Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 13

Political spouses (and relatives of Celebrities)
Two AFD discussions this presidential campaign year Articles for deletion/Candy Carson and, particularly, Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio a woman with absolutely zero personal accomplishment (no one found as much as a single reliable news account dating form her stint as a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins) except marriage to a man running for President, seem to indicate that spouses of candidates for the Presidency merit articles based on their status as potential First Ladies alone. In the course of these debates, I realized that this approach has been applied in practice to the spouses of quite a number of politicians once they achieve a sufficient prominence, not merely to Presidential spouses. Particularly spouses of governors. (see, for example Neva Egan, Nellie Connally, Mary Rockefeller, Carole Crist, none of these women has any more claim to notability independent of marriage than Jeanette Rubio or Todd Palin, yet we have such political spouse articles from all periods, possibly from every state. They are reliably sourced because spouses regularly get sufficient coverage to source articles, even when, as in these examples, it is based on no independent accomplishment.   I think we have to acknowledge in the guideline that 1.) spouses of major candidates in the Presidential primaries of major parties, and spouses of major party candidates for Vice President, can have articles based on that status. And that 2.) spouses of Governors, United States Senators and other leading political figures can have articles when there is sufficient reliably sourced coverage of their lives as political spouses (see: Michael Haley) even in cases where they have no claim to notability independent of coverage generated by the fact of marriage to a well-known politician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, "accomplishment" is irrelevant. What's relevant is coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG, and that often comes for prominent political spouses. I think NOTINHERITED gets misapplied here. It means, here on Wikipedia, simply arguing that a person has a connection to someone or something notable is not sufficient grounds to prove notability. But coverage in sources is, and they're under no such restrictions. For example, Jeanette Rubio is notable because she's been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, period. Those reliable sources may have only covered her because of her connection to someone more notable, but that's not really our business. GNG is GNG, regardless of how it was earned.
 * Now, not all political spouses are going to get this kind of coverage. This is not a blanket endorsement of such articles, but it is to say NOTINHERITED can be a red herring in these cases. Trying to judge if someone is "worthy" of coverage or trying to carve out exceptions to GNG like this sets us on a dangerous path, IMO. Neutrality means deferring to reliable sources to determine notability, whether we like the conclusions they reach or not. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . GNG trumps all, and NOTINHERITED should only apply when there is no significant coverage of the individual. Many famous people don't do anything at all except exist and gather news coverage. brings up an important point that it would be helpful to clarify the guidelines to reflect these issues and I like the way it's been tentatively worded. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The overriding guideline should be GNG. No political spouse should be deemed notable solely for being a political spouse. However, many political spouses do garner significant news coverage solely for the reason that they are married to a pol. I think that an added requirement, similar to that of corpdepth, is warranted. The coverage should not solely consist of local sources, national coverage should be the benchmark.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem is that WP:INHERIT states: "Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." (2nd to last paragraph,)  The exception to this is: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does, after 1932 at least.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should pare back that language. Notability is a noun, not a verb; there are plenty of things you can do to achieve Wikipedia notability, but you don't necessarily need to do anything. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was being too America-centric when I wrote the opening post here. We need wording that can be used in other countries, and also cover the the relationships of politicians with of Billy Carter, Francis A. Nixon, and Anne Pingeot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposing this addition to penultimate paragraph of INHERIT: ": Exceptions are made for individuals with relationships to holders of holders of  high office or candidates for high office when coverage sufficient to pass WP: GNG exists; this is true even in cases where the relative lacks adequate claim to notability apart from the relationship, and where the coverage is caused by that relationship.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New, improved proposal to replace entire 2nd to last paragraph of WP:INHERIT (because User:BDD is right.): Relatives and other individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people must meet WP:GNG standards before they can have an independent article. The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. However, individuals with relationships to highly important people  can have articles when coverage of them sufficient to pass WP:GNG exists, even in cases where published coverage of such an individual stems entirely from a personal relationship and the individual lacks an independent claim to notability.    Examples include individuals with relationships to holders of holders of high office and candidates for high office (such as spouses of major politicians).  It does not include newborn babies of celebrities even when such births receive a worldwide flurry of press coverage. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I like the addition in principle, but I don't know if it's really necessary to talk about officeholders at all. We can go with something more concise: "Individuals may still have coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG even if they are best known for their relationship to another notable person."
 * I'd rather not get into the issue of newborns here, which feels a bit CREEPy, perhaps in two ways. The child of a celebrity probably shouldn't have an article, but a royal baby, for example, probably should. Little Prince George is a good example of what I'm arguing here. He's quite literally done nothing any other two-year-old has done, but I don't think there's even a question that he's Wikipedia notable. This hasn't happened for quite a while, but it's very possible a baby born to a sitting US president would be in a similar situation. If we're going to offer guidance on these issues, I think NOTINHERITED is already pretty crowded. Famous babies? Notability (babies)? (Somewhat tongue in cheek.)
 * I kept that bit on the assumption that there must have been a problem with enthusiastic fans creating pages for the newborn babies of actresses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, for a non-US example, see Sarah Jane Brown, especially the absurd number of move requests there. These are definitely some questions that came up there. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is with articles like Sarah Jane Brown, but we have to address it in its most problematic form, i.e., Jeanette Rubio, or Michael Haley (South Carolina) - no argument for notability "even if they are best known for their relationship",  they are not merely "best known for" but "only notable for" coverage generated by relationship, this includes Nancy Hanks Lincoln or Martha Washington.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposing shorter version: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article.  Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they passWP:GNG.   Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. I can definitely get behind that, even if I think babies are better handled separately if at all (WP:BEANS as well as CREEP). --BDD (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your final wording of the proposal, too, . Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Too much content
You wouldn't think of an essay having too much content, but I remember the original article having only a handful of arguments that were generally and universally accepted to be not suitable in deletion discussions. This article has over 50 argument types. Are these all considered universally incorrect arguments which immediately should be discounted? Can any of them be consolidated together? It's a bit difficult to read this article in its current state.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating a redirect
Hi everyone,

I'm not familiar with redirects to Wikipedia guidelines: a little while ago another user added some (in my eyes at least) unnecessary external links, and in their edit summary they said "won't hurt"; I reverted their edit and wrote "WP:WONTHURT is not a reason to keep something". Is it okay, or even possible, to create a redirect, like WP:DOESNTHURT? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors names and dates?
The editors' names and dates who nominated these articles for deletion should be removed.2601:640:4080:5960:1CDC:B452:457C:94D0 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is the ultimatum fallacy?
I can't count the number of times I've seen an editor argue that they should get their way because if they don't, it proves Wikipedia is doomed and this is the last straw for them. "If this article is deleted I'm finished with Wikipedia", and so forth. Usually accompanied by some statistic on editor retention from the news. There's probably several variations of the passive-aggressive blackmail !vote. Sort of a Argumentum ad baculum if you are to believe that Wikipedia can't possibly go on without this one editor, or the threat that deleting this article and driving away this edtior will make Wikipedia look bad, or begging for mercy if it's a more matter of eliciting pity. Another relative is saying that if the article is kept (or deleted) it proves AfD is broken.

I was surprised to find it not listed here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and I agree it should be added. Maybe worked in with the "All or nothing" section, which uses similar logic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Shortcuts and hatnotes
The top and bottom of the page may help readers where else to click. However, what about the shortcuts? After WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON discussion, time may be now for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

School outcomes
I have added a brief section here based on the RFC. Anyone please feel free to edit. Pinging since he updated the SCHOOLOUTCOMES page itself and might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did some wordsmithing there. --M ASEM (t) 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Jbh  Talk  15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Just copyedited a bit more. Thanks for the wordsmithing Masem. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the wrong section; it's not meta-reasoning. It belongs under Arguments without arguments. It should go right next to Just pointing at a policy or guideline/WP:JUSTAPOLICY. In fact, it's just a special case of the general advice, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand." Do we really want to to add an entry for every possible application of WP:JUSTAPOLICY? Kind of redundant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Updating ATA to include school outcomes was specifically requested in the close to that was closed by a committee. I don't particularly care where on the page it goes, but to my reading it seems to fit best with all of the other meta-reasoning arguments rather than "arguments without arguments". TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Add a note for people in ITEXISTS?
Hey, I was just wondering - would it be possible to have something in the WP:ITEXISTS section that mentions people? The reason for this is that I will frequently mention this section when it comes to professions like so:


 * John Smith may be a writer, but it's generally assumed that a writer will put out content during the course of their career so being a writer does not give notability in and of itself. Sometimes their work can get the coverage necessary to pass NAUTHOR, but being (ie, existing as) a writer is not inherently notable.

It's pretty common that I or others will say something like this and even reference this section, however I just noticed that it doesn't mention people despite the section saying "it". I was just thinking that having a small mention of it applying to professions would help, but especially since we could then have a redirect "IEXIST". Mostly this is just because I don't want people to get upset and think that we're referring to them as an "it". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"I'm sure"
I think it might be worth mentioning that a statement like "I'm sure there are sources" isn't good enough, there has to be actual evidence of sources. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Likewise with "I know it's notable" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the first statement be covered by WP:MUSTBESOURCES and the second statement be covered by WP:ITSNOTABLE? -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 21:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

PRONLY
Moved this new section here for discussion:
 * PR sources only

Examples: Sometimes users claim that all of the available sources for a topic are derived from PR as an absolute, but provide no proof for such claims other than proof by assertion, hunches, personal opinion and unresearched speculation. In general, an indication of legitimate news coverage is an article published with a byline from a staff writer of a publication with editorial oversight. One means of determining whether or not a source is a press release is to perform a search in a search engine using the title of the article. Oftentimes, legitimate news articles published by reliable sources are hosted on the publisher's website and a limited number of affiliate websites, as well as some unauthorized "copycat" websites. Conversely, press releases may have the same article hosted on many various public relations websites such as PR Newswire, Marketwired, Business Wire and the like. See also: WP:CRUSADE.
 * Delete All of the sources are PR. – PRonly, 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the sources are promotional, because newspapers and magazines published the articles. – All-sources-are-the-same, 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The articles provide positive coverage about the company, so they all must be PR. – Positive=negative, 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The articles are published in reliable sources, but they are all PR-based because I say so. – Isayso, 00:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the key issue here is "but provide no proof for such claims...", but that's an issue with any argument. It is the case that, sometimes, most or all of the sources about a subject (a company's awards ceremony, a new internet company...) come from press releases or other PR work, and that is an important point to make. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the removal: this argument is rooted in the notability guideline. It is actually a very good argument for deletion discussions that is often used correctly currently. While I respect 's view that it contains guidance for finding PR sourcing, I don't think that's justification for having a policy-based argument in this essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I added a bit more content to WP:PRONLY to balance it out more and provide more perspective. North America1000 05:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The section as still written effectively asks for !voters to go through every possible source and explain why they are PR. If challenged, I think that should happen, but I don't think it is necessary in most AfDs to say more than I've reviewed the available sourcing on Google News and in the article. It all appears to come from one or two press releases, which does not meet our notability criteria., which is a brief analysis, but one that does show that the reader has read the sourcing (or at least claims to have, which we should AGF on). I typically do more than that in my !votes or nominations, but if a participant makes it clear they've read the sourcing and found it likely to be PR, that is a policy based argument. Having this in here discounts a policy-based argument while not reflecting what is actually the standard at AfD. I don't see a good reason to have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't get why would belong here. It's advice on how to decide if a source is self-published or independent. That belongs at Identifying reliable sources. If sources are all PR, then it's a good argument to delete. If they're not, then it isn't. The question is whether you identify the sources correctly, or fail to identify them. This type of argument doesn't need to be avoided, so long as you aren't making errors in the facts that underpin your argument. But any type of sound argument can be wrong if it's based on errors of fact.Advice on recognizing astroturf PR could be added to Identifying reliable sources, along with scraper sites that indiscriminately aggregate questionable content, or lazy, understaffed news blogs that take press releases and give them a light paraphrase. All RS stuff, not arguments to avoid. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion herein, I have removed the content from the page (diff). North America1000 07:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

All coverage equal addition
Bold additions to this arguments to avoid page are fine, but this is the second time recently we've had one that begs the question "What counts as a source?" If you have the correct answer to that question, then your argument based on it is valid. One should not avoid arguments in the form "sources a, b, and c demonstrate notability". That's about the best possible argument. The question is, is the premise of that argument valid? Meaning, are sources a, b, and c good enough, and are there enough of them? The policy Notability covers these questions, along with WP:RS. Here is not the place for yet another essay on what these policies mean.Also, this entry was 800+ words long, which is about five times as long as the other entries, on a page that already really long. If there is consensus to add this it would need to be much shorter. If there is that much to say about this a new essay page should be created for it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)