Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 11

Add something about talent?
One arguement I'm starting to see often in AfDs about creative professionals (singers, actors, artists, etc.) is that they're talented, and therefore they should be considered notable. This is, of course, stupid because talent has nothing to do with notability (there are plently of talented people who are completely unheard of and vice versa) and talent, in and of itself, is subjective anyway. Could someone add something about that to this page?--72.28.136.205 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Applicability to other types of discussions
I'd like to resurrect this thread. Many of the points made in this essay are equally applicable in discussions involving things other than deletions, especially those in the "Arguments without arguments" and "Personal point of view" sections. And in fact, these points are often (rightfully) pointed in non-deletion discussions. Unfortunately it's too easy for other editors to dismiss these points simply by saying they only apply to deletion discussions. I propose these points be forked into a new, broader article called WP:Arguments to avoid or WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions or somesuch. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'denying the antecedent' section makes the whole essay unenforceable
The 'denying the antecedent' section basically says that you cannot dismiss arguments that are arguments to avoid. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Essays are not supposed to be "enforceable". The purpose of the essay is to list weak arguments (especially when presented without background to support them), not just necessarily invalid arguments. And the point of the section is that weak arguments (especially cherry-picked to be so) on one side of a deletion debate do not imply that the other side is right. Keφr 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While I wouldn't go that far, I agree that section is pretty weird and unclear, especially compared to the relative lucidity of the rest of the sections. It isn't even really about denying the antecedent in the debate-club sense, as most of the examples are more about how votes shouldn't be based solely as a reaction to the nom or other votes (such as "the voter above me said something dumb so I believe the article should be kept/deleted"). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Violations" - a word to avoid?
Can we remove all variants of "violate" from this essay? I think "violation" itself is a word to avoid in the vast majority of policy, guideline, essay, edit summaries, and discussions for several reasons. My suggestion? Saying "Against (policy/guideline/discussion)" is better, since it infers an action against consensus. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No way. Are you joking?  In English, "violate" is a common way to describe things not in accordance to rules, legal or otherwise: parking violation, traffic violation, rules violation in sports, etiquette violation, dress code violation, protocol violation, access violation in computers, etc etc etc etc.  Speaking frankly, I'd say anyone who regards a common word as "rhetorical dynamite" is probably too sensitive to edit constructively in our collaborative environment.  You're also overstretching IAR: While our rules can be bent when there is reason to believe one's actions are within consensus, Wikipedia DOES have rules and it's very much possible to violate them--accounts are blocked, banned, and otherwise sanctioned for rules violations all the time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you want to call everything a violation, so it's a common word to you. You're welcome to revise the WP:Five pillars, then, both to remove the thing about civility, and the thing about (quote) "no firm rules". No problem, go ahead. Just FYI I was talking about replacing "violate" where appropriate, in the community consensus policies and guidelines. It's not about political correctness, it's about the word just being wrong to use in the context of consensus in the majority of cases. I really don't care if you think putting a fork on the wrong side of the plate is a violation of etiquette, you're wrong. The majority of the time, so-called "violations" at Wikipedia amount to no more than a misplaced fork, whether deliberate or accidental. It's not a violation, because no violence or damage occurred: it's trivially fixed with an edit, in most cases. Overuse devalues the word. Some things are violations, but most things just aren't. Contrary to anyone being "oversensitive", calling everything a "violation" is very big-brotherish and nanny-statish, when you thoughtfully consider it. --Lexein (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, WP:Wikipedia is not therapy is an entirely inappropriate surprise link for an administrator to sling at a long term editor in good standing, with no blocks, DR losses, or behavioral warnings (though I have been accused of attacking when I've been attacked). --Lexein (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Hi. Wikipedia is a place in which millions of people come in contact each day. We see that some of them literally violate every single law, rule, stricture, code of conduct, statute or guideline in existence. Sad, but happens. Use of force is sometimes necessary, even if it is preventative, not punitive. I such environment, "avoid using 'violate'" is the first rule that is ignored. Also, WP:IAR says "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" one may ignore it. The trouble is: I never find such rules. Rules are good. Don't violate them; the result is not improvements. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, some people. Not all; that's one of my points. And ok, use of force is sometimes necessary. Not always; that's my other point. About WP:Editor retention: it seems to me that, when a simple decrease in the advocacy of a pillar-deprecated notion might help slow loss of editors, might contribute to an increase in enjoyment of editing, and might improve the tone of the project, it's strange to see experienced editors pass up the opportunity. --Lexein (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I grant you that sometimes. But if "avoid using 'violate'" become a rule, that "sometimes" becomes a "never". As for editor retention, it means letting them say "violate" and not minding them. I am generally not a proponent of prescriptive language, which involves jumping on everyone and correcting them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking for is reduction, not elimination of "violate" and derivatives. I never meant elimination of "violate", as you may have seen in User:Lexein/Don't say "violate". It's like WP:DONTBITE - maybe it should just be part of that. Anyways, how about "Reduce use of "violate"" or "Use "violate" appropriately" or "Use "violate" sparingly"? Those titles didn't occur to me before. It's all about civility and hewing to the pillars, in my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I love what you are asking. Except I think your method of achieving it would yield the opposite. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIAL - where should it redirect to?
Currently WP:TRIVIAL redirects to Manual of Style/Trivia sections. But this very page claims at the top that ''"WP:Trivial" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Trivia.'' Also in this article it states that WP:TRIVIAL is a shortcut to the section I don't like it. So where should WP:TRIVIAL really redirect to? starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Actually, a lot of the examples given as "I don't like it" seem like valid reasons for deleting something (trivia, "cruft," superfluous, etc.)--Atlantictire (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't see a "superfluous" there but "trivia" and "cruft" are both contentious labels used to offend. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One person's trivia is another person's significant data. Plus, there's no real measure that makes something "trivia" or "cruft" in absolutes--determination is merely a matter of personal preference.  Hence:  "I don't like it" is the best classification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguments like "trivia", "cruft" etc at least indicate actual real arguments such as WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the like. That means they don't belong with non-arguments like "It's against my religion". I agree they should be removed. Reyk  YO!  22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why the author has thought they must be avoided: This essay has another section called Just pointing at a policy or guideline in which it condemns using WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the like without an explanation as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, it should be covered there. It is misleading to conflate completely vacuous IDONTLIKEITS like "it's embarrassing" and "it offends my religion" with policy based arguments whose only fault is being too terse. Reyk  YO!  02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is covered there; even there is a link. Only you seem to have missed it. (If you want an accurate address, look for "This is the converse to" with your browser's Find command and read the whole paragraph.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. The article intro also covers the topic; and to avoid some people missing it, there is a link to intro in that section too. How can you miss all this? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the arrogance and condescension. I agree that we should probably remove or rewrite those paragraphs as well. If I say something should be deleted because it is cruft, I usually mean that it is poorly sourced, overly detailed original research. It is not acceptable for anyone to claim that view is somehow equal in weight to someone saying "It's against my religion" or "It's annoying". Because if someone says "It's cruft" and is asked to clarify, they can always point to guidelines and policies that back that view up. That's why "It's cruft" belongs in the WP:JUSTAPOLICY section, if anywhere. But no amount of elaboration will make "It's against my religion" and "It's boring" a valid argument, so things like that belong in IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. They are two very different classes of arguments and do not belong together. Reyk  YO!  04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! I has been a while since someone called me arrogant and condescending! I must say I am thrilled. However, apart from the fact that my comments were made with good intent and lightheartedness, you must put yourself at the other end of the pipe: While you think it is correct to says "It's cruft. ~ ", closing admins think "Whoa! Chill dude!" and ignores the comment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree words like trivia and cruft are not bad words to be used in deletion discussions, but if they are used as tersely as the examples given without explaining why they may be trivia or cruft, that's as good as saying IDONTLIKEIT. I do believe removal is warranted, but we should make sure we caught commenters from just saying these terms without justification. --M ASEM  (t) 22:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

They Like It (Hey Mikey!)
I reverted this edit, an attempt at creating an IDON'TLIKEIT-esque section about when an outside group endorses or reprints an article. I reverted on the grounds that it would appear to already be covered by other criteria, and isn't a frequent enough argument in AFD to warrant specific commentary. I'm open to alternate opinions if anyone has any though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Before adding it, I read the article to see if it was already covered. I didn't find it, so please indicate which section covers it in your opinion. However, it could be included as a section within THEYDONTLIKEIT with some change to the introduction, since the principle is similar.  As to it occurring in practice, it is not as common as most of the things here but it does happen. I've seen it a few times. There was a recent case in which the fact that a right-wing wiki had based their article on ours was presented as a reason for deletion.  (I voted for deletion in that case for more valid reasons, not that it matters.) Zerotalk 11:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the LIKEIT/DON'TLIKEIT group is intended to cover the whole spectrum of votes based on personal POV rather than policy or article merit. I don't think it's necessary to try to cover the many possibilities WHY someone might hold those POVs, such as reference by a group one doesn't like or any of countless potential others.  This list isn't meant to be completely exhaustive, just to cover some of the more common ones that come up often. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it like this unless someone else chimes in. Zerotalk 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Another argument to add?
I'd like to propose a section that deals with rarity or pioneering claims or at least try to see if we can add this into one of the pre-existing sections. I've noticed that on more than a few occasions we'll have AfDs where someone states that someone is the first to do something or that the topic is the first of its kind, or one of a very few examples of its type. I've written up a small example below:


 * Keep. It's extremely hard to find someone who does something like this.
 * Keep. There are few books that deal with radioactive zebras on Mars and John Smith is the first author to deal with this topic. He's like a unicorn in a field of horses.
 * Keep. As far as I know, Smith is the first author that ever wrote about zebras in space period. So what if he doesn't have coverage? He has 2,000 Twitter followers and 200 reviews on Goodreads, so he's definitely well-known. He obviously passes notability criteria because he's a pioneer in his field and he has a cult following.
 * Delete. This is the only book about radioactive zebras? It's the only of its type because nobody cares about it.
 * Delete. I was the first child born in my family with red hair. Do I have notability for that?

Being the first example of something or one of the few examples of its type can occasionally help garner coverage in reliable sources, but being rare does not always guarantee notability and being the first to do something does automatically mean that the page should be kept on that basis alone. We would still require coverage in reliable sources to show that the subject passes notability guidelines. On the other hand, being the first or few of its type does not automatically mean that coverage does not exist to show that the accomplishment is automatically non-notable.

It could probably fall under the section for subjective importance at WP:LOCALFAME, but it also sort of falls under WP:ITEXISTS. I sort of want it on its own because a lot of people tend to argue this from the angle that the article subject is a pioneer and therefore a groundbreaking example of its type. It could fit under SI, but that section is big as it is and tends to fall under "I know about it, I don't know about it" and rarity/pioneer doesn't always fit under the idea of known or unknown. It would probably help to have a section that dealt with the specific idea of being a pioneer of something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tokyogirl79. Why, these arguments are all valid. One of them even cites a policy. And besides, they are not one of a kind. For no, opposing.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll change it to be a bit more clear, as I was referring to people who make unverifiable claims and say that someone is well known because they have 8,000 Twitter followers, all the while not producing any actual coverage in reliable sources. What I'm trying to show is that we've had people that have claimed to be the first at something, whether it's a book, movie, or whatever, and say that just being the first science-fiction book to write about infectious retrograde amnesia makes the book series automatically notable. I've had AfDs where people have made unverifiable claims about being the first film completely made by minors, as well as AfDs that said that there are few businesses that sell a specific items or meet a specific demand, so they are notable because they are one of five people who do that thing. What I'm trying to do is show that being new or simply saying that something is the first to do something doesn't automatically mean that it's notable. It may sound impressive in theory, but ultimately it's no different than if I were to say that I was the first person to play the banjo with my feet or that because my band is the first death metal polka band, that I'm a notable pioneer because of that. My point is that at some level someone will always say that they're the first to do something or that they've taken something that was already well established and put a new spin on it, thus making them a pioneer in any given subject matter. Being first doesn't always mean notable, after all. I'll try to find more AfDs where people claimed stuff like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an AfD where someone tried to claim that a guy was a pioneer in his field but there was a lack of sources to back this up. Here's another one that says that someone is one of the first to do something. Here are more AfDs: Articles for deletion/Enectali Figueroa, Articles for deletion/Karsten Obarski (this one argues that the author of the software warrants a separate article because the software was the first of its type, despite him not receiving any true coverage), Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart, Articles for deletion/I, fanblades, Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Maradonia and the Seven Bridges. Basically my point in bringing these up is that it's a pretty common occurrence to where someone will deliberately twist guidelines around to say that because they say that someone is the first to do something, that the subject will automatically be notable with or without coverage of it. At the end of the day being the first to do something doesn't mean that doing it is automatically notable.  That's basically the long and short of it. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want something to point to at NOT that would say that just claiming to be the first (whether it is true or not) does not automatically mean notable when nobody believes that being the first or few to do that particular thing is worth covering. Nowadays everyone seems to be claiming that they're the first to do something in a large field, essentially saying that because they made a minor change to something, that they're automatically notable because of that. Sometimes changes can be big and gain the coverage. For example, putting vampires in modern day settings and creating urban fantasy is a small change that makes a big difference. But saying that they're the first person to write a vampire novel where the main character is a vampire lawyer doesn't automatically mean that the book or author is notable. We get this a lot with books and movies (hence the examples) but we also get it a lot with extremely fringe medicines and sciences where not even the more mainstream fringe sites covers them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see where it would be confusing for some newbies, though, as they'd say "but didn't this other thing say that this does count?". It's just that we get so many people that think that all you have to do to assert notability is to say that you're the first to do something or you're pioneering a field. When you ask for sources, they only give you primary sources, blog/SP sources, or a single source that just reprints the person's claims without doing any research into it. I'd like to have it clarified that just claiming to be first at something doesn't mean squat without coverage in RS and that saying "first/pioneer/rare" doesn't always mean that (if it's true) that it's necessarily an accomplishment that would automatically give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This essay miscited?
People have been using shortcuts, like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, to illustrate their points in non-deletion discussions. Perhaps we should create a section on advising readers to be careful of citing shortcuts and this essay in the future. --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise users have been misusing WP:POINT. Which just means "never play devil's advocate when making edits". — Keφr 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Or was that deliberate irony? In that case, congratulations, I have been trolled. Though that might be a slight violation of WP:POINT.

Spacing and trimming example usernames
I love how the usernames in the examples are witty and fitting with the theme. Some of them, however, are approaching full sentences and include spaces. This leads to confusion when reading the examples, even more so for the editors most likely reading this page who are not as familiar with deletion discussion. Names such as "I just cannot accept it" and "Who has the secret?" read more like continuations of the !vote rather than signatures -- even while I knew that each example was signed I still sometimes got myself confused. I think an easy solution would be to reduce the spacing in these examples, moving ones like "I just cannot accept it" to something like "NotAccepting" and the like, but was wondering if anyone else had other suggestions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

 * User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Royalty
Membership of a royal house was added in September 2011 as being inherently notable. This was later expanded to say that fifth cousins of Queen Victoria are inherently notable. I think this is highly dubious. I see no reason why fifth cousins of Victoria should be notable and fifth cousins of President Roosevelt not. There should be some other reason for notability, such as involvement in a particular event or achievement in a field of endeavor. DrKiernan (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, even the examples linked Royal_descendants_of_Queen_Victoria_and_King_Christian_IX, Walton family and Rothschilds and the existence of such pages seem to reinforce that being related to a British monarch doesn't confer notability. That is, a page for the family or 'line' will list individuals - some with their own notability, and hence with their own articles - and others that are merely listed as part of the family but not notable outside of this connection.Cander0000 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There must be sources
Would it be worth merging But there must be sources! here? Speculation that articles should/might exist is not the same as citing or linking them for verifiability. And I see this argument more than I'd like. Anyway, the essay already exists and has a similar scope, so I though it would be worth raising. – czar   19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This essay actually started out as a section of WP:ATA but there was a lot of (IMO unreasonable) resistance to it, so we decided to spin it out into a new essay. I think it should probably stay that way, because it has been expanded and improved to be more than just another WP:ATA section. Reyk  YO!  19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That essay is total nonsense from start to finish. It violates NRVE and misrepresents BURDEN which is about content, not article topics. That trash wants ripping to pieces, not merging. James500 (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the essay is not nonsense. But if you really think it's trash time to put your money where your mouth is and submit it for MfD. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)