Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Railsback (3rd nomination)
Unscintillating; Thanks for your input. This is a compliment and not a slur. When I receive a rebuttal to something that is not just a whim reply I look at it closely. voiding harm is certainly an essay. It has prominence on Wikipedia, with 44 editors weighing in, and I could show you where other "essays", that are supported by broad community support, has been used as a rationale to block or ban an editor by admins. I am very sure this is not needed because likely you, certainly myself, and other editors here, use other such community supported essays when it is warranted. Essays are not policy or guidelines but when they become used by the community at large they become part of Wikipedia standards. This "essay" has a lot to offer and concerning Pseudo-biographies (), to borrow words from Mel B and Lemongirl942 is ''"spot on"''. That essay also mentions Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (that has involved 141 editors) Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#An inclusion test|in the same sentence (#3) and that is certainly something all editors should look at especially concerning BLP's. Using , or even GNG, as well as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|IAR, by themselves or as a group, could be argued as reasoning to have an article on every local weatherman (or woman) that is on TV, with local daily newspaper coverage as references, but all these policies, guidelines, and even essays, are used in conjunction to establish a criteria. Where do we stop? Local coverage used as a reference for content is important but not as sole reasoning for an article. Some editors would advocate for well referenced local city, state, or regional pageants. I have run into this concerning scientists that are published "within their circle" but have only primary sources or scientific journal essays, somewhat like Atul Kumar, that was previously deleted and appeared again, and there are editors that think there should be a limit. Trying to count trivial pageants, coverage that is actually some collateral damage (Trump) that actually did not affect the subject and should be on the appropriate pageant article, or in one case, that contains the rationale for keep "Please don't delete this article because she is going to compete in a national pageant and might win", does create a running count to by-pass . If a contestant won a Miss Best diaper" pageant, that is not notable, we should not count that as a rationale if she wins a state contest, for reasoning to have an article on Wikipedia because the subject is excluded from bio1E
— User:Otr500, 11:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:A||WP:PSEUDO||WP:OSE||WP:BIO1E (Wikipedia:Attribution)