User:Dgies/Unencyclopedic
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: On Wikipedia, "Unencyclopedic" means different things depending on the context. To avoid confusion, be specific in your criticisms. |
On discussion pages, the criticism "unencyclopedic" is often used. Wiktionary defines unencyclopedic as not "having to do with an encyclopedia" or lack of comprehensive scope. Unencyclopedic is used variously on deletion discussions, content disputes and featured picture debates, among others. The purpose of this essay is to explore what "unencyclopedic" means in different contexts, when it is (or is not) a valid criticism, and suggest guidance on the use of the term.
Meaning depends on context[edit]
Unencyclopedic means different things in different contexts. A page that might be unencyclopedic as an article may be perfectly fine as a user page. Many pages are not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, but they are valuable in building this encyclopedia.
Deletion[edit]
Articles[edit]
In an Articles for deletion debate, unencyclopedic generally means the page falls into one of the categories of What Wikipedia is not.
Categories[edit]
In Categories for discussion, there are no deletion criteria specific to categories besides those in WP:CSD. "Unencyclopedic" usually means either the category runs afoul of What Wikipedia is not, or is of such trivial importance to not provide value to the encyclopedia.
Images[edit]
Because images do not stand alone on Wikipedia but are used in pages, "Unencyclopedic" generally means the image provides no value to an article. Images used only in user space may "unencyclopedic" by themselves, but it makes more sense to judge them as a part of the pages they are included in.
Templates[edit]
Like images, templates do not stand alone but are used in other pages. For templates used in articles, unencyclopedic usually means the template provides no value to the articles or may run afoul of What Wikipedia is not. For templates used anywhere other than articles, this criticism usually means the templates provides no value to the Wikipedia project.
User space[edit]
Almost by definition, everything in user space does not belong in an encyclopedia. Calling a user space page uneneyclopedic is stating a tautology. The reason user space exists is to facilitate work on the project and to a lesser extent, build community. A criticism of "unencyclopedic" may be intended to refer to a violation of Wikipedia:User page, but such criticisms should refer to a specific guideline.
Article content[edit]
Regarding content disputes in articles, unencyclopedic generally means either excessive trivia, original research, unverifiable information, or off topic information. It may also refer to a lack of the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.
Not always a deletion criteria[edit]
A call for cleanup[edit]
Criticism of usefulness[edit]
â=Be prepared to explain= Unencyclopedic is not listed as a deletion criterion anywhere. If you wish to cite it as a reason for deletion, be prepared to explain exactly which policy or guideline you think applies, such as one in WP:CSD or WP:NOT. Better yet, just cite that criteria directly. While you may be correct, just saying "unencyclopedic" is about as helpful as "I don't like it".