Wikipedia talk:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments

message: In order to give visibility to this essay so others may add, enhance, and adjust it as well as begin referencing. This is much less likely to be seen and 
thus helped or used in userspace.
Give it some time; I'll move it to userspace if it doesn't gain those improvements soon.
: This article needs some touch-up, and in part for that reason it's in the Wikispace for the moment. If it can gain that help and be used as a reference in other discussions, great! If it does not begin to gain that use, I'll move it into userspace. But let's at least give it a little time so it has enough visibility to get that expansion, adjustment, and referencing. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs touchup 

message: Here's another example of precedent: Pavel Borisenko is a hockey player. The page makes no assertion for awards, recognition, first, or anything that makes him any different from any other non-NHL pro hockey player. Do all pro hockey players get a page? I don't think that simply being paid to play a sport makes one notable. Now, Wayne Gretsky, Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic. and Paul Kariya are clearly notable, but they have much more reasoning behind them. It would be wrong (and an incorrect use of WP:OSE) to state "these players have a page, so this one should" because they are clearly different, and different by a lot. OSE can work both ways and only applies to clearly similar article series. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon seeing an article like Pavel Borisenko, I don't see why anyone would even think of comparing it with the most famous hockey players they know, so this is a rather extreme example. You might of course compare it to the more fringe players. For cases like athletes, there should be plenty of precedent based on Wikipedia:Notability (people), any relevant WikiProject guidelines, and past AfDs. In this case, playing for his national team and the World Juniors is a valid claim to notability, but there seems to be no reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of him. So you'd compare it to others in the same circumstances. –Pomte 10:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly my point. As stated above, "It would be wrong (and an incorrect use of WP:OSE) to state "these players have a page, so this one should" because they are clearly different, and different by a lot." VigilancePrime (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that it's unlikely anyone would make that sort of comparison. Usually, it's up to debate and that's what AfD is for. –Pomte 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreements 

message: : Pomte, I like what you did and it's helped a lot. I went in and added more, rewrote the nutshell and standardized the headings.
: One difference was delinking (and removing reference) to the WP:ATA/WP:WAX. That seems (I think at least) to give the impression that this article is either in competition with or opposed to the Arguments to avoid. I see this as incorporating it (speaking of how "simply because OSE" doesn't work) and expanding it, illustrating the difference beteen a legitimate OSE and a non-legitimate OSE statement.
: That's really the only major point. I don't know how lucid my writing is overall; please feel free to come and clean up some more! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more narrative 

message: I think the new section needs to be greatly expanded, Vigilance. It's not very strong as-is. I would try my hand at it, but I'm just not sure I have as firm a grasp on the envisioned policy as do you. 
Also, I'm not sure about the example you gave. It's not clear to me how it relates to OSE. It needs more explanation, or a better example. Maybe I'm forgetting if I read it before, but is there precedent for an OSE argument being successfully used? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I added it as-is to get the ball rolling. I think it gives a hint at the purpose (which is a noble and right one, IMnsHO), but it needs attention of people like you, who are far more WikiEloquent and WikiSmarter than I. If it makes any sense at all, please feel free to word it up and around. (Meaning if what I added made sense at all.) Thanks bunches! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: This article seems to have transformed from a dismissive essay about why "other stuff exists" is not a good reason for making decisions, to a more measured, considered guideline regarding the correct and incorrect use of precedent on Wikipedia. The article should be renamed from "Other stuff exists", which is dismissive in tone, to "Precedent", which is what this article now discusses. The essay has the makings of a constructive guideline, but it needs further refinement as suggested elsewhere on this talk page and a more neutral title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to Precedent

message: Since when is it alright to use contributers usernames in policies and essays? KingOtherstuff (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I fixed it. You can fix this stuff yourself, you know. Kauffner (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell? You call that fixing? Dude, pick a name that is not used, am I clear? LetsKeepit! (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where ever you go, there's always a wiseguy. Kauffner (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Username 

message: When first saw the title of this article, I figured it was about the duplication argument. By this I mean when an editor argues that some piece of information shouldn't be included in one article because another more appropriate article exists. For example, I was warned not to put anything about a movie's historical accuracy in a movie article because history should be in a history article. Should there be really be only one unique spot on Wikipedia for any given piece of information? This might be the practice of a paper encyclopedia, but IMO this would be covered by WP:NOTPAPER. (Although the issue is not explicitly addressed there either.) Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: 04-Dec-2008: Man, that essay "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" is hard to read, in case you thought you were falling asleep.  Regardless, the content seems sound.  However, I would also use the essay as an example of excessive obfuscatious explanatory descriptive verbosity: too many words. Even at the top, it uses bizarre long-winded terms, such as "logical rationalization" (meaning "a reason"?) or "discussions erroneously" and such. Note, I'm not saying to change the essay: it is still readable, to a point, and it is an excellent example of unusual, long-winded writing, in recent times. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay is tedious reading

message: This may seem obvious, but it should probably be in the nutshell, which is the initial premise that OSE is, with the stated exceptions, an unproductive argument for deletion discussions (and other discussions for that matter).  Since WP:OSE now redirects here instead of the "arguments to avoid" page, that should probably be stated a little more prominently.  SDY (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to nutshell

message: The reason it would be ridiculous to consider deleting the Yoda article is because the subject matter clearly meets our standards for notability.  The existence of other Star Wars characher articles is irrelevant to those considerations. If there is an instance when 'other stuff exists' is a valid argument, it would need a better illustration than this one. Dlabtot (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoda/Mace Windu example makes no sense 

message: It offers no clear explanation or principles.  It qualifies its basic principle so much in both directions as to be useless. 271828182 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This essay is very bad 

message: Even the nutshell is self-contradictory, with the first bullet contradicting the second two.
Worst of all, the first little bit of this ESSAY (but never the rest) gets used by people as a weapon in defense of inconsistancy, when it serves their purposes to do so. Even in guideline and policy related debates. Example: . I may die of shock if I ever see this essay brought up FIRST in an argument by somebody who wants to use the second and larger half of it, which argues in the opposite direction. But on the whole, what good is this thing? It's not just "cute," it's actively harmful since it cannot help but be misused (however it is "used"). 
Could we delete it, please? Oh, no-- let me guess: you're going to say that other "guidance essays" just as stupid as this one exist, right? ;0
Well, name one. SBHarris 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fully in agreement with you. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree, this should be deleted; it is primarily used to back up an inconsistent argument that deserves to lose.William Jockusch (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I also agree.  The people who read beyond the first bullet point are not the people who try to cite this essay.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indeed, this essay is hopeless and harmful, and tends to be used as though it were a guideline or policy 

message: I am having a dispute with another editor over the interpretation of this guideline. Since this is only dealing with article creation another editor has said the guideline is only for creating/deleting articles. Since this is what all the references in the article are relating to I can understand if disagree with that interpretation   But to me "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" is a pretty straightforward statement. I interpreted "the nature of Wikipedia" as being more the just Wikipedia articles. This cropped up when I added red links with reliable sourcing to the List of New Wave bands and artists article. Edkollin (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the lede mentions "keep", "delete", and "create", and I see the essay used in deletion discussions such as those at WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011_June_28.  Also, this is an essay not a guideline.  Beyond that, I'm not aware of people that have actually read this essay (I haven't).  I see it always used as a riposte of a keep argument with no depth of analysis; but the lede states, "The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded...".  Hope that helps.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The precedent - written or not I don't know - is to list only notable bands in the various music-related lists.  If the bands are notable, the answer is simple - create a stub article for them.  If not, I think it's a terrible idea to start including them in lists.  You will end up with a terrible-looking list like this.  That is what people do to music articles - add themselves and their friends and family and anyone they know who has ever picked up a guitar.  Everyone I know has been following this precedent since at least 2006 (like this) and this is honestly the first time I have heard anyone opposing.  Wknight94 talk 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not favor of putting friends and family in either and in the music articles and lists I do edit 95% of what I do is delete or put citation warnings up for a month or two and then delete. But these red link acts are reliably sourced and don't fall into the category of wanting to see a friend in Wikipedia. In lists I have  dealt with with the exception of one, "notable" has definitely not been the precedent.  Based on the discussion pages I have been involved with a majority of people want obscure acts in the list and much much more relaxed interpretation of guidelines or whatever you want to call them for "regular" articles and I am usually the strict bad guy. Edkollin (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this will help...  See #3 of MOS:MUSIC#Lists: "3. Lists should not generally include musicians who do not have an article."  Wknight94 talk 01:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word generally indicated this is not a strict "rule". Properly sourced red links could be an appropiate exception.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A "properly sourced red link" should be turned into a blue link.  Then this whole argument is moot.  Just because a band gets mentioned in a single online newspaper post does not mean it's appropriate here.  Otherwise, every local band that has ever been included in a local newspaper review in any city in the world could be included.  Probably millions, including several of my own family members.  WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Wknight94 talk 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

text: This is not a guideline, it's a muddled, self-contradictory essay which is extremely harmful to the wikipedia project.  Do not treat it as a guideline, please.  The actual applicable guideline for lists is WP:LSC.  Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

text: If you think a band is notable enough to include in Wikipedia, you should create a properly-sourced article for it. Dlabtot (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will second Dlabtot's statement. IF they're worthy of being on that list, then they are hopefully worthy of having their own proper article. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists and other non article situations 

message: This policy seems to me a rather unpleasant one for new editors.  It essentially means that new writers cannot read Wikipedia to learn the "flavor" of content that is desirable, because any apparent precedent can be reverted at any time.  In an extreme case, a person may find a topic with 90 articles on it, put a great deal of time and effort into writing a 91st (even with full verifiability), only to get all 91 articles removed just because another editor noticed the 91th and not the previous 90.  If Wikipedia is - as it appears - now having a system of administrators "patrolling" new pages, surely this should come with some responsibility to respond within a reasonable timeframe, too?  Hyphz (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Consideration for precedent and effort

message: I think we need to revisit the utility of this essay, particularly in light of the fact that as the lifetime of the average Wikipedia article has gotten longer, the likelihood of pointing to other articles and making no point of value since those other articles are just as deficient is becoming gradually less.  If a hundred articles have been been around for years and thousands of editors have gone over each of them and nobody has seen fit to make a particular sort of change, it is worthwhile inviting someone insisting on making that particular change to the hundred-and-first article to ask themselves why start on the hundred-and-first and not those other hundred articles.  It's an invitation to think about consensus more broadly.  In my experience WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used to divide and conquer; that is, it is used to enforce the doctrine that every article has to be treated in isolation such that consensus is defined by only the editors at that particular article AND only at a particular time.  Someone tries to challenge these "pioneers" to consider why the "The Wisdom of Crowds" hasn't taken Wikipedia down that road already in the similar cases that have come before and the "pioneers" just cite this essay in order to suggest the facile answer that the other hundred articles are in just as much need as remedy as this the article, ie two wrongs (or a hundred) don't make a right.  
I don't see the point of this essay beyond two wrongs don't make a right.  When someone is, indeed, pointing to a couple other bad and neglected articles one doesn't need this essay to explain that two wrongs don't make a right.  An essay should be used when one wants to give a nuanced, extended response to simplistic reasoning and would like a condensed way to give that response.  In practice this essay gets used the other way around.  Someone tries to get what I'll call an "article isolationist" to broaden their perspective and think about why there is so little precedent for what they they want to do and they get this essay thrown back at them with the message being that Wikipedia doesn't have such a thing as precedent.  Without this essay, people would actually have to respond, "two wrongs don't make a right."  Currently, they don't have to care about whether the premise that the other article(s) are deficient is true or not, they can just cite this essay (or WP:Ignore all precedent) to say consideration of other articles is irrelevant.  If this essay were titled "Other BAD stuff exists" users would at least be encouraged to spend a moment considering whether it would make a difference if the "other stuff" constituted good precedent or bad precedent.  If it would make a difference the material pointed to should be assessed instead of summarily dismissed.
If this essay were to reserve itself to making the point that if there is truly an accepted Wikipedia precedent then a policy has likely emerged on the point and that policy should be referred to instead of "current practice," that would be a legitimate point, but usually an edit war occurs when formal policy is not clear one way or the other, and in those cases if there is INFORMAL policy, that ought to count for at least something.  Informal policy roughly means pointing to the article space instead of the WP: space.  This essay excuses not thinking about these larger questions.  I don't believe people typically JUST point to other articles without advancing any other argument such that there is a danger of giving too much backing to a "precedent policy" in the absence of this essay.  Typically, people make their arguments and then point to other articles as examples, examples that suggest that if the person pointing to other articles was way out on the fringe, all else equal it should be relatively difficult to come up with examples of implementation elsewhere.
The bottom line is that pointing to other article(s) MAY or MAY NOT be relevant.  This essay gets automatically cited by those saying other articles are not relevant.  In other words, it is precluding inquiry and excusing intellectual and/or investigational laziness.  If editors don't have this essay, they'll have to acknowledge the possibility, however small, that looking beyond the article at hand to other articles MIGHT be illuminating and then explain why, in fact, such inquiry would not be illuminating.  Take away WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and edit warriors will be forced to engage in long form responses instead of just squeezing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS into an edit summary as if that always and fully refutes references to other articles.
An alternative to deletion would be to just strike the first, headline, bullet point that says "That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid... It will typically be dismissed."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's your executive summary then: "That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid" should be removed from this page because it is far too broad an instruction.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The assertion that "Other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid" is the entire reason for the existence of this essay in the first place. That's what this essay says. So basically, you're arguing for deletion of this essay. To which I say: Now, you're getting it! By the time you get done with the qualifiers you need in making that argument, you have a (better) essay about precedent in editing WP. But it won't be THIS essay. Deleting this particular confused essay is a good idea, but not to the taste of the reactionary editors you're dealing with. So, you're screwed.  The people here who want things the way they are, do not have the patience to read your arguments, and do not have the intelligence or writing skill to fix it themselves. All they know is they don't want you to do it. Soon, you'll figure that out and quit pushing this ball up the hill. This essay, and this talk page, are very WP:LAME indeed. Fortunately, none of it is policy. It's just a mind-numbing waste of time, and a honeypot for people who come to WP thinking they're actually going to get policy as it would be worked out by bright people. LOL. SBHarris 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: Hi. Look, you are starting to violate WP:BRD. You're an admin, not some newcomer. When I revert your changes, I expect something less vague and confusing than "you have bowdlerized it, radically changing the meaning and impact" as justification for your counter-revert. Maybe I did mean to do exactly that. Now, if you explain your purpose, I might be able to understand better. We'll see what should be done next.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , your editing is WP:POINTy and I see no sign of you ever participating in the discussions before. Either you are mistaking this article with WP:WAX or simply cannot imagine it ever becoming something beyond a fattened and fluffy version of WP:WAX. Either way, you are edit warring and I am allergic to edit warriors, be it ordinary or admin. Fleet Command (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Fleet Command. Must I comment on this proclamation, or must I not because it might attract the non-speaker? Tough choice. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluff 

message: I find this section confusing.
This is the text:
The whole section is confusingly worded but seems to be using this essay to make an argument about the whole schools notability debate. If the point is to identify a sort of scenario in which an "other stuff exists" argument has validity via precedence, there are plenty of topics with that status in the policies and guidelines. I'm not trying to debate school notability or the outcomes essay here, but if the point is to explain the way precedent guides later decisions, we should be pointing to policies and guidelines. For example, census-designated places, Oscar-winning actors, countries' heads of state, and many other topics all have significant enough consensus to be codified in a policy/guideline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There are definitely other examples that would be better for making the point.  While I am a supporter of our current approach towards school articles, I do recognize that our approach is very complex, and requires a lot of nuanced caveats (it is complex enough that explaining it requires a lengthy essay of its own).  That complexity makes it a poor example to use here.  We should use something that is more obvious.  Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent notability? 

message: Currently, Wikipedia:Other stuff does not exist redirects here, but I don't think the essay describes that, equally faulty, argument ('most other X's don't have pages on Wikipedia, therefore this X shouldn't'), in any detail. There's one example towards the top of 'deletion of articles', but otherwise both that section and 'creation of articles' describe the argument from 'most other X's have pages', rather than '... don't...'). I'm not sure if it would be better to replace the redirect with a new essay on that topic (with recriprocal 'see also's), or edit here to rebalance, perhaps with a new section. Since this is a popular essay I'd rather not make either kind of change without getting a few other opinions. What do people think? Mortee (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need a new essay. So I think adding a section here as you suggested would be the way to go. Skemcraig (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The converse 

message: A user has recently AfD'd an amateur sports club's article. That clubs article is no more or less notable than all the other clubs playing at it's level or equivalent level in other sports, yet when I questioned about why the nominator has singled out that specific club without nominating all the other equivalent club articles for deletion too, the user simply tried to hide behind this essay. I believe that this is a misuse of this essay and I think something should be added to this essay that warns against using it to justify singling out specific articles for deletion templates/discussions. Skemcraig (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A late reply: By that logic, you could never delete any of these articles, because there would always be enough similar articles to justify keeping. If the article should be kept, this should be justified based on the Deletion policy, not the existence of other articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users should not hide behind this essay! 

message: The inherited notability section should use a different example, or at least make note of the RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update is needed 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move   (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists →  – This is a notoriously misunderstood essay frequently cited as "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" in AfDs without apparent concern for the essay's actual argument. It appears to be widely interpreted on the basis of its title as an argument against using arguments based on precedent or existence of similar articles, when the text of the essay is nothing of the sort and indeed repeatedly, explicitly cautions against such readings. It appears prudent to rename this essay to something that more accurately expresses its position, even if it's less concise. Vaticidalprophet 11:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 April 2021 

message: This edit to the TL:DR by  states that referring to what other cases in similar circumstances have done , using this barely related comment by  to justify the change. I think this is pretty obviously incorrect, being the previous wording the appropriate one: citing other stuff  What's done in previous, similar circumstances may be valid if it was done according to consensus and p&g, just that it won't be valid merely by already existing. —El Millo (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a comment that specifically links to the essay "barely related" to the essay itself? If what the essay states is true, that "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others" and "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid", why wouldn't  have said something to the effect of "Supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work in this specific context because XYZ"? It surely would be very odd to flatly and bluntly assert that ""Supporting your position with other stuff isn't going to work" and then pipe it to an essay which itself says "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others" and "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid". The title was recently changed from "Other stuff exists" to "When to use or avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments", the rationale being that it's a "notoriously misunderstood essay" as people assume the argument is always invalid and use the essay as a weapon to block constructive dialogue. But unless you want to tell me that JJMC89 himself was confused about the meaning of the essay, my only conclusion can be that what the essay says is actually wrong, and arguments like this are always invalid. The essay title should instead have been changed to make this clear. The JJMC89 quote is a perfect candidate for a title. If you want a reason why the rationale is always invalid, it's because it operates on the mistaken assumption that the Wikipedia community has an at least basic level of competence. So assuming that all other things being equal, a modicum of consistency is desirable, isn't going to work. What definitely is going to work though, is obstructive Wikilawyering by rogue admins. 109.175.155.100 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment was in a specific context, it didn't refer to the totality of arguments referring to how things are or were done somewhere else before a current discussion on an issue. We use decisions made in previous similar cases all the time, and rightly so, if both that previous case and the current case prove to be analogous. Otherwise, the same discussion would have to be had from scratch thousands of times. We have something called WP:CONSENSUS, which we use to make decisions that will then carry precedential value. If someone points to some "other stuff" where something was decided by consensus and according to policies and guidelines, then that does have precedential value, and it's a valid argument. If that "other stuff" that it brought up as an argument was the way it was because some editor did it ten years ago and no one seemed to notice, then the argument isn't valid. —El Millo (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

text: In addition to 's comments, I think it's worth pointing out that directly above this conversation is one about retitling the article in order to make it clearer what it's about. The new title is "When to use or avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments". If the answer to "when to use" was "never", that would be a strange title to use to make things clearer - surely something like "Avoid 'other stuff exists' arguments" would have been far better. That conversation only closed on May 6 - less than two weeks ago. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Always invalid" 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#WP:Other stuff exists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mdewman6 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WP:Other stuff exists" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I attempted to correct the use of shortcuts for this essay, but consensus from the RfD discussion above was to point all of them to the section at the deletion arguments essay, because most users think of OSE negatively. Accordingly, all of the shortcuts were removed from the lead. It would be good if we could come up with a new shortcut so anyone who actually wishes to point to this essay in discussion and elsewhere can easily do so. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shotcuts