Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 12

Recent change
I must protest at this recent change which is preposterous. It is fairly obvious that an editor who cites an essay in preference to a policy or guideline may be suggesting that the policy WP:IAR is applicable to that policy or guideline. This is just common sense. Certainly if I cite an essay that is what I am often suggesting. James500 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit, by the same editor, is ludicrous for similar reasons. James500 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * other people can judge who is the ludicrous one. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You might like to read WP:AVOIDYOU. We do not call other editors (as opposed to their edits) "ludicrous". James500 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree we only comment on content like that attempted essay on not bolding in AfDs was just plain ludicrous. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop violating the talk page guidelines by making off topic comments, and stop violating the policies WP:AVOIDYOU (which you have just violated again) and WP:HARASS while you are at it. The citation of essays (and the rest of ATA) has nothing to do with the bolding of !votes. Don't mention bolding !votes or the essay on bolding !votes on this talk page again. James500 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it quite so mockingly, but Libstar is making a legitimate point. You've written essays like "Don't bold your votes" and proposed guidelines like Notability (publishing) and Notability (history), all of which were overwhelmingly rejected. I think it's clear that your judgement regarding what proposals are "preposterous" and which are not, is not very sound. You also don't have the right to dictate to people what they can and cannot talk about. Reyk  YO!  15:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

James500 I can mention what I want. The don't bold essay is a classic example of ludicrous content that has no value in WP. You are not an admin so have no right to order around other editors. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I have to ask for an interaction ban against the pair of you? Is that the only way to stop the never ending off topic commentary? I'm not dictating anything. I'm merely pointing to what policies and guidelines actually say. And I have no intention of entering into an off topic discussion with either of you about essays and proposals that have nothing to do with this one, or the soundness of my judgement generally. James500 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're free to propose any ban you like, but I think all three of us know that it would be meritless and have no chance of success. And watch out for that boomerang. Reyk  YO!  16:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any such thing. James500 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think you have a legitimate reason to ban me from anything, you should take it to ANI and we'll see what happens. Otherwise I shall assume that you're only blustering- that you're just threatening to start proceedings against me to try to extract concessions, when in fact you have no intention of actually proposing a ban or any prospect of success if you did. Hollow threats do not impress me. Reyk  YO!  20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words into my mouth. I did not threaten to do anything. I asked a question. I think you have given me a very clear answer. You don't have a right to demand be taken to ANI just to force an issue, so please stop asking. At the moment I have no plans to do anything further, as the present policy and guideline infractions, in my provisional opinion, have not reached a level that is serious enough to cause me (the most patient and tolerant editor on the project) to go to extraordinary lengths to do something about them. James500 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, faced with the choice of "Shit or get off the pot", you have got off the pot. That's perfectly fine. Reyk  YO!  22:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In your terms, I was never on the pot in the first place. James500 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * James you are dictating, with words like stop and don't mention. If that isn't telling someone to do something then I don't know what is. I'm sure there'll be some long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. James500 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK since it was not a direction from you I can ignore your previous stop and don't mention comment. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be difficult to justify ignoring the policies and guidelines that I cited. But all of this is irrelevant. Do you have any substantive criticisms of the passages you removed from this essay? If you don't, they should be put back. James500 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't ignore them but simply telling people to stop or don't mention then denying this is a dictation is rather contradictory. LibStar (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You did ignore them. Next you will be telling me that editors are not allowed to place the level 4 and single level standard warning templates. James500 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * so were you instructing me to do something? "Stop " sounds like a direction to me. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It means "please stop". James500 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC) The policies and guidelines that I mentioned do "dictate" what we can and can't talk about, if you want to use that language. James500 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's try to return this conversation to a discussion of the content of WP:ATA. Does anyone have any substantive criticisms of the passages that were removed from this essay? If no one does, they should be put back. James500 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it makes no sense to have the language that was removed, or more specifically, if one is going to claim that IAR should apply to their !vote, they should be fully explicit about why IAR should apply. Instead, if they just !vote "Delete, fails GNG", there is no reason to assume IAR applies to their argument. IAR's purpose is to allow editors to make argument points that are fully contrary to policy and guideline when this is a need to step outside those bounds, and for that purpose all IAR-type claims should be substantiated by discussion of why the IAR claim applies, and cannot be presumed ---M ASEM (t) 22:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem. There's no reason to assume anyone's invoking IAR if they haven't said so. Reyk  YO!  22:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What if they cited a user space or WikiProject essay that plainly and obviously deliberately contradicted a policy or guideline, perhaps explicitly suggesting that a particular exception should be made to some policy? (Even many project space essays do seem to contradict policies and guidelines). James500 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem and Reyk. The text should not be reinserted.  If someone wants to use WP:IAR.  they need to say so explicitly. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the approach the three of you advocate would allow behaviour that amounts to pretending to be deaf, so I don't agree with it. James500 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You do know that Wikipedia works on consensus. It seems when it goes against you, you complain and say it's not fair. From this discussion there is no consensus for reintroduction of the removed text. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words into my mouth. I have not said any such thing is unfair. I fully accept that because Masem opposes the removed text I cannot possibly reinsert it on my own motion. But the four of us are not the only editors on the project, and this discussion has barely started, and has, at present, a very small number of participants. It is reasonable to think that other editors might in the fullness of time weigh in on my side, and it is therefore reasonable for me to try to persuade your audience that you are wrong. James500 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. And, as consensus goes, I try not to add to talk pages if I feel that my points have already been sufficiently made. czar  17:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is now clear consensus for removal of the comment. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. There has been very little actual discussion and the number of participants is still small. That is unsurprising because this talk page is a backwater and this thread was only started recently. On a page like this, it can take months or years to get a decent number of participants without an RfC, never mind in a brief discussion in the week leading up to Christmas, when many editors are not editing. It is a bit premature to declare victory. There is, however, probably no consensus to restore the removed text, so it will stay out for the time being, and unless and until such consensus develops. James500 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No consensus to restore text sounds like a defeat to you. But you're right you're never wrong LibStar (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I will be holding my breath till the first day of February at the earliest, and probably for several months thereafter, in view of the level of traffic on this page. James500 (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You are just waiting for every opportunity to see if reinstatement justified... which at this stage it is not. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. If it were 4-1 the other way he'd have proclaimed victory a week ago. Reyk  YO!  07:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * yes too true. Even when consensus has gone against him in AfDs and MfDs he refuses to accept it. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, both of you, stop violating WP:AVOIDYOU. James500 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that another opinion is needed, but I agree with the removal as well. This thread looks to be pretty toxic. Perhaps best to just move on. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * despite my removal of text being labelled "preposterous" and "ludicrous ", there is now overwhelmingly consensus in support of the removal. I consider the discussion closed and we can all move on now. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to intimidate people who disagree with you into not contributing to this thread. James500 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment above is redundant. Your claim that my removal was preposterous and ludicrous has gained zero support. Please stop trying to believe that miraculously consensus will swing in your behaviour. LibStar (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't need it
A deletion argument I see from time to time goes along the lines of "do we really need an article on x?" or "we don't need an article on x" etc. The problem with this argument, in my opinion, is that it makes "need" the key issue and it tempts a response along the lines "x is incredibly useful". You could argue that we don't even need a Wikipedia (and in fact the world went on without WP for quite a while). What do others think? Greenshed (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience, when someone says something like this it's usually in the context of an argument like "We don't need an article on Vegan Lasagne in Nepal because the topic already covered in sufficient detail at Nepalese Cuisine". Reyk  YO!  09:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that without further qualification "we don't need it" is a meaningless argument. It certainly isn't entirely co-extensive with "it is completely redundant to an existing article and, due to lack of coverage, has no prospect of being expanded so that it is not redundant, there is nothing to merge, and the title is not a plausible redirect". "Already covered in sufficient detail" is not a particularly clear argument, because it does not specify whether further detail is impossible due to lack of coverage or whether the editor simply does not want further detail for some other reason, which might be a very bad one. I therefore agree that "we don't need it" should be included in this essay along with "already covered in sufficient detail". James500 (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree it's common enough we should add it as an example. It's more common in other XfDs than in AfD, because WP:N usually forestalls this argument being made in AfD itself. It's a very common IDONTLIKEIT flavor at CfD, TfD, and elsewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:FALLACY clarity
I'm not seeing what you're seeing here. If it's verifiable, it's not original research. (Theoretically, I suppose one could do some OR, and cite some sources for parts of it, and they could entirely accidentally just happen to also support the OR without the OR-engager realizing it; but no one else would realize it either, because they'd see the claim, check the sources, and find it in the sources.) Surely there some other way to clarify that section (better than my long-winded attempt at it; I needed more coffee). Let's replace the confusing/confused example with something else entirely. There are three WP:CCPOLs, so any of the following combinations will work as illustrations of the denying the antecedent principle: I think the last three are the most fruitful, because they address the habit of people to think "It's so close to good because if passes multiple tests, maybe the other isn't important or won't be noticed." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * V but fails NOR
 * V but fails NPOV
 * NOR but fails V
 * NOR but fails NPOV
 * NPOV but fails V
 * NPOV but fails NOR
 * V but fails NOR and NPOV
 * NOR but fails V and NPOV
 * NPOV but fails V and NOR
 * V and NOR but fails NPOV
 * V and NPOV but fails NOR
 * NOR and NPOV but fails V
 * Thinking again about the edit I made, I'm not really happy with it. I think I sort of felt that I didn't agree with your edit, and reverted it without really analysing why I didn't agree with it. It is interesting to see your list of possible combinations, and I largely agree with what you say, but it seems a little odd that you describe "V and NPOV but fails NOR" as one of "the most fruitful", because it seems to me that the essence of your edit which I disputed was that nothing can fail NOR and pass V: at least that's how I read your edit summary, which said, among other things, "original research could be verifiable" didn't make sense. (Or have I misunderstood?)


 * The sentence in question currently has three examples to illustrate the point "If the article meets one condition, it does not mean that it does not violate other policies", namely (1) "original research may be verifiable", (2) "articles which seem to be notable may be original research" and (3) "notable biographies may be a violation of WP:BLP". It seems to me that removing the first one and just leaving the other two would be perfectly acceptable: they are only illustrations, and a couple of illustrations are enough. However, if we are to have three illustrations, how about incorporating the last one from your list, and saying something like "If the article meets one or more conditions, it does not necessarily mean that it does not violate other policies: articles on notable subjects may be original research; notable biographies may violate the policy on biographies of living persons; an article may be written from a neutral point of view and contain no original research, but its content may not be verifiable." (I have also made a few other improvements (in my opinion) to the wording.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The new example works for me, though I'm not sure we need to mention notability twice (or at all), since it's not a WP:CCPOL matter. We get to V/NOR/NPOV analysis after the N analysis (which is "is this even worth writing about here?") On the OR and V point in the original wording, I was objecting to the phrasing: if something verifiable, it's not original research (see dicta below).  I think what the passage was trying to say was "original research could later incidentally turn out to be verifiable by blind luck, but should not have been inserted", or something like that.  But the construction of the clause didn't suit our example needs, anyway. We were looking for something like "passes this CCPOL, but fails that one", while the "original research could be verifiable" example is of the form "already fails this CCPOL, but might somehow pass another one". If we already know it's OR, there is no reason to ever do any V or NPOV analysis. This relates to the notability matter above: If we already know it fails N, there's no need to do any further policy examination. The antecedent denial problem arises when people see that material passes one or two policies they care about, and then stop checking for other failures. Whether "nothing can fail NOR and pass V" is a matter of interpretation. Depending on how you approach that question, it is either always true by definition, or a false statement on a technicality. In interpretation one, the synthetic result arrived at must (per NOR) itself be reliably sourced (per V); the existence of sources that satisfy V for the isolated facts that someone synthesized in our article does not satisfy V (or NOR) for that editor-synthesized result, so it is not possible for the OR to pass V (except by the random accident I already outlined).   In the other interpretation, V is applied severably to the isolated claims, and all the material is deemed verifiable "in a vacuum", but V is not applied to the synthetic result (which may be subtle, even just ordering each of the sourced claims in such as a way as to inexorably lead the reader to an interpretation not supported in those sources), resulting in a case in which, in a nit-picky sense, V is thought to be satisfied, but NOR has been transgressed.  I don't think the latter interpretation is actually consonant with the intent of the policies, because the sourcing requirements for analytic/evaluative/interpretative/synthetic material are actually higher than those for bare facts, unless a fact is potentially controversial, in which case the standards are the same (reliable, independent, secondary sources). Many uncontroversial facts (Rihanna's favorite color) can be cited to primary sources (Rihanna's official website), but this is not true of potentially controversial facts (Rihanna was assaulted by Brown), nor for WP:AEIS material (Rihanna's Rated R has a dark tone as a result of assaults on her by her then-lover).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Much of what you say is interesting, but you go into it in more depth than I am willing to: it's only a section of the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" on Wikipedia, not something important enough to be worth spending a lot of thought on. I see where you are coming from about original research not being verifiable, but I don't agree. I could make up some idea and post it to my personal web space. Then I could post into a Wikipedia article something like "James B Watson has stated that XYZ. . It would be perfecftly verifiable, but still original research. (And don't make the mistake of saying that that doesn't count as verifiable because it isn't a reliable source: it is perfectly reliable for the fact that I said it.)


 * Having said that, I am actually very unkeen on the whole "denying the antecedent" section, for several reasons, not least the title: how many people have the slightest idea what "denying the antecedent" means? The purpose of sections of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions should be to give quick links to readily accessible explanations why certain common types of arguments are not valid, and that is not achieved by giving a technical logical term which most people are not going to understand, especially most of those people whose grasp of logic is so poor that they are likely to make this kind of illogical argument in the first place. Then there is the fact that none of the examples given are very good, and some of them are really bad: for example, "The nominator's argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT" seems to me to be a perfectly good response to certain kinds of unsuitable deletion nominations that I have seen many times, and I don't see it either as "denying the antecedent" or as in any other way unacceptable. I did think of rewriting the section entirely, but it is very rarely cited in deletion discussions, so it probably doesn't matter much, and there are other, far more useful, ways I can spend my time on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing guideline on "Did not win"
I propose we use an essay to cover the "Did not win" section as the examples alone only cover what not to do. It's usually important, although not required, to cover anything wiki-related in an essay to help the reader understand the content of the policy/guideline.

A link to the proposed essay can be found here.

P.S.: If you support the measure but think the proposed essay needs to changed,  do not  vote "Oppose"; vote "Fix" instead.

HeatIsCool (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)