Wikipedia talk:Blow it up and start over

Interesting

Interesting article. Its purpose? Its notability? It seems (so far) to be opinion based upon observation... and not backed up by any sourcing., making it WP:OR. Will this change? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia space stuff wasn't constrained by WP:V. I haven't linked this anywhere, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I did not realize the difference between "wikipedia space" and "wikipedia". Since this is not an article then, I have no concerns. Is "wikipedia space" similar to user space? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Project namespace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool... and here I thought the only place for non-articles or articles under construction was user space. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My questions about this

I don't understand why you want to destroy everything, and start over from scratch. Just make a list of what content is worth keeping, discuss what should be done on the talk page, and work on it. List all relevant facts, and organize them in a proper manner, then write them out in a coherent manner. Can you provide a list to articles you believe should be Blown up and started over? Dream Focus 02:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Read more carefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If the subject is clearly a valid one, then you can find valid content. There would surely be something out there someone could find to write about it. As for your statement, "Sometimes, the damage is completely irreparable", I'm curious. Do you just not like how it is written, or do you mean it fails the current notability guidelines? Dream Focus 02:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What is "it" in this case? This isn't just about articles, and has little to do with notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you rewrote this page

Glad you rewrote this after I mentioned it elsewhere. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been hammering it around into a lot of different shapes, so don't go assuming causality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I did assume was that you would deny I had any part in mellowing it down. I think the nuclear bomb picture was a nice touch. Ikip (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a little too snarky. There are two kinds of different deletes: blowing things up and starting over, and nuking and paving. A simple G5 or copyvio deletion is the simplest form of the former, while salting a Really Bad Article Idea or listing a policy proposal on WP:Perennial proposals is the simplest form of the latter. You run into a lot of problems when a proposal or consensus to do one is mistaken for the other.

Describing either isn't more or less mellow, but being snarky invites people who think they're clever citing this to say "BLOW IT UP LOL" without, you know, reading this. WP:ATA is a useful object lesson in this regard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

you mean this shouldn't be mentioned in AfDs because of WP:ATA? well, good luck. houston out. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't want to see a repeat of WP:ATA's problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not just for articles

This concept can also occasionally apply to "defective" AFD discussions such as this one (new AFD) and this one. (new AFD) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

In my experience it is far more common to find {{afd}} contributors who argue for deletion of articles they consider hopelessly flawed, and incapable of improvement, where there is no sign that anyone made any effort to raise their concerns on the talk page, or anywhere else. In my experience the more controversial the topic the more likely it is that those favoring deletion will skip the step of explaining their concerns.

Last summer I encountered a clique of nationalists who were block-voting against articles related to a neighboring nation, populated by a rival ethnic group, who routinely jumped directly to nominating for deletion articles and other material they characterized as hopelessly biased without making any attempt to coherently voice their concerns, much less see if other people could address them. I tried to make the point that topics weren't, in and of themselves, biased. And I found I was interacting with a clique who seemed to honestly believe opinions that did not comply with their POV were "hopelessly biased".

I suggest following the advice in this essay is only appropriate when concerns have been thoroughly and coherently explained on the article's talk page, and, after a decent interval, it is clear good faith attempts to address the voiced concern have failed.

I suggest the essay should be amended to warn against trying to delete articles when no effort has been made to voice concerns, or no good faith attempts to fix voiced concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

We could use WP:KILLITWITHFIRE as a redirect. Perhaps?--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You can, but there is a limit of 5 items in the box at the top of the page. I "cheated" by using the hatnote at the top of the page. There are so many other possibilities as well, including WP:EXTERMINATE, WP:STERILIZE, and more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Some actual discussion of applicability of this in an AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-income places in the United States and search for my comment of 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC) and DGG's comment of 05:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

I point this out because, as this is an essay and not a guideline or policy, it's important for relatively new editors to see when established editors recommend starting over, especially when their criteria of when starting over don't completely overlap and how, at least for essays and to a lesser extent guidelines, this difference of opinion is usually okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also known as...

...dropping the bomb. 104.229.143.192 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Insightful

This can be useful for articles that are important, but are unfortunately far too biased, inaccurate or rely too heavily on one-sided propaganda to be improvable. We can start completely over with the articles, building *far* superior versions without all the bias and propaganda (and removing years of arguments and bullshit "consensus"). Zakawer (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What does TNT stand for?

Wikipedia: TNT redirects here. It would be helpful if this article explained what TNT stands for. Vorbee (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Blow it up - FlightTime (open channel) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Time to promote to supplement?

WP:TNT is a very useful explicatory guide to a specific situation at AFD. I has now been used for many years and no great issue has arisen - maybe we should promote it to a supplementary guideline? FOARP (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

TNT as reason for article deletion

Re: recent addition by @JBchrch: is contested.

WP:ATD policy states that:

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

This is saying stubbing a notable topic is supported in ATD (policy), so long as it "severely fails" V and NPOV .. this traditionally what TNT means. Deleting a topic entirely has no special policy outside of normal AfD procedures. Thus TNT applies to stubbing, not deleting ie. TNT does not state that notable topics should be deleted for any reason. If it did say anything like this, it would follow the ATD policy which states "only by consensus at AfD". Thus TNT is not a rationale at AfD except in circular logic eg. the article should be deleted because of TNT, and TNT allows for deletion because of AfD! -- GreenC 02:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: What do you think of adding "Although this is an essay, the practice of deleting severely deficient articles at WP:AfC is grounded in established policy"?

I have to say that I don't really follow your point about circular logic though: the policy makes it pretty clear (I think?) that severely failing V or NPOV is a valid argument at AfD. As I have said somewhere else, my view is that WP:TNT is a commentary/complement to this pre-existing policy. This is not a trivial point, since arguments that contradict policy may be WP:DISCARDed at closing and that a consensus that is limited to a single AfD discussion is subject to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. JBchrch talk 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

OK sorry starting over, my first comment is flawed based on a misreading. The policy says it might be deleted but not for the purpose of cleanup and recreation which is what TNT means. This question is part of the larger debate over cleanup described at WP:Deletion is not cleanup vs. WP:Using deletion as cleanup (opposing views) and WP:NOTCLEANUP, the later says:

The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. However, some articles do reach the so-called TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate.

Which supports what you are saying here. There might be room in TNT to say something about topic deletion for cleanup purposes, but also include mentions there are opposing views, because policy is not clear that AfD should be used as cleanup, such as described in TNT ("blow it up and start over"). -- GreenC 03:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes to the wording to see how it looks and clarify it is contested. -- GreenC 04:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thank you for the changes, they look fine to me. I agree with your comment regarding the fact that TNT is contentious and that a lot of editors support the notion that deletion is not cleanup. I hope that this new paragraph will be helpful to readers. JBchrch talk 13:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we need to complicate the essay with more words that spell out deletion policy. The bar is already set high when it comes to articles, and there are policies to reference. Also: the fact that one or two editors can alter the essay to suit their preferential language is reason enough to dismiss any essay referenced at Afd. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what The bar is already set high when it comes to articles, and there are policies to reference means. And yes, editors can make changes to project space articles? Even policies evolve constantly through bold changes and talk page consensus. I think the new paragraph, as amended, clarifies the relationship between the different texts and serves to document the current state of the consensus. JBchrch talk 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I first was against this idea, but then started reading the other essays and they already mention TNT in relation to article deletion, but only under extreme conditions and NOTCLEANUP says it is contentious . So it seemed to make sense to complete the circle and confirm what is being said elsewhere. To remove it here would then mean removing it elsewhere and that is a larger problem because I'm not sure there would be consensus. -- GreenC 15:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks: I should not respond when I am distracted by other article and other Afd issues. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition and it should be removed while it is discussed here. In 13 months this addition is a the most significant addition to the essay. I believe the paragraph directly contradicts the spirit of the essay. Additionally, the fact that any editor can make wholesale changes to the essay further diminishes its usefulness at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting WP:REWRITE

Apart from being offensive and contrary to policy, this page is quite illogical and self-contradictory. Consider the core concept for which the nutshell is currently "For pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch." This makes no sense because, if a rewrite is feasible then the page is therefore not beyond fixing. Any edit to create a fresh draft can be done as an edit from the latest version. And it's quite unlikely that none of the previous content would be retained as, at minimum, one would retain the article title and boilerplate.

So, as the page is nonsensical it needs a complete rewrite to present some hints and ideas about rewriting articles in place. This should have the shortcut WP:REWRITE but that is currently occupied by another silly essay about rewriting the rules of Wikipedia. We should rewrite that too and present the result under a title such as WP:Rewriting Wikipedia articles. Ok? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: May I ask if you have read the section above? We just had a discussion about the relationship of this essay with wiki policy. JBchrch talk 14:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:LLM

Just rejected a draft for being patent chatgpt generated text (failed gptzero.me). the text was non-concise and talked circles about a concept without giving any real information.

I feel we should edit this article to suggest that AI-generated texts that hallucinate facts should also be applicable to be TNT'ed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)