I wanted to ask everyone if they agree that the article “How to Ruin a Wedding” should have an NFD tag applied for mean-spirited activity. You can read my comment on the discussion page that detailed some of the places where the possibly violating content is. Thanks!
Well, this has been voted before for “Mean-Spirited activity” and has been kept. It is mean-spirited, but I don’t think we should NFD it. It’s a popular article. Articles like this were mean-spirited and nominated for deletion, but those articles were kept. This article could be one of them, so maybe we shouldn’t NFD it.
I guess we should NFD as it is mean-spirited, and if the title gets changed, it will be NFD for duplicate “Object a wedding” or something like that.
Should be NFD’d. Clearly a mean-spirited activity. What does the content say? Can you post a link to the article (if it still is active)?
That seems complete with pictures, methods and all the correct format!! I’m confused , I want to NFD it, but It seems like a hard worked article.
I agree. It seems too good to be NFDd.
Does completeness really matter when the article has instructions to preform cruel acts?
I’m not sure if this should or should not be NFDd. I’ll try asking an admin.
A few things to consider: - If you look at the discussion page, you’ll see that it’s been NFD’d in the past, but was voted to be kept. Generally when an article is NFD’d and kept, any future attempts to NFD will most likely result in being voted against the deletion again. This works both ways when an NFD is voted to delete and then recreated. - The article has in-text citations and is backed up by good sources. If an article is well-written and well-cited, the chances of it being deleted are low. - The view counter has a decent number. This means people are reading it and, therefore, the article is being helpful. Additionally, the article has been translated into several different languages. It’s a grey area when an article appears to violate the deletion policy but is well-written and is helping people. Personally, I would go against NFDing it.
I personally feel that “helping people” is no grounds to keep to keep the article when it is aimed at “helping” someone hurt someone else.
system
12
The actual policy is that once an article is nominated for deletion for a specific reason, and the consensus is achieved that the nfd be removed and the article kept, the article isn’t nominated again for the same reason. This isn’t a great article, or a great topic, but a community consensus was achieved to set a policy, and the policy dictates what is done in a situation. To renominate it for deletion, then, requires the policy to change, or a new reason for deletion to be established.
“To renominate it for deletion, then, requires the policy to change, or a new reason for deletion to be established.” I’d also like to add that both of these operations require community consensus.
I can’t find the policy where an article cannot be re-nominated.
system
15
I am strongly for the deletion of the article. The view counter shows us that people are reading it, and even if only 1 in 10 people actually follow the advice given, 1465 weddings have been ruined, and 2930 lovers have been separated/demotivated/depressed. Is this good? Seriously, how would you feel if someone barged into your wedding and ruined it, and then told you that he read about it on wikiHow? How would your feelings about wikiHow be? It’s a cruel, cruel act, and should not be encouraged.
I also support the deletion of this article, I do not think “Because it has a lot of views” is an acceptable reason to keep a potentially mean spirited article. Just because it helps people does not mean it is nice. The viewership is in no relation whatsoever with how mean or not mean spirited this is. The definition of a mean spirited article is: Instructions promoting destructive or mean spirited behavior or activities, I think ruining two people who are madly in love for each other’s special day is very mean and cruel. Now I know the deletion policy says that doesn’t automatically qualify it, I believe this is just as bad as ruining someone’s love life, and that is a mean spirited activity indeed. This article isn’t even how to stop a wedding, which can be used in a few occasions such as a scandalous marriage, it has no steps whatsoever on how to politely stop a wedding with valid reason. No, this article was purely created to ruin two loving people’s special day. “EDIT” I would also like to point out that one of the tips says “Target the bride, women are much more dramatic and amusing” despite this being incredibly sexist, this also implies that the article is being done purely for the crasher’s own amusement! This is a mean thing to do altogether, however may be justified by an ex who a bride or groom was doing some very nasty things to, but for a person who doesn’t know anyone there’s enjoyment?! That sickens me.
Hailey
17
Those are good reasons for it to be nominated for deletion above, but we can’t nominate it again because it had already been voted before. There are lots of other reasons that it shouldn’t be nominated (The view count might not be good thing though, because that may mean too many weddings have been ruined).
We could just remove this tip.
Why can’t an article be re-nominated? Like I said, I can’t find that policy anywhere!
Hailey
19
Maybe there isn’t any policy that says it can’t be re-nominated (please correct me if I’m wrong), that might
mean it can’t be nominated again.
BR said there was a policy that said that. I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me where.
