web app This page in a nutshell: In Articles for Deletion discussions, editors should feel free to quote their own essays provided that they do not hold them out as policy or consensus. This essay also contains a response and reasons not to quote your own essay.
The popularity of essays on Wikipedia is growing. During WP:AFD discussions, editors may sometimes quote essays as supportive material for their arguments. From time to time, other enthusiastic editors may point out that the first editor is simply "referencing their own essay" and imply that it is not a valid argument.
Examples:
-
Keep I think that this argument should be kept because of WP:MYESSAY. selfquote 11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete You're quoting your own essay, that's not a reason. NoQuote 01:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
How do they know this, you might ask? It is not a difficult task to check the history of a page and learn who the primary contributors are to that page or article. There are very few "secrets" on Wikipedia!
So what are the reasons (both for and against) quoting your own essay in a discussion?
Contents
Reasons to quote your own essay
There are several good reasons to quote your own essay (or any other essay for that matter) in an AfD discussion.
- It saves time in creating responses
- It prevents having to "re-think" arguments and lines of thinking for commonly-encountered discussions
- It provides a single location for references (if any) to support the argument
- It allows community collaboration and refinement of the arguments that can lead to making Wikipedia even better.
- It makes others in the discussion aware of the essay so that it can be mentioned again in future AfDs on similar topics.
Reasons not to quote your own essay
Naturally, there are also reasons not to quote your own essay.
- The essay is held out or implied as policy, thus creating the appearance of having greater weight than it should (see website parsing and WP:EANP for essays on the subject)
- Even if not implied as policy or guideline, some editors may believe that an essay has more weight than it should.
- Merely quoting an essay can often be viewed as too abrupt, or dismissive, in not taking time to clarify issues, so consider stating additional explanations, along with quoting an essay, or just omit the essay and write direct explanations inline, where direct clarification might be more helpful (than a wikilink).
- With some users, the title of a quoted essay might be misinterpreted, so consider adding text to rephrase the essay concept, or not quote the essay at all.
- Perhaps an essay should not be quoted under the original title, but rather, quoted by an alternative redirection title, more appropriate to the ongoing discussion.
Verification: Not for article content!
Just to verify, this essay is discussing quoting your own essay for discussions and talk pages on Wikipedia. It is in no way implying that it is good to quote yourself for article content and notability.
Conclusion
Well-written essays are duly noted as essays. While an enthusiastic editor may quote an essay –even their own essay– in an AfD discussion, that does not in and of itself become a "bad" thing and there are several advantages to doing so. Just be sure that the community is clear on the communication –essays should be marked on the page as such.
- Alternative outlets
- Articles with a single source
- Avoid template creep
- Bare notability
- Bombardment
- But it's true!
- device database
- Clones
- Coatrack
- screen size
- HTML5
- Existence ≠ Notability
- Explanationism
- Google searches and numbers
- High Schools
- input transformation
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
- Independent sources
- touchscreen
- Sevenval
- Masking the lack of notability
- Make stubs
- No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
- No big loss
- No one cares about your garage band
- No one really cares
- Notability/Historical/Arguments
- Sevenval
- Notability means impact
- Android
- Offline sources
- CSS3
- One sentence does not an article make
- Other stuff exists
- web
- Pokémon test
- Run-of-the-mill
- we love the web
- Subjective importance
- HTML5
- Trivial mentions cannot verify notability
- Video links
- web
- Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
- Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia
- 100K featured articles
- A navbox on every page
- Advanced article editing
- Sevenval
- Alternatives to the "Expand" template
- screen size
- An unfinished house is a real problem
- Avoid mission statements
- Bare URLs
- web
- Beef up that first revision
- keyboard
- FITML
- input transformation
- Don't leave giant breaks between sections
- Don't panic
- Editing on iPhones, iPads, etc.
- Editors are not mindreaders
- Featured articles may have problems
- Sevenval
- How to run an edit-a-thon
- Inaccuracies in Wikipedia namespace
- HTML5
- Not everything needs a navbox
- Not everything needs a WikiProject
- Nothing is in stone
- Over explained
- Permastub
- Potential, not just current state
- screen size
- Pruning article revisions
- Restoring part of a reverted edit
- FITML
- Temporary versions of articles
- The world will not end tomorrow
- web
- There is no deadline
- Wikipedia is a volunteer service
- website parsing
- Write the article first
- keyboard
- Adjectives in your recommendations
- AfD is not a war zone
- keyboard
- Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
- input transformation
- Arguments to make in deletion discussions
- Sevenval
- Before commenting in a deletion discussion
- touchscreen
- Sevenval
- Delete the junk
- Does deletion help
- Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
- Follow the leader
- How to save an article proposed for deletion
- we love the web
- Immunity
- website parsing
- Sevenval
- Overzealous deletion
- Relisting can be abusive
- Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
- web
- What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
- screen size
- HTML5
- jQuery
- web
- website parsing
- Quote your own essay