Wikipedia talk:Pages with neutrality problems

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

One editor's opinions[edit]

This essay represents the views of one editor so far. It is very presumptuous to start citing it in AFDs as if it were accepted by the editing community. Edison (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll have to change that. I have an idea how, especially if I look how that deletion discussion goes on...--Burning Pillar (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

In situations where I've seen this essay referenced, it seemed to be for cases for promotional content. I wonder if this also covers more situations. If so, an example would be good to have, if not, maybe it should be more explicit that this is mostly about promotional content. I understand the part about that articles surviving deletion often do not immediately undergo necessary modifications. Thank you, — Paleo Neonate — 05:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that promotional articles are the main problem in Wikipedia in regards to articles that are being created far from neutrality, and that this was written with them in mind. However, it can also apply to the reverse, of course- an article written with the intent to make the subject look bad. This is also not solely designed to be a deletion advice, but also an advice how to repair those problems correctly.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 20:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After having reread the essay and copy-edited it a little, my impression is that the goals are noble, although it may be difficult to apply in practice at current time. Since it is not an official deletion policy, I don't think that it could be used as deletion argument at an AfD. However, I see it as a good start to urge about the importance of really applying necessary changes when an unbalanced article is kept by consensus with the hope that they will be improved.
The parts suggesting deletion may perhaps be more applicable if they suggested a move to draft space (it seems to at some point). But the neonate part of me still applies in these areas, these are only my impressions and suggestions.
If this becomes a valued essay over time for the urging aspect alone, a possible shortcut suggestion may perhaps be something like URGATTN/URGENTATTENTION, along that line, clearly differentiated from existing policy shortcuts and related to the fact that this discusses persistent/long-term issues and the urgent attention that articles passing CSD/AfD for notability may require... — Paleo Neonate — 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest (related) may be: WP:Article Rescue Squadron — Paleo Neonate — 03:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]