith, reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not of interest to the average reader. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic has more than passing coverage in reliable sources. As Bilorv points out, the Elizabeth Joyce et al. paper is centred around IAR and its role as "a fundamental component of individual agency." Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this would be a no-brainer keep but there's multiple articles about Ignore all rules: the central Wikipedia Project namespace page but then there's a directory of essays about IAR. I get this is the point of IAR but I can see the unintentional confusion here. The article namespace version is the article about the Wikipedia policy. – The Grid (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I'm not following, The Grid. Nothing you've linked to is an article (i.e. a page in the article namespace). Notability and article content is independent to Wikipedia namespace content (there's no content transfer between the two), and the matter of disambiguating, linking and better organising WP namespace content is separate to an AfD conversation. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a concept the secondary literature about Wikipedia keeps coming back to as a way to explain the Wikipedia. /Julle (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2021 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.