Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 8

"Just a blog"
Can we include a sentence explaining that a blanket statement that "blogs are not reliable sources" is not a valid argument against the reliability of a reference? There are frequent cases in which reliable sites, with an editorial process in place, publish verified information in a blog format; WP:RSOPINION already explains this difference, and I think a reminder here would be sensible, as this invalid argument is often found at deletion discussions for blogs for which it doesn't apply. Diego (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is actually really important, as more and more authoritative voices publish online, and virtually all of this publishing is now done via blog software like WordPress and MovableType because hand-coding websites is an expensive, time consuming pain from the Net.Dark.Ages of the 1990s. There are a great number of professionally produced blogs, either with editorial staffs, or written by experts as the modern equivalent of monographs and editorials, and they are frequently more reliable than any other sources for being the most current, for having exclusive interviews with leading industry players, or many other things.  blog is not notable, not because it's a blog but because it's just some random jagoff with no credentials as a reliable source; the medium is totally irrelevant. This "blogs aren't notable, aren't reliable sources, and can't be valid external links" nonsense is a blatant case of blaming a tool instead of its least competent wielders, condemning a technology because some people use it trivially or improperly, and as such it's blatantly logically fallacious. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Usernames
Just a fun question. Who came up with the usernames in this essay? Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally the person who contributed the corresponding entry. Reyk  YO!  22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?
Why is this not making an impact to lower-level Wikipedians? Why are some people still making these arguments? Why are some people not reading or caring about this? Why? WWEWizard (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * good question. I have seen some very lazy !keep voting even when I point out to these editors about this page. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing as a contemptible low-level Wikipedia, I shall answer your question. The page appears to list every conceivable reason for keeping, or deleting, an article, and dismisses them all as invalid. If I had found another page giving, for contrast, some examples of what are accepted as valid arguments, I might be able to learn something by comparing the two. As it is, I consider the page useless. Maproom (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process
There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * given that people like you like to refute many nominations, there are sufficient people who patrol AfDs and point out inadequate nominations. articles even if deleted can be contetested in deletion review that's a further process. no further checks and balances are necessary. I think there needs to be a way to stamp out longwinded copy and pastes in AfDs as keep !votes. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing your perspective and input regarding the matter of improving checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users interested in this discussion should comment on it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, where it is receiving more attention. Cheers.   lifebaka ++ 13:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Article size
I found the Article size heading inside this page and it was only saying "keep because the article is large enough" or "delete because it is too small". It never said the opposite, which I believe is important for there to be some info on when it comes to huge articles. Georgia guy (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But no one wants to big, over-developed articles, so it wouldn't be relevant here. They get in split debates, on their own talk page, generally per the processes outlined at WP:SUMMARY. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like the way it's titled"
I'm surprised that there's no "I don't like the way it's titled" section here. Check out:

Georgia guy (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is largely because we have Requested_moves and Article titles that deal with titles of articles. Mkdw talk 01:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

False dilemma
"Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

So an argument is only allowed if it guarantees that the subject matter should (not) be included? --91.10.43.88 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it just means that Ghits are often unreliable and don't make the best rationale for deletion or keeping; Google is best used for . Much like Wikipedia is forbidden as cited source by most college professors because it's unreliable, but many outright recommended it for the ==References== sections pointing students to what they cite and base their papers on.  Both Google and Wikipedia are interesting tools, with limitations.  Anyway, for more on how to use and not use search engines here, see WP:GOOGLE. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition: "Too hard/messy to fix"
I've been meaning to add this one for years, but just never got around to it. Maybe someone can massage the text a bit. This bogus argument type is very, very common in the non-AFD discussions, especially templates, categories and moves.

Examples:
 * Speedy keep: This template is used in 800 articles! – ChangeIsBad, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Who's going to clean up the categorization of every article on Widgets if we delete this category? – CategoryChangeIsWorse, 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We shouldn't rename this article, because every single other article about Widgets will have to be updated to deal with the change. – MovingIsPainful, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Unless the nominator is going to clean up the mess, this should not be deleted, even if it is obsolete and CoolTemplateCoder's alternative is better. – NotInMyBackProject, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We've being doing things this way for 7 years here at WP:WHATEVER; it'll be too hard to get people to do things differently, even though the proposed streamlined process might make sense. – InertiaIsMyFriend, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This sort of argument is very common at WP:TFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD and WP:RM, as well as in merge and split discussions. It is fallacious firstly because Wikipedia and its constituent resources are not fixed in time, and are easily malleable. AWB, bots and other tools can often make short work of seemingly monumental tasks, while moving (renaming) an article automatically creates a redirect from the old name to the new one, thus breaking no links and giving plenty of time for "gnome" editors and their tools to polish off the redirects at their leisure. That work will be involved has nothing to do with the actual merits of the deletion (or move or merge, etc.) discussion. The idea that the nominator should have to clean up after the "mess" created by deleting something useless (or worse) is essentially a form of ad hominem argument (an implication that the nominator is maliciously or negligently trying to create work for others). Every improvement to the encyclopedia takes work, generally on the part of many people and their tools, and not having an instant army of volunteers to fix a problem that has been identified does not mean that the problem is not real and should not be dealt with.

This one has bugged me to no end for a long time. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition: censorship or "they don't like it"
We have an "I like it"/"I don't like it" section, but I wonder if we might benefit from adding a "they don't like it" section - I'm sure I could count a number of AfDs where keep voters have argued that the article needs to stay because Muslims don't want anyone to know about X or Israelis don't want anyone to know about why and we'd be censoring otherwise. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you actually suggesting that Wikipedia should not favor the free flow of ideas that others are trying to censor? Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Roscelese is talking about people playing the "censorship" card to distract from the real issues. Sort of like, "Keep- they're only saying this copy and paste job from my blog is WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation because the evil they don't want the truth to get out!" Reyk  YO!  04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Essentially, that WP:NOTCENSORED does not supersede our normal notability etc. guidelines. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition for clarification regarding a person "inheriting notability" from notability of their work, and regarding the meaning of “co-creating”
We have this wording –
 * "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.”

This appears to some to contradict WP:NOTINHERITED. I repeatedly see arguments to delete in AFD’s where a person who co-creates a notable artistic work that “that has been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, but who has not themselves as a person “been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, citing WP:NOTINHERITED to delete an article on that person. There is also often a deletion argument based on a work of art being so bad as to not be considered a creation at all by some editors. For example, a camera operator in a recognized work of cinematic art such as Vadim Yusov is clearly a co-creator, but a camera operator for a reality tv show such as Jesse Fleiss (a hack camera operator compared to Yusov) who has to make spontaneous decision at the critical times of real improvisation, in order to increase ratings, is not, because their product is essentially garbage, yet recieves more significnt coverage as a work product that that of the great artist cinematographer.


 * Both issues have arisen once again in the AFD for Jesse Fleiss. There is an argument that reality television is so bad that a camera operator is not a co-creator, as he would be in a work of cinematic art, even though the reality tv show would be compeletely different with a different camera operator reacting to sponteneous real world events in a different way. Such camera operators direct themselves to the sponteneity of the reality part of the show, and need not even be a good camera operator to have a hit creation. It was argued at the AFD that such camera operators are no more co-creators of cinema than a printer is a co-creator of a novel. It is difficult to argue that a reality tv camera operator, who is essentially a hack, is a "co-creator", since their skills may be so poor and the creation so artistically worthless, but WP is an encycopedia and not an art review journal, so a camera operator for notable bad art inherits the notability of the work just as much as if the work was good art.


 * I therefore propose that following be added both to WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTINHERITED, so that the incessant arguments for deletion stop once and for all by having clear language.
 * “Notability for a person who co-creates a work or body of work can be inherited from the notability of their work product.”
 * ”A person is a co-creator of a work if the work would be significantly different in visual, aural, or conceptual content without that person’s particular contributions at the time of creation. These are sufficient but not necessary criteria for being a co-creator.”
 * Since one is a guideline and one is an essay, I am proposing clarification both at WP:NOTINHERITED and at WP:CREATIVE, which are different contexts for the above two proposed additoins to occur in. PPdd (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Commenting after each "Keep" vote?
So I did this in the deletion discussion because I thought that it would be a great way to converse with other users that have put their vote. However, at least one user thought that I was being negative and disagreeing when I did this. When I wasn't happy with how the discussion went (mainly because nobody replied to my comments but just kept on saying "Keep") I tried to discuss this with the non-admin that closed it but I got a harsh reply from many of the users that were involved in the discussion (they followed me there) and they thought that I was going against the consensus. So does commenting after each vote count as disagree/counter to the Keep votes? Bleubeatle (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think many people will understand this without citing the AfD in question, which was at Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki. I don't understand the point Bleubeatle is trying to make here, nor how this will improve the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, so I will let the record speak for itself. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either honestly. There were a consensus. And when that consensus wasn't in the user's favour..well. I thought some agreement had been made between CT Cooper and Bleubeatle to let this go.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um CT Cooper and BabbaQ, this is called the "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" for a reason. I am aloud to ask questions here if I have any doubts that I did not understand with procedures. Its not an "improve" or "suggestions" page, alright? I want to understand how this works so that I don't mess things up in the future. You guys seriously need to let the whole thing drop. I am not contesting against consensus anymore nor am I trying to re-instate the discussion open again. Now any replies from you both I will ignore. Please let me be in peace and let me learn this myself, from other users, not from you two. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken - scroll to the top of this talk page and read the first line: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page." Anything without such intent is off-topic, which appears to include this thread. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And with that, case closed :-)BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a disinterested participant reviewing the discussion after the fact, I have a couple of observations.
 * This question is about how discussions are generally structured and what some our protocols and conventions are. Nothing directly affects the "non-arguments" itemized in this essay.  So technically the question doesn't belong here.  That said, Bleubeatle is asking for help understanding the process (not merely challenging the outcome) and we should offer help wherever possible.  In the interest of keeping this page clean, though, please pose any followup questions on my Talk page and we can move the rest of the conversation there.
 * Part-way through the discussion, Wesley Mouse re-factored the discussion threads to segregate the comments from the "votes". He/she should not have done that.  They are discussions, not votes.  Consensus is evaluated at the end of the debate by reading all the comments in context and weighing both the weight of opinion and their connection to established policy and precedent.  The re-factoring makes that significantly harder.  I would ask everyone to please help discourage that practice.  Refactoring a deletion discussion should be limited to standardization of indentation, attribution of comments and, in extreme cases only, redaction of personal attacks.
 * The process was closed prematurely (sometimes allowed) and was closed by a non-administrator (also sometimes allowed). However, those two are not allowed together.  Non-admins may only prematurely close an XfD debate if it meets one the five narrow criteria at Speedy keep.  I am not suggesting that this particular debate be reopened but as a matter of education for future debates, the closure was not in accordance with Wikipedia processes.
 * Getting to Bleubeatle's original question (finally), yes, participants are encouraged to discuss with each other the fate of the article, the strength of respective arguments and the applicability of various policies. XfDs are explicitly discussions, not votes. That said, we must also be respectful of the time and effort put in by other readers.  Challenging every comment with the same rebuttal is a waste of everyone's time.  (Didn't happen here but it's a common abuse.)  Make your case and present your evidence once - and trust that the other participants will read what you wrote.  Subsequent comments should address new points, present new evidence or clarify prior comments, not regurgitate things already on the page.
 * Civility is an essential part of the Wikipedia decision-making process. I find a number of breaches of civility (on all sides) in this discussion and its aftermath.  Please remember the civility mandate.
 * I hope some of that helps. Ping me directly with any follow-up questions.  Rossami (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rossami. Thank you very much for answering my question and also explaining how the discussions should work. All I really wanted were some answers and to learn more about these procedures so that such conflicts and misunderstandings can be avoided in the future since there wasn't really any discussion going on in the XfD mentioned. And don't mind what these two users have brought into this discussion, although I appreciate their effort to give out the link of the discussion I really have no intentions of introducing any conflict in this page. They think that I am still "going against the consensus" by asking questions regarding the discussion and attempting to canvas to over turn it. So now they've been following all my contributions ever since even though I already stated that they are not my intent. Hopefully other users that are following me around will read and learn from what you've written as well. Cheers Bleubeatle (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record Bleubeatle, that was not my thoughts at all. As you can see above, I noted that you started this discussion and noted it was not in the correct place, so I pointed that to you, and realized that any uninvolved users would need to see the AfD in question to follow, so I provided a link - that's all. I have never personally accused you of canvassing or "going against the consensus" in this thread, in fact I personally have no such comments at all, so please don't attribute such statements to me. Also, I would like to re-emphasize the suggestion by Rossami to move this thread to User talk:Rossami, which is a good idea. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * CT Cooper, you and BabbaQ need to let it go now. I already did. If you had no intentions of such things then both of you should've never followed me here. Enough is enough.Bleubeatle (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then don't make incorrect assertions on what other editors think or say. I don't think asking users not to comment in threads in which they are discussed is reasonable, so I must decline, if that is what is being requested. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, CT Cooper. Alright I won't go into anymore detail because you both know very well the reasons why and how got to this page. Just let it go now. Thanks. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not following. You don't seem to be answering my points at all. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks to Bleubeatle for never notifying me that a discussion about myself was taking place here. It would have been courteous to have been notified that a user was (in their own words) "talk behind my back". Thankfully I stumbled across this thread via another user. In reply to one of 's comments above, firstly, my name "Wesley" (which is a male name) should be a clue that I am not a "she", and I do feel a little disheartened that someone mistook me as a she. Also the fact that my edit summary of "sectioning the comments, so that they don't get mixed up with the consensus voting" should have been evident as to why I segregated the comments in the AfD. And like you pointed out, "they are discussions, not votes" - so I thought it was reasonable to separate them from the votes, so that people wouldn't get confused. So I apologise if doing a helpful gesture is not appreciated, and think it is very harsh to reprimand someone for doing what I thought was an act of good faith. Wesley ☀  Mouse  14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Wesley Mouse. Please avoid making quick judgements. The reason why you were not notified in the first place was because my question was about my experiences with the deletion discussions and in order to avoid getting anyone from AfD discussion involved I decided not to post any links. You should thank CT Cooper & BabbaQ for following me here and posting the link. If they had not done so then you would have never been mentioned on this discussion in the first place. Have a good day.Bleubeatle (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question mentioned Wesley and the rest of us in the opening post ("I tried to discuss this with the non-admin that closed it but I got a harsh reply from many of the users that were involved in the discussion (they followed me there) and they thought that I was going against the consensus"), and even if it wasn't in name, he and the rest of us were involved and had the right to comment, particularly in regards to the factual accuracy of what was being said. I can no relevance to the fact I provided a link - I'm sure Rossami could have found the AfD him/herself, or may have asked to see it, to allow a meaningful answer to be given. If you didn't want this to be a discussion about an individual AFD, it would have been better to ask the question straight-up - "So does commenting after each vote count as disagree/counter to the Keep votes?". CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you didn't want this to be a discussion about an individual AFD, it would have been better to ask the question straight-up"-Actually, you may want to read what I first posted in this page again. I made no initial mention of any usernames involved in the discussion. My question was "straight-up" about my experiences with the deleted discussion and I only expected an answer from this without the assistance of the link to the AfD that would get other users involved into this page. It would've been best if both of you didn't intervene(trying to disencourage me from asking and getting answers) in this page and posted the links to the AfD. Now please stop following me around Wikipedia. That has been making me feel frustrated and stressed since you both followed me in this page. I will no longer respond to anymore posts from the two(and now three) of you here.Bleubeatle (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bleubeatle this essay happens to be on my watchlist because I take an interest in what changes are to made to it, so I did not actually "follow" you here - perhaps you should take your own advice and avoid making quick judgements. In any case, the facts are that you mentioned other users, and made questionable statements about their actions, and as a result we became involved - not mentioning their names isn't an excuse. I'm sorry to hear that you are "frustrated" and "stressed", but your earlier comments at WT:EURO including "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" may come back to haunt you here. You are free to respond as you wish, but really in a discussion users should be focusing on what is said, rather than who says it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the fact that this discussion is still going on, days after the user said he would "move on" and "dont care" is quite telling. Can you please drop it and move on now Bleubeatle. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is disencourage Bleubeatle is that you claim not to get any answers to your question when infact you getanswers on every question but you then continue to ask them over and over again. You dont seem at all interested in the answers to the questions you are asking if they are not in your favour so why ask them for the 10th time? And by that I mean any questions concerning Ell & Nikki.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)