Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 14

Request for Comment on inclusion of section on COI & paid editing
Should this page include a section on conflict-of-interest/ paid editing? If so, how might it look? KDS4444 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-————————————————————————————————- Someone got paid/ COI edit
 * Nominator comment--I'd like to see a section that went something like this, under a section:--

Examples:

Wikipedia has very strict guidelines with regard to paid editing, and paid editors are expected to follow those guidelines to the letter, including making full disclosure of their roles as paid editors. This allows other editors to track such contributions carefully and to remove/ delete them if they are fundamentally promotional or if it is discovered that adequate disclosure was not made. Sometimes paid editors may attempt to hide their identities by editing from throwaway accounts, which is a violation of Wikipedia's rules with regard to sockpuppetry, and if this is discovered it can result in an indefinite block being placed on the puppet master and all sockpuppet accounts. Any paid edit is likely not a neutral edit.
 * Delete This article was written by someone who was paid to create it: Wikipedia article space is not for sale. - AlwayzFree 08:22, 4, February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously a promotional piece, creator has even admitted having a WP:COI on the talk page! - ISpyCatch22 09:25, 4, February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice Wikipedia is not here to make your or your client rich. Get a real job and stop editing Wikipedia for pay. - Jabjab Binks 10:45, 5, February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and block This article is a perfect example of why paid editing is prohibited on Wikipedia. The client should get his money back after we finish deleting this. - Refund or Die 12:35, 5, February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like the subject's husband wrote this article, and since he definitely has a conflict of interest, I see no reason for us to retain this. Even if he declared his COI on his user page. - Hang'em 'til He Chokes 14:13, 6, February 2016 (UTC)

However, the reason Wikipedia has these policies with regard to paid editing is because paid editing does happen and will happen, and the project is better off knowing by whom and where paid editing is taking place rather than attempting to ban it entirely. A paid editor is presumably as capable of writing an article on a notable subject as any other, and by declaring his/ her role has adhered to the disclosure requirements. Paid editors should not be punished for being honest— if that were to happen, then paid editing would sink underground and become untraceable. But it would still take place.

We may not like it, but edits made by a paid editor who has properly declared his or her role should only be evaluated in terms of their neutrality and suitability for inclusion, not on the paid nature of the edit. There are no policies which forbid paid editing per se, only policies which forbid concealing it. Also, keep in mind that many paid editors are also prolific contributors to Wikipedia in their roles as unpaid volunteers. We don't want to drive away individuals whose writing is talented enough to have attracted offers of payment, we want to encourage— even demand— the disclosure of their paid edits and then treat them just like anyone else.

This goes for edits for which no one has been paid but which still represent a conflict of interest. So long as the party with the conflict fully discloses this fact and only submits edits through the edit request template on the article talk page, that person's honesty warrants heightened scrutiny, not shame, and is not a basis for !voting to delete an article.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-————————————————————————————————- I've seen editors make such arguments, and I don't think they are legitimate ones to be brought up in a deletion discussion. Am open to suggestions for changes to the text, obviously, as well as the examples, but my bottom line is that it seems we should have a section that specifically mentions the fact that a COI or "someone got paid" argument is not, by itself, a valid one for deleting an article. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an essay, expressing several opinions about the COI guidelines and the paid editing policies, and the fact that the essay is so much longer than the rest of the entries on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions reveals how far this is from having wide consensus. This is more a rephrasing and rewriting of the COI rules to suit one editor's opinions of them. Instead of using 'arguments to avoid' to publish a modified version of these rules, go to Conflict of interest and propose changes. It could probably stand to be better written.As far as the basic idea that you can't argue for deletion of an article because it was written by a paid editor, it's not that simple. The first two paragraphs above reveal this: if the paid editor didn't properly disclose, then there may be an argument for deletion. Did they or didn't they? That's arguable, hence the AfD discussion. It's not out of bounds to argue it. If it is necessary to discourage ongoing violations by a COI editor, removing their edits, even if otherwise acceptable, is sometimes a tool used for that purpose, explained in WP:DENY. An argument on that basis is valid.It might be helpful to add a brief mention of dealing with paid content under the WP:RUBBISH section, on the question of whether paid content is salvageable, or if it is stealth advertising that cannot be kept. There's no simple answer but it's worth mentioning. Similarly, a brief mention of COI or paid editors in the WP:ADHOM section might be worth adding, since that is where this addresses ad hominem. Instead of all this bombast about what we ought to think about paid editors, it boils down to: creation by a paid editor alone isn't a reason to delete, but if the article is blatant adverting, or the paid editor didn't properly disclose, then it might be. We can agree on that without having to agree on whether or not paid editors are valuable or a pain in the ass, or whether or not we would want to drive them away. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:DEL4, WP:NOTSPAM, and WP:DEL14, WP:BLP (we get defamatory paid editing around here too!), WP:G5, and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Yes, there are actually very strong policy based reasons for deletion of COI and paid editing articles, and while who the contributor is should never be the only reason we delete, promotionalism can be (see DEL4 and G11), and the status of the contributor is in fact relevant: Wikipedia is the 6th largest website in the world. Simply having an article here can be promotional if the subject is of borderline notability, and the intent behind the article is something to weigh in these discussions. Also, re: the TOU: while they may allow declared paid editing, that does not exempt local en.Wiki policy, which clearly states Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. (WP:NOTSPAM). Using the TOU to override local policy should be discouraged at all cost, and this essay is not the place to encourage it either. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding length: the current sections on WP:ITSLOCAL, WP:ITSA, and WP:WAX are each at least as long as what I have proposed here— I am also not sure why this length is evidence that it doesn't have wide consensus, as consensus is what I had created this RfC to try to obtain. Changes to WP:COI are about as easy to make as changes to WP:V, and the page is pretty much inviolate.  My intent was to make clear that arguing to delete on the basis of COI/paid concerns is by itself not a reason for deletion, just as arguments to delete "They don't like it", or "It's an old article" are not by themselves reasons for keeping/ deletion.  If an author has declared a COI, then there is no debate on that point— the debate is on whether or not that declaration means the article should be deleted (on the basis of the COI).  I have no problem removing the bombast, as you put it, on paid editors.  But you agree that adding some text to say that disclosed paid edits should not be deleted on the basis of having been paid would be a good idea?  The part about blatant advertising is already pretty well covered in other parts of Wikipedia's guidelines.  My sense is that editors may be tempted to make a knee-jerk response to seeing a paid edit and to place a !vote to delete based on nothing more than the paid nature of the edit, and I wanted to have that situation addressed.  Perhaps the ad hominem section will work just as well for such a purpose.  KDS4444 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any addition to any section of this policy without a strong consensus. It has become an acceptable practice at AfD to do so: this essay is for documenting arguments that are generally agreed to be flawed, not arguments that some users think are weak, but are not uniformly regarded as such by the community as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm assuming that this has some connection to the arguments at Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Changes to policy pages aren't that hard, if the change isn't radical. If it means the same thing but makes it clearer, that isn't so hard. So I suspect that the reason this wouldn't be so easy to get accepted as a proposal to change WP:COI is that it isn't a small change, and it isn't just a clearer way of saying the same thing as the existing guidelines. It goes further than that, and consensus to go that far is not obvious. Maybe it has merit, but that doesn't mean any AfD argument whose basis is something other than this interpretation of the COI guidelines is invalid on its face. 'Arguments to avoid' are things that are so fallacious, irrelevant, or orthogonal to the deletion criteria that they are certain to be ignored if the discussion is closed correctly.From the comments so far, I think there's probably consensus so say:
 * An argument to delete that based entirely on creator's paid or COI status is ad hominem.
 * An argument do delete because of a COI creator coupled with other circumstances, such as that they violated the rules, blatant or stealth advertising, or that notability is borderline, to name a few, might be a good argument.
 * I'd try again, but without saying all that other stuff. Stick to the slam sunk assertions we all definitely agree on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious COI or what? And an obvious POV too. No. Threeseasonsofwinter (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Should "They don't like it" be changed to "You don't like it"?
I've rarely seen it take the former form; it's usually "You don't like it". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Related to the "I like it" argument
Go to Articles for deletion/Kane Tanaka. Please read a long comment I made on that page saying that I view the whole concept of Wikipedia as an "I like it" concept. My own like of Wikipedia is gradually declining because I feel like the site is a remnant from before the popularity of Wikia wikis such as the Muppet Wiki or the Gerontology Wiki. Do you know of anyone who likes Wikipedia better than the Wikia wikis for any reason other than the following:


 * 1) They're more used to Wikipedia.
 * 2) They've known Wikipedia for a longer amount of time (an example would be "I've known Wikipedia since I was 3 years old; the Wikia wikis I first heard of as a teenager!")
 * 3) Editing Wikipedia doesn't require logging in; editing a Wikia wiki sometimes does.

If possible, please include a link that this information reminds you of that would be good for me to read. This link can be any Wikipedia page. (I'm putting this discussion here because it's related to the WP:ILIKEIT argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Georgia guy (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on what kind of information you are looking for. I almost never use Wikia unless I'm looking for detailed fan essays on pop culture properties (and I'm not being dismissive; I love me some RWBY right now, and Star Trek, etc. at all times) or information on how to progress in a video game. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers "encyclopedic" topics like Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, for which coverage Wikia wikis generally can't compete with us. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED
I think the notice recently added's claim is misleading, not only because it is so widely cited and treated like a guideline that it might as well be, but also because six (yes, six) actual notability guidelines outright state that notability cannot be inherited: WP:INHERITORG, WP:INHERITWEB, Notability_(astronomical_objects), Notability_(geographic_features), Notability_(music) and Notability_(music), and WP:NTEAM. I assume it is meant to indicate that the actual text is not a guideline, rather than the concept of notability not being inherited. However, I think the current wording can be interpreted that way. Or is it that those links shouldn't be guidelines? (I highly doubt that is the case) Either way, I think some clarification is needed here. Adam9007 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Proof that offline sources don't exist
Section Offline sources only stresses the equivalence of online vs. offline sources, for example: Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. That's fine and dandy; no problem so far. But I do see a WP:BURDEN problem in a subsequent assertion regarding the standards for removal of a reference that an editor believes to be a fictitions reference: [T]he burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion. This will only occur with definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious. This is an impossible standard to meet; you could visit and search every library in the world, and still not meet this burden. See Russell's teapot.

The statement about burden of proof should not be on the person claiming something is false. I'm not sure what the solution is, but perhaps when challenged in a reasonable fashion, the person claiming access to an offline source, should be able to respond by giving clear, step-by-step instructions on how to access the disputed item, such that a good-faith attempt to follow the instructions would determine the existence, or not, of the claimed reference. Instructions that seem to vague to follow, or have suspiciously restrictive conditions attached ("you can access it, but you have to be on the U.S. Senate Intelligence committee to view it") should be sufficient condition to remove the reference, and any content it purported to support. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the deal with these dummy signatures??
All these argument examples all have some kind of joke as their username, and it feels rather distracting fromn the subject matter of the essay. Like something that was fun when the writers were at work but no serves no purpose but distracting with unnessecary humor. I think we should replace each one with equals, something short and neutral. I created a draft at FooSign. Thoughts? Gaioa (T C L) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually really like them. This is an essay, not a policy, so it doesn't need to be super formal. I feel like the template could be useful on policy pages, but I don't really see a clear need here. It can be good to inject some humor into things on here, as long as it doesn't deter from the message. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER
I am tired of seeing people cite WP:NOTPAPER as an excuse to keep an article, without any further explanation of why the topic meets WP's inclusion guidelines. Just because an article can be stored on the encyclopedia does not mean it should, and it says "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Yet users regularly cite it that there's no inherent need to exclude anything. I propose adding a section on this clarifying that this alone is not a good reason to keep (or delete) and article without specifying how it abides by WP:N and other policies. Reywas92Talk 22:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add this as another "Example" under EVERYTHING, as NOTPAPER is explicitly referenced there. --M asem (t) 22:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can reply right back with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with which it has a natural tension. Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section: Linked to by a significant amount of WP articles
Given the situation at Articles for deletion/Mana Ayukawa, should WP:ATA point out that being linked to by even a zillion WP articles does not make one notable? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Preferring online sources if both are available?
I can't find any support for saying we should prefer an online source if both online and offline are available. The only thing WP:OFFLINE says is "Even if the books are online, it might be necessary to consult a print edition to double-check any errors from the OCR scanning.", suggesting that citing an online version might not be the best choice. And citing paywalled sources isn't ideal either when print versions can be cited. If we were going to say that, it would first need to be stated in the verifiablity policy or the offline sources supplement. The problem of the FUTON bias suggests we shouldnt't be suggesting anyone try to look for online sources; but rather we should be encouraging more effort to find offline sources to compensate for the inherent bias of easy-access internet sources.Is most of this even relevant to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? All we need to say here is that the use of offline sources should be taken on faith and can't be used to against notability. The burden is on the editor challenging the source. Saying we encourage finding online versions seems to take the burden off them and put it back on the editor who cited the offline source, which is not at all what we want. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We prefer the more authoritative Source regardless if it's online or not and and regardless if it's behind a paywall or not.... we're interested in the best source possible for research for our readers.-- Moxy 🍁 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose "They like it" section
There is a "They don't like it" section. I think there should be a "They like it" section too. Examples:

If an unsavoury group of people shows approval of a Wikipedia article, that could be a good reason to check it carefully for balance and sourcing, but it isn't a reason for deletion. Aside from the rare interventions of higher-ups, cases for creating or deleting articles are decided by the community of Wikipedia editors based on our policies and guidelines. They aren't decided by outside interest groups, either positively or negatively.
 * Delete: The Flat Earth Society voted this a good article; it must be terrible. - GeographicGenius, 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Americans for Slavery copied this article almost word for word onto their own website, proving it is racist. - NeverAgain, 2:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Zerotalk 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are there any examples of this happening? If so, I would approve of this addition. Otherwise I'm not sure we need a section for a purely hypothetical scenario. Reyk YO! 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Examples please? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add the argument "AfD is not Merge"
See for example Articles for deletion/Dr. Nick. When AfD nominators dare to mention that a merge is possible, sometimes people will vote 'Keep, discuss at merge first'. This in turn makes AfD nominators not want to bother to identify possible merge targets in fear of such votes, which is damaging (reduces the chance of some content being rescued). Just like a merge target can be proposed in a comment/vote, there shouldn't be any bias against nominations which mention this as a possible outcome (ie. 'let's discuss whether this should be deleted or merged'). Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what the nominator is proposing. If the nominator wants a merge as an outcome then they definitely should not be bringing it to AFD.  They should open a discussion at the article or else just be WP:BOLD.  I think WP:SK was the correct response in your example nomination and that's how I would have voted as did most of the participants.  Sometimes nominators bring a page to AFD because they are too lazy, or don't have the confidence, to execute a merge of the material themselves.  That quite rightly should be strongly discouraged—it unnecessarily creates a battleground where an easy compromise existed.  The whole reason for existence of a separate venue for deletion discussions (away from the article talk page) is that a deletion requires an administrator.  It exists for problems that can't be solved by ordinary editors at the page in question. SpinningSpark 10:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge is a valid outcome from AFD, and a nominator can be open to that or not at their preference. Further, a nominator may be unclear in their own mind if deletion or merge is best and is asking the community for input.  AFD is a discussion, not a death sentence.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The scenario you bring up might be better addressed at Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. WP:DELETIONNOTCLEANUP is a correct shortcut there, but having WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP seems to lead to a lot of confusion in AfD discussions. A lot of times AfD is a place for cleanup when the conversation moves away from delete, but towards redirect/merge because the notability of the topic is already housed at a different article as Paul gave an example of above. A lot of times, redundant article creations are by new or student editors with poorly written content where cleanup is the general concern, and the redirect/merge content discussion occurs in part at AfD as one of its core options outside of keep/delete. I've been coming back to this section thinking about how to improve it, and part of that might be putting the focus more on !voting delete as not cleanup rather than AfD itself (which an additional sentence or two on how redirect/merges can come up at AfD when cleanup is a concern.
 * I'll try to tackle some draft text at a later date, but I figured I'd throw it out there on this essay talk page for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

items added
I just added the text below. I think this elucidates this topic somewhat. I am open to comments on this. thanks.

===Corollary to above===

For certain items, the fact that they exist may be enough reason to create an entry; such as e.g. a Top 40 song, a major network sitcom, a published work, a regulatory agency, motor vehicle, government entity or policy, elected official, historical event, war, geographical unit, etc etc; their mere existence often is enough reason to keep them in an entry here. But for the most part, such entries don't generally come up for deletion anyway. Thus, those items that can be kept merely because they "exist" are those which fall into some widely-accepted area of importance, based on cultural, historical, political, or societal significance.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant something other than "corollary": it certainly doesn't follow from the invalidity of the "it exists" argument that sometimes "it exists" is a valid reason to have an article. You are describing standards for having an article (English Wikipedia notability), which is separate from "it exists" arguments. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change pending further discussion, as it focused on notability in a way that served to support the "it exists" argument, even though this essay is covering arguments to avoid. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional exceptions to "Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar"
In some circumstances, a newborn may be notable for the circumstances of its conception or birth. For example, Louise Brown seems to be notable only for being "the first human to have been born after conception by in vitro fertilisation, or IVF." Therefore, if she is notable now, then she was already notable as a newborn. (Looking at the discussion of merge proposals on that article's talk page, the question of her being a newborn wasn't even raised as an argument for deletion.) Similarly, the first human clone will be notable from birth, and if we knew who was the first person born by C-Section, that person would be notable too.47.139.46.84 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

PERNOM
Why is this included here, just under bare !votes? The section even includes a self-defeating statement: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." -- yeah. That's typically the only time when people say "per nom". There is no virtue in just repeating the same arguments already well articulated by someone else just for the sake of repeating them. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Rhododendrites, I see nothing wrong with a 'per X' !vote, when it is a valid point. It also can help us avoid duplicating masses of text that are making the same point. Best Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Absent any argument to retain it, I've gone ahead and removed it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)