Wikipedia talk:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

I agree. I never saw the logic in deleting articles just because they're too short. It seems just plain ridiculous to me.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:27, 10/2/2007

I agree, that's a terrible thing, if it were true. Do you have any examples? Corvus cornix 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not offhand, but I've seen it done many times. The rationale is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or that the content is not complete enough. Examples could also be the many list-formatted articles that get deleted every day, which can also be considered a type of stub. It's just an article that hasn't yet been written well. Most deletions of articles that are based on content rather than topic notability fall under this banner. They are all examples of this.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:56, 10/4/2007

I'd still want some examples before concluding that you're not just repeating a straw man argument. Corvus cornix 18:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not reduce this to an argument over the details of a few specific examples. It's a simple argument and I think you already understand it and can agree it happens. Let's start with this: Do you think articles on notable topics should be deleted for having sub-par content?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:09, 10/4/2007

Yes, but...

Some articles are truly works in progress, and should be cherished and nourished. Most stubs should be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be in this category. However, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, so the casual reader should not necessarily be exposed to these articles. When a building is under construction, the builder is supposed to prevent the general public from entering the building site, and potentially falling into an unfinished elevator shaft.

When an article is too raw for public purview, perhaps it should be prominently marked as UNDER CONSTRUCTION: NOT READY FOR OCCUPANCY. anyone who is willing to put on a hard hat and help build the article is still welcome, but a casual shopper would know that this store is not yet ready to sell goods and provide services. The "stub article" category at the bottom of the article is far too subtle to make this distinction to our nominal user. I think of our nominal user as a desperate 12-year-old who is trying to answer homework questions the night before they are due. -Arch dude 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, I can see your point in the fact that work-in-progress pages being labeled as such. But at the same time you must realize that completely deleting the article for the simple fact that it is a stub is just plain ridiculous. Also, I doubt any stub-page would be on a 12 year-old's homework assignment. ;) ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I challenge this contention. Nobody is deleting stubs just because they're stubs. Corvus cornix 17:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for examples to counter Corvus cornix's opinion that no one is deleting articles just because they need expansion or structure, you need look no further than the list of articles proposed for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. To give a particular example, I got involved in rescuing the article about Lily Collins in late 2009. It wasn't a topic of interest to me, but it was pretty easy to add structure to the article and to locate sources and demonstrate that the subject was herself notable (and not just because of her dad). The point of the Rescue Squadron is that rather than get involved in arguing the AfD for worthy subjects, we jump in and improve the article. I've seen multiple articles where the AfD was undeserved and the article only needed work. I also helped a friend start the article for U-Con, a gaming convention in Michigan, which was nominated for speedy deletion 3 minutes after that first-time editor had started to build it. Everything in the article was correct at that point, but it was obviously incomplete and did not clearly demonstrate notability. The editor who nominated it for speedy deletion did not put a welcome template in the newbie editor's user page before nominating her first article for deletion, and in my opinion, that was not just wrong, it was rude. Netmouse (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So work on it in a sandbox

If you don't think an article is complete, work on it in your User space until it is complete. Recent changes patrollers aren't mind readers, we don't know if you're going to be coming back to this article in two minutes or two years time, or never again. Even slapping an "under construction" tag doesn't solve anything, because that's just ownership. Corvus cornix 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's no solution. The point of a wiki is that articles should be worked on collaboratively. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be reduced to individual pet projects just because they don't have enough content right out of the gate.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:17, 10/4/2007

WP:OWN is one of the reasons I wrote this essay. No one should 'own' a stub or work on it by themselves...let the millions of people who visit Wikipedia work on it for a while. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To continue the analogy...

The house may not be finished, but it needs a foundation to stand on. We have speedy templates (especially A7) for a reason. shoy 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying it's better to demolish it before that foundation can be properly established? Plus this is taking the analogy too far, as it's much easier to replace whatever an article began with than it is an actual foundation of a house. The content that an article contains in its infancy doesn't dictate the quality of the article in the future, the way a building's foundation would.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:02, 10/6/2007

To stick to the completely pointless housing analogy: you have to pour the foundation BEFORE you build the house do you not?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine.

How does this house analogy have anything to do with it? An article can be worked on extensively before it is created, and if you're having trouble sourcing something then gee... maybe it doesn't belong here in the first place. This is just another excuse for people to be lazy in writing articles and cry over it when someone nominates them for deletion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this statement is that it signifies a complete lack of understand of what makes a Wiki (as documented in this link) and therefore Wikipedia useful as a tool. The wiki was designed such that a collective contribution could be made on a body of work. No one person is responsible for the construction of the wiki's content. As such, every article that exists within the wiki is part of a collective's consensus on what is to be made available to the whole in the article being created. Wikipedia should not be considered a collection of individualist works which are created and wholly formed prior to inclusion. This is entirely contrary to it's intended design. If it were, what would differentiate it from the design of a static webpage, searchable through Google other then a mediocre peer review process that is highly questionable at best and downright unacceptable by most other expert based peer review processes? The answer is self evident. What makes a Wiki unique and useful as a tool to the general public, is it's technological edge to be all inclusive through the collective efforts of it's user base. Anything less then that is self defeating. Zenasprime (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Counterstory

As others have noted about speedy criteria earlier, I'd present the following counter story:

A man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, like you would expect from people who are trying to build a house. Yet they are all amateur carpenters, masons, and architects.

Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't meet the building code," the inspector says, pulling out a tape measure, "and by these measurements, they will collapse when anyone over 50 lbs. weight gets to the fourth step."

The builder replies, "Well, that's OK, because we'll just rebuild those if you give us a little time."

The inspector moves on. "This wall isn't supported enough," the inspector says nonchalantly. "It's load bearing, but structurally unsound."

"Of course not," the builder replies, "We're going to put up other walls next week that will be even better! You'll see!"

"And look!" the inspector cries, "The foundation appears not to be concrete, but gelatin mixed with kindergarten paste! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when the rains come."

"They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!"

The inspector walks away, shaking his head because the builders will always have an answer. Then when the house is finally occupied, and all the party guests come by, they were killed when the stairs collapsed, the walls fell in, and the floor turned to water.

Far fetched? Well, only because there are building inspectors who won't take no for an answer.  ;) LaughingVulcan 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, wouldn't that be "builders who won't take no for an answer"? But I'm sure this bears no resemblance whatsoever to AfD debate. (^_~) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ho hum

This page sure has good intentions, but my experiences have always been the opposite.

Good luck with your encyclopedia

--144.136.148.19 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues

This guideline appears to often be misused in cases where editors remove/challenge uncited content, especially on BLPs. However, editors too often simply remove uncited content that does not conflict with the article guideline without first looking for a source, and sometimes even not raising the issue on the talk page. It might be a good idea to include these issues in the essay.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Applies to article improvements, not just new articles?

This essay is currently structured so that it talks only about new articles, but I think it also has applicability for content additions to already-established articles. Would there be support for editing it to clarify that it has this broader applicability? - Sdkb (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Go, be bold! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

Andrew D. deleted a portion of this essay with a non-explanatory cryptic edit summary. I think it's fine to be in the essay so WP:BRD. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• We are not surprised to find that the section in question was added by TRM. This is bad writing because it introduces qualifications to subvert and contradict the main point of the essay. The phrase which came to mind was "but me no buts" which first appeared in the classic farce, The Busie Body... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Who is "we"? Never mind, typical! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• The usage is that given by the OED as "Used by a speaker or writer, in order to secure an impersonal style and tone". For example, "We shall never forget the mingled feelings of awe and respect, with which we used to gaze on..." – Sketches by Boz. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Typical thing in Wikipedia

Demolishing things early. Why not just lock everything? --Kamil Hasenfeller (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)