User:InvadingInvader/Crying "PROMO!"

Wikipedia, per our policy on What Wikipedia is not (WWIN), should not be used as a means to advertise you, your company, your friends, or your employer. We generally discourage article creation on connected topics to yourself, and our terms of use prohibit editing for payment without disclosure, though we want you to contribute to the best of your ability within policy and guidelines (that's why by default, Wikipedians are instructed to assume good faith). There may be some times, however, that the avoidance of Wikipedia being promotional and omission of material due to such avoidance may, even ironically, run contrary to the spirit and more importantly purpose of Wikipedia.

This essay describes cases where citing WP:PROMO (a section of WWIN) may be improperly cited, overly enforced to prevent the constructive collaboration of content. Cite this essay with caution, and assume good faith and attempt constructive discussion before resorting to this essay.

Invalid promotional removals

 * Simply mentioning something is promotional. This is true, but why do we include information in the first place? This would render Wikipedia as useless since almost nothing can be included. Mentioning that the earth is round and not flat would promote a company that makes globes. This isn't necessarily incorrect, but too extreme of an interpretation. Would
 * The source used promotes the usage of the source. So what? This really would only be an issue if you're using a primary source, which has its own list of policies and guidelines or is one of those sponsored articles published by reputable magazines (which usually disclaim whether something is sponsored).
 * It's PROMO, and nothing else. That's it? Close to, if not a textbook example of, ad nauseam and/or ipse dixit.

How to respond to "Crying PROMO"

 * Adjust the references. Sometimes the same information can be found in different sources; it's much more preferable to use the Associated Press or Reuters over the Daily Mail. There may be times where the tabloids are the best sources available, and in that case focus on the debate on whether it can be used.
 * Ask for more concrete proof.
 * Cite due weight. Especially in BLP cases, Many featured articles on living persons do feature interviews which (at least outside of politics, and sometimes even in politics) inherently are promotional. Most "reliable sources" are private companies doing the job that makes them money. If

How not to respond

 * Cite Ignore All Rules with the purpose of using such citation as a "get out of jail free card". You're responsible yourself for explaining how ignoring policies and guidelines, overturning and modifying them, or making an exception to them if you subscribe to the belief that exceptions should leave the rule intact, would benefit the article.
 * Being a jerk. Engaging in behaviors which would generally demean an editor, such as personal attacks, instantly turn a constructive debate into a mudsling.

If you feel as if another party in a dispute is resorting to such tactics, remind them and ask to strike before moving on. If the other party fails to completely understand your position, unless it's something as obvious as the sky being blue, you may need to elaborate. On Wikipedia, we should be aiming for perfection even if we may never attain it, something we can only do together.