Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 15

Proposal to add new NOTNOTINHERITED
WP:NOTINHERITED is so commonly misapplied in AfD that it deserves its own "Arguments to avoid". It's the most commonly made bad argument there is. Just one recent example is Articles for deletion/Sandra Grant Bennett. A new 'argument to avoid' would be along the lines of WP:INHERITENCE does not apply to content in article and is never a reason to delete. It's true WP:NOTINHERITED already says this at the top, but no one is apparently reading, or understands, or ignores - it's not working. We need more room to explain and provide a list of examples. Perhaps something like NOTNOTINHERITED. -- Green  C  16:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * People ignore this page and its various qualifiers all the time (not to mention every other Wikipedia policy and guideline). It's up to the participants at the AfDs to point out when the rules are misapplied. Even if there's a separate entry, people will still misapply it (and other). WP:DEFINING couldn't be clearer that it's about categories, yet it still comes up time and time again in AfDs, for example. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a WP:Avoid Arguments to Avoid in deletion discussions. -- Green  C  03:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to Arguments to Avoiding Arguments to Avoid Avoid Arguments to Avoid Henceforth in deletion discussions, also known as "WP:AAAAAAAH!" which pretty much sums it up :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

OTHERLANGS
while I don't have any actual evidence of this actually being a problem I expect it very likely is and should be included.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:IGNORINGATD
This section says:, but is this statement accurate? A conversation here suggests it isn't, and definitely implies that "delete then redirect" can (and even should) be done for articles that would otherwise have simply been deleted at AfD or another process, even if none of it is eligible for REVDEL. Adam9007 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Username examples
I think that the username examples being funny and illustrative makes the essay interesting and easy to read. More people reading the essay means that more people will make good deletion arguments, which means the quality of Wikipedia will rise, which is good. jp×g 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A number of these aren't enlightening but distracting. And for the Its in the news section, I don't think it's helpful to have entirely US centric references, especially the references to historic media personalities from decades ago. CUA 27 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ADHOM" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ADHOM. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Ad hominem" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Ad hominem. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to add a new section as a 3.6 offshoot
This was a tangent on an AfD discussion that fits better here. Basically, I think there should be a section for citing the existence of advertising and PR, on their own and often in the abstract, as a deletion argument. I see this a lot, and while I hate the glut of adspam as much as anyone else (I regularly nuke it from article text), the mere existence of a subject's PR team says nothing about that subject's notability, for or against.

Could fall under 3.6, kinda a corollary to 2.9 also; there are a lot of variations on it. This mostly shows up in delete arguments, but only because the Keep counterparts are covered in 2.9 and pretty obviously bad. Would love to hear thoughts for/against:


 * Delete: Wikipedia is frequently used as a search optimization tool and we have to take that into account. –Adbusters (talk)
 * Delete: Non-notable people frequently pay for promotional Wikipedia articles. This person's Wikipedia article sounds like it's promotional. Therefore, it must be a non-notable person. –SyllogismExpert (talk)
 * Delete: Many articles about corporations are promotional spam, so we have to assume this one is too. –YoureAllTheSame (talk) 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obviously a Wikipedia page would help her career and we shouldn't let her do that. –Wannabefamous (talk)
 * Delete: He's a politician/influencer/celebrity/socialite, any coverage of him is inherently advertising. –GetARealJob (talk)
 * Delete: The tone is clearly advertising, so don't even bother with notability, it needs to go. –Setinstone (talk)

Draft verbiage:

Publicists exist. Frequently, they use Wikipedia as a means of promotion, and having a Wikipedia page can boost their clients' reputation substantially. But Wikipedia's job is neither to drum up publicity nor to pre-emptively squash it. Its concern is whether the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Whether that aligns with a publicist's goals is irrelevant either way; they are separate axes. A clearly notable subject does not need to be deleted because somewhere, out there, might be a flak who approves of it.

(Ironically, in some cases the deletion argument that "we're not here to do the publicist's job" itself serves the publicist's job; one common category of PR-centric article is a glowing biography that appears non-notable... because they left out reams of significant coverage that involves scandals, controversies, or merely independent reporting that doesn't flatter the company. Wikipedia is not an advertising directory, but it is also not reputation management. Let them bury the news rather than doing it for them.)

Along these lines, a promotional tone is not, by itself, a reason for deletion if the subject is otherwise notable, nor is it a reason to skip a WP:BEFORE search. AfD is not cleanup; such an article may be a candidate to be trimmed or rewritten, rather than deleted. This is not particularly hard; in some cases all it takes is just removing the bullshit and leaving the facts. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , What would be the heading or subheading you'd like to propose? I read your proposal but I am a bit unclear what exactly you'd like to add. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably something like PR, promotion, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Could you draft an entire section for us to consider? Right now your proposal is a bit confusing - which part of your text above should be added to the article, and which is just discussion for us here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

restoring PERNOM/PERX
Ths section was removed following a comment by User:Rhododendrites endorsed by User:Eddie891. With all due respect, I think we need a bit more (a proper RfC) before we remove a section that has existed here for years. Also, on a technical note, that there are hundredts of now-broken redirects (WP:PERNOMINATOR, WP:PERNOM, WP:PERX, WP:KEEPPER, WP:DELETEPER, perhaps others) that testify to this being invoked in the past. Now those invocations lead nowhere. IF there is stong consensus to retire this section, we should have a 'historical' part of the page, so people reading past discussions are not left scratching their heads - not that I agree that this section should've been removed in the first place (hence, I am restoring it per WP:BRD).

Now, I agree this section is not perfect. To some degree it duplicate not a vote 'I vote just like that other guy', and it also conflates 'per nominator' with 'per somebody else'. (Also, the same argument could be made about WP:MAJORITY. "If the majority makes solid arguments" what's wrong with deferring to them? It doesn't make sense to keep PERMAJORITY but remove PERX).

In either case, I think the solution is to point out that it is ok to endorse other people's votes or comments, but at minimum, given NOTAVOTE, the respondent should clarif why they find someone else's opinion convincing (more than just saying ILIKEIT). I see nothing wrong with voting PERX when one can explain why X's argument is reasonable, but a vote like Delete per X. Signed' is pure garbage. I'll add such a clarification to the restored section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This rather stretches the spirit of BRD. There was a discussion opened before removing it which received no objections in 4 days, so yes, I removed it. From a widely watched projectspace page. Almost 8 months ago.
 * Disagree that an RfC is needed to change this. We're not changing policy, just a page of counter-arguments for people to "per". Perhaps we should also instruct people that their counter-arguments about "per AADD" or "per PERNOM" unless they perfunctorily repeat some of what's on the page. :P
 * I don't think that it being invoked really makes affects our decision one way or the other. It doesn't matter how sound an argument is that we have here. If it helps people's arguments at the time, they'll link to it. I'm also reluctant to support creating a historical section, which creates a messy precedent and it doesn't seem that urgent to ensure all shortcuts used in old AfDs still point to an extant section. Anyone doing that research can look at the date of the AfD and look at the corresponding version of this page. But I'd be curious if there are precedents for this. My real objection over keeping it as historical is that it would give it the opposite meaning: a full endorsement. It doesn't have to be an awesome argument in order for it not to be "an argument to avoid." &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Rhododendrites (:P) Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, consider me strongly objecting to those being removed per reasons explained above - mainly because I find it useful, and PERX are often bad votes that need to be labeled as such. If nobody else takes interest in our discussion and we remain deadlocked at 2:1, an RfC should be used to obtain a larger quorum. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is indeed useful for labeling bad arguments. I'm not so sure "per" is even an argument, though, rather than shorthand for agreeing with someone else's argument without actually having to reiterate the same idea just to overcome a WP:PERX hurdle. It's often lazy, yes, but laziness is not an argument. All the section here was doing was making it possible to discredit people for arguments (including sound arguments presented by someone else) articulated lazily. If I take the trouble to find a pile of sources to go along with my GNG, it just makes sense for other people to "per" me, assuming they've actually looked at the sources themselves. Perhaps the better solution would be a separate "don't be lazy in deletion discussions" essay. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , The same argument you make could be made for NOTAVOTE or PERMAJORITY. And yes, the purpose of this page is to remind people not to be lazy and make good arguments, not bad votes of various varieties. Now, I do think some sections here could benefit from merging since the distinctions between some bad arguments are trivial - hence I just merged the two clearly identical sections and suggested merging them with yet another (ITSVALUABLE=ITSUSEFUL). Perhaps we should discuss further merges (PERX=PERMAJORITY?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean JUSTAVOTE? If so, that seems like an absence of an argument rather than, as with "per x", evidence that someone has read through the arguments and found one they agree with. Mixed feelings about "per majority" because there are two kinds of things being discussed there. The examples are:
 * "Keep per everyone else. –Grouper (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete since most others here think this should be deleted. –Copycat (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete Most people are saying it should be deleted, and it looks like that is what will happen. –SelfFulfillingProphecy (talk), 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"


 * The first one is indeed pretty similar to what we're talking about. Similar to "per arguments above". It's a step lazier and less specific, though. The other two are different -- they're "per majority" citing not an argument made by the majority but the existence of a majority. If anything, I'd support removing this section, too, because I don't know if I've ever actually seen someone make that argument, but at any rate it's different from pointing to a specific perspective you think has merit. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-removed following the above, absent consensus to restore the version that had been removed for the better part of a year. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Major changes (removal of a whole section) to well frequented policy/advice/guideline pages should not be done with silent consensus (silence here only is proof that nobody noticed the discussion on the talk page, not that nobody disagreed). Please make a proper RfC if you think it really needs removal, but WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:CONSENSUS are clear that "per X" or "per above" is not a valid and helpful way to achieve consensus. If you think a merger with "per majority" is appropriate, feel free to do so, but removing it entirely is not really OK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not every change requires an rfc. A discussion was opened and the only other person who said anything agreed, so it was done and remained for the better part of a year. Now you're reverting citing an essay about policies and applying it to an essay. As fun an exercise in wikilawyering as this may be (likewise trying to invalidate the opinions of people with whom one disagrees because they didn't perfunctorily reiterate an argument articulated by someone else), I'm not up for it at the moment. (Though just to reiterate, I don't think "per" is an ideal or even particularly good approach, but sometimes it just makes sense, and I more often see this section cited as a way to invalidate rather than to ask people to say more). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , That people misunderstand this argument or generalize is just one reason to clearly explain this here. Some PERX arguments are bad, some are good. I've rewritten the section to make this more clear, and it would be better if you'd help with that, rather than trying to remove it. Dozens if not hundreds of people have cited it for years and so, by default, found it useful. That two people thought otherwise and removed it for few months is not enough to justify the opposite. Again, if you think this really needs to go, WP:RFC is that'a'way. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I'll also note that I've been pinging Rhododendrites each time I reply, but they had not. It's not a very good practice to speak quietly, and then declare oneself a winner when the other person misses a step. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What an idiosyncratic assumption of bad faith. When I'm involved in a conversation, I watch the page. Unless it's been a while, I don't need a ping (which isn't to say I mind being pinged). Some people love to be pinged each time, some people absolutely hate it. In an active conversation, I don't presume they're needed, but I will interpret your message as "please ping me when replying" and that's fine. No need to make it sinister. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I didn't mean to imply any intentional misdoing, but it's best practice to ping unless told otherwise. Particularly if the alternative is assuming that someone's silence means they are in silent agreement, where a much more likely explanation is that they are just unaware of the development in a discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't "It contains valuable information" and "It's valuable" be merged?
Also with WP:ITSUSEFUL. They all seem to be about the same argument. It's important, useful, valuable, no difference. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've carried a merge (no content lost). I'd also suggest merging this with . Again, that's the same concept (POV tht article is useful/valuable - those are plain synonyms). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also carried an additional merge of It's valuable to It's useful. No content was lost (just merged). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"WP:Other stuff exists" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote at "What about article X?"
The hatnote in this section that begins "For broader discussion of precedents outside deletion discussions," has its target link piped to say "Supporting your position with "other stuff" isn't going to work" to cover-up the actual title When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. The piped version does not represent what the essay says. Piping this link in this way is misleading to users and should not be done. My edit to correct this was reverted by an IP who states "see here, where JJMC89 just drops the essay like a bomb, implying that, contrary to what the very essay he cited in support of what he was saying actually says, this is a universal principle" by pointing to one instance of another user linking to the essay in a discussion. What is odd is that the case cited in the edit summary actually illustrates the problem here, that the user was linking to an essay that does not support the point they were trying to make nor say what they think it does. There has been previous discussion about similar edits by another IP (presumably the same user), and issues about the misuse of the essay were discussed in a recent requested move discussion. The bottom line is, if a user disagrees with the essay, discuss it on its talk page or bring it to AfD, if a user thinks the name of the essay is inappropriate or inaccurate, start a requested move discussion, but as it stands, the essay is clearly related to "What about article X?" and the hatnote should directly link to it without piping. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes to page
A few months ago you reverted some of my edits to this page, on the grounds that you thought the old names were good, and the new names were bad. I did not get very invested into arguing about it, but remembered this page earlier today and decided I would try some different names (e.g. not the ones you'd objected to earlier). However, you have reverted all of those ones too. I'll contend a few things here to defend my edit: first of all, I don't think anybody really cares about this (the previous idea of waiting to see what consensus developed seems to have resulted in the section being archived with no response). Second of all, the fake editors on this page have had goofy names like "ComedyLover" and "Yawner" as far back as 2007. And third, "Trustfull" and "Sup" (which I had replaced) aren't "plain English terms" — I suppose "sup" is a word but it's got nothing to do with the example being described. If you really want to, I will open an RfC about this, but I'd really just prefer to avoid having an argument; is there some specific objection you've got, or is the idea of the names being changed at all inherently unacceptable to you? At the very least, I would appreciate if you restored my grammatical fixes, rather than wholesale reverting a stack of four edits. jp×g 08:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the current naming conventions generally work fine. I am not sure what you perceive to be the problem that needs fixing. They are understandable by most readers and illuminate or reinforce the example. I don’t see how changing them to references to American 1970s news personalities nor Ancient Rome helps a wider audience understand this better. I have no objection to editors fixing grammatical errors, so feel free to take another run at those if you wish, and I will interpret them as good faith edits and not edit warring. CUA 27 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT
This essay says, “While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is ‘unencyclopedic’ (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion.”

This seems like a wise attitude, but where is it required by Wikipedia policies or guidelines? Wikipedia operates by consensus, and if some editors don’t consent because they never consent to content they dislike, what’s to stop them, what policy or guideline frowns on what they’re doing?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This page is meant to discourage certain types of responses at AFD and related process pages. An AFD !vote of "I don't like it" is not helpful per this page and should be ignored. On other pages such as discussions over content inclusion, technically this page does not apply though the principles of it still are used to discourage unhelpful input, eg saying we shouldn't include content just because they don't like it. Consensus will still decide, but it is better if consensus is working from !votes and inputs were more useful and not ones from this page. M asem (t) 17:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just an essay. I agree that an AFD !vote of "I don't like it" is not helpful per this essay and should be ignored, but is there any policy or guideline that says it should be ignored, either in an AFD discussion or more generally?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @AYW, were you trying to talk about ARTICLE DELETION or NEW CONTENT REVERTING? If the latter, the essay I think you meant to post at is Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m talking about article deletion, not reverting new content. In any event, as to the latter, you’re pointing to an essay.  My question here is not looking for an essay.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, is there an underlying specific dispute that brought this up? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No single dispute in particular, it's a general question. Please read WP:HOUND if you haven't.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please help?
I have an issue with an editor deleting material on this basis, but cannot encourage cogent explanations, and he has had the article locked. Discussion efforts are here, and third party input may be of assistance. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454D:C167:FEDF:A728 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)