Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

The WP:SOURCESEARCH paradox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why on earth do we have an AFD layout which prompts users to search for sources on the subject at the top of each debate page, yet discourages them from using the volume or content of said sources as a point of argument? Surely one of these needs to go or clearer distinctions need to be made? SplashScreen (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see no conflict. The AfD header at the top of the deletion debate makes it easier to find reliable sources. The WP:SOURCESEARCH part of the essay merely says that the number of sources is irrelevant. One high-quality, reliable source can be enough to defend an article. On the other hand, a thousand trivial, duplicative or unreliable sources have no value at all.
  Personally, I don't like the SOURCESEARCH shortcut. It creates ambiguity. The section name (and the other shortcut) make it more clear that the error is in inferring anything solely from the hit count. Rossami (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Right off the bat, a problem with the source search is a lot of them will be unreliable. Even if we could create a custom search engine that would only search sources that we've vetted as reliable (that is, with standards for peer review, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), we'd still deal with false positives: sources that appear to cover the topic, but might cover a synonym, or might only have a WP:TRIVIALMENTION that prevents us from writing anything significant about it (without delving into original research and unverified claims). I agree it's a little misleading, but the alternative of providing no guidance about how to find sources was something that was confusing newbies even more. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• The proper way to fix it would be to use search links that hide the search results count; unfortunately, Google doesn't provide this option, so we have no choice then to explain the difference between "searching for reliable sources on topic" and "looking up the hits count" to everyone, who doesn't possess RTFM skills. Sad but true... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The listing of lots of sources is not an argument to avoid. In fact, editors commonly ask for this to be done and, when it is done well, it is usually decisive. Of course, some sources are better than others but that's just a matter of competence and detail, not a fundamental objection to the listing of such evidence. Warden (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is dramatically bad habit: if reliable sources are numerous in the results, the better argument would be to list them; otherwise the even the millions of unusable sources don't help with establishing notability. Effectively such pattern exhibits the bad faith of editor, who is trying to hide the lack of sources behind splogs, press releases, trivial mentions, unrelated pages on alternative meanings of term, twitter/facebook/other social pest and other otherwise unusable pages. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The shortcut WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and the examples do not clearly make that point. The point is better made in WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:UNRELIABLE. We don't need this too as it's unclear and redundant. See WP:CREEP. Warden (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • These arguments are different, as in one case the bare amount of search result serves notability, while in another case the voter assumes that it is nominators' responsibility to demonstrate the lack of sources. Regarding asserted instructions creep: the whole essay deals with the obviously flowed arguments, that come up because of editors' unwillingness to think before hitting "save", so any level of redundancy is OK; the issue of clarity should be addressed with editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• There is no paradox. Encouraging someone to look for reliable sources and assess whether they rise to the level to satisfy WP:GNG by providing a tool to start the search in no way encourages people to use a simple count of results in an argument. I don't think the wording is at all confusing. If SOURCESEARCH said "You should avoid making arguments based upon nontrivial coverage in reliable sources" then there would be a problem. But it doesn't say that, or anything like that. Based on Colonel Warden's history of providing totally worthless sources as if they somehow justified a Keep vote, I'm not surprised he wants that section removed. We shouldn't some editors' wikilawyering and/or inability to understand basic concepts about notability on Wikipedia get in the way of a section that is very basic and undeniable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Editors are re-using the link to possible sources as a magic bullet in discussions, it's extremely lazy and should be discouraged, which is why the section exists. The link to it in templates is provided for convenience, not a solution. It's a completely different argument to G HITS, - it exists, Sourcesearch - it's in reliable sources, must be notable! WP:CREEP doesn't apply here, as a common problem has been clearly demonstrated.--Otterathome (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:DEMOLISH

Look at some of the listings here:

• Keep I need more time to work on it – Not Finished Yet, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep I am on vacation now, and I won't be able to work on it until I get back home – In Tahiti, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep. Article was only created yesterday, I'm still working on it! – Think of the New Articles, 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing these as arguments to avoid seems to be advocating demolishing the house while it's still being built. OK, so maybe the intention is to point out that an article being under construction doesn't in itself constitute a reason to keep it. But the entries make no reference to the reasons that somebody might have nominated the article for deletion in the first place. As such, they read to the effect that the principle I've cited is never a valid counter-argument to an AfD nomination.

How best can we clarify the intention here? — Smjg (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a) a time limit should be stated, though I detest them, and b) deletion is inferior to moving to AfC or userfication in such cases. Under the new hidden-in-shrink-wrap policy, the first editor to claim it's under construction is considered to have volunteered to take it under their username. Hee. --Lexein (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The length of an AfD is 7 days before a decision if no speedy delete. This should be more than enough time to make changes to the article. If the volunteering editor cannot make the changes in that time frame then the article can be re-created at a later date. Furthermore, we already have policies and essays about Wikipedia is never complete and always a work in progress. The purpose of the AfD is not to judge an article in regards to its state, but whether the subject is notable and verified for inclusion to this encyclopedia as stated in its policies. Mkdw^talk 08:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because the person who created the article does not have the time to fix the article that would not prevent someone else from either fixing it themselves or finding reliable sources to show that the topic is notable and presenting them at the AFD. The absence of the article creator should have little to no baring on whether or not reliable sources can be found.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Book and film inheritance

It says:

"(three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)"

The books and film guideline have nothing to say on inheritance. Or at least, the word "inherit" does not appear in those guidelines. Suggest this sentence be amended to music only. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In books, there is:

"5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable."

In films:

"2. The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."

Though you're right that inheritance is not stated, it's implied as applicable in a very limited sense. Should these be reworded? --Lexein (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability is inherited, or, "Notability is inherited"?

I had the notion to enquote that phrase, to emphasize that it is the phrase itself that is to be avoided. The other subsection headings are not declaratives, this one is, and so, seems problematic. But quoting breaks links to that subsection. Possible solution 1: enquote and add an unquoted {{anchor}} tag there, so nothing is really broken. Possible solution 2: rename the subsection. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Authors inheriting notability from their books

WP:CREATIVE says if a book is notable, the author is presumed notable. One may or may not call this inherited notability, but I see many arguments on Afd discussions that even if a book is notable, its author is not always so. I agree this is actually not a question of inheritability (that would be from author to book), nevertheless the argument is phrased as: "there is no inheritability from book to author and so proving a book notable is not sufficient to make author notable." I think WP:CREATIVE says otherwise, and we need to clarify that somehow here. As an example, see the comment here: " Even if his books were notable, that doesn't make him notable." We need to clarify here that "if his books are notable" then "he is notable" since this is not an "inheritability" issue. Churn and change (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

First, even taking the simplistic view that "if a book is notable, so is its author", that's not "inherited notability" in the framework of WP. The fact that the author has a notable book is a point in favor of presuming the author is notable, but that can always be challenged by others. An article on an author that has a notable book, where the only thing that can be said about the author is that they wrote that book, does not make for a notable author, and that article would likely be deleted or merged. Particularly in light of WP:BLP1E, if the author only has the book as their claim to fame, its usually better to talk about the author on the page about the book. So no, CREATIVE doesn't break the idea that there's no inherited notability on WP.

But second, CREATIVE does not say what you think it does. The standards for when the book allows the author to be presumed notable is very specific in #3 and #4, and certainly doesn't mean every "notable" book. The basic minimum for the book is "significant" or "well-known". Your example appears to show that - these are not significant or well-known titles, nor are they notable, so the author is not fundamentally notable through the CREATIVE aspect. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BKCRIT the notability criteria for books would be one of multiple, non-trivial reviews, a major literary award, or a major contribution to a film, art form, religious movement and so on. To me that seems pretty much the same as criterion 3. I am not arguing the specific case I point out is one of notability (I don't think it is); it is the generic argument "proving a book notable doesn't make the author notable" I have an issue with. Under which notability criteria in WP:BKCRIT would one prove a book notable but unable to confer notability on its author? Churn and change (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies to an author who wrote just one book. A book is not an event; people read it, comment on it, and critics critique it on an ongoing basis. Even if an author writes just one book, if that book gets multiple, independent, significant reviews the author is notable per WP:CREATIVE. Churn and change (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

CRIT #3 includes the qualifiers "significant or well-known". Many books get reviews, but not every book can be significant or well-known (In the case of your example, you're talking about textbooks, which due to their limited nature will always fail this qualification). BLP1E does apply to authors and other creatives if they have only one thing they are noted for. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, in a WP article itself, "significant" and "well-known" would be weasel words. Seems to me "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is our definition of significance in the context of that sentence, since any other definition is pretty much subjective. If a textbook has multiple independent in-depth reviews, I have to assume it is "significant"; what other criterion can I use (I am not saying that is the case for that example)? I agree if a textbook doesn't have multiple, independent reviews it may still pass book notability without conferring notability on the author.

Both WP:BLP1E and WP:1E refer just to "events" and all examples talk of news events; they do not refer to cases of "one work of creation." I find it hard to read it as including authors of one book, actors in just one film and so on. Churn and change (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They may be weasel words, but in the context of assessing notability on the back end of WP, they're perfectly fine terms. The only thing that you proven with multiple reviews of a book is that it is presumed notable (read: we have sourcing to write a good encyclopedic article about it) and qualifies for an article, but this says nothing about the significance of the work. (Consider films - every film shown in theaters gets reviews, but would you call all such films "significant"? ) Being used at multiple universities is not showing significance, just notability.

Basically, what should be happening is that when a book is presumed notable, one can determine if the book, in their opinion, is significant or well-known enough to presume notability on the author. If they believe that is the case, they can create the article, but if the only fact in the article is that the author wrote that notable book, someone may easily come along and challenge that. Then, at AFD, the discussion will turn on the fact if, per CREATIVE, the book is "significant or well-known" to qualify the author being notable. Consensus may not agree on that, and the author article will be deleted.

Or to put it another way, if the intent of CREATIVE #3 was to allow the author of any notable book to be presumed notable, it would come out and say that. It specifically doesn't, instead stressing "significant or well-known" as a key factor. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree for books we have a well-defined concept of "notability" and a concept of "significance", the second of which confers notability on author. I think the concept of significance is rather ill-defined, and I would say all the criteria of WP:BKCRIT except for the textbook-at-many-institutions one confers significance (in-depth book reviews are harder to come by than movie reviews). But, yes, thanks for the discussion; learned one new thing about guidelines today. Churn and change (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering specifically about textbooks, which are almost always written by academics, this is where our subjective approach to notability and presumption thereof is important, as we're balancing what is stated at BKCRIT, at CREATIVE, and at PROF. (And might suggest that there perhaps is some disagreement between the three to be fixed, but that's neither here nor there.) Say, for lack of a better example, that an associate college professor (pre-tenure) writes a grade-school level chemistry book that ends up being used in 50% of the schools of a country. Per BKCRIT, this certainly would make the book notable, but likely between CREATIVE and PROF, the author is likely not to be considered notable. But that's a subjective decision that is made either via a talk page discussion or at an AFD. Importantly, and bringing it back around, this shows that there's no inherit notability involved here. The authorship of such a book leads evidence towards notability but there's no magical entitlement for notability. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Churn and change (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted an RfC about this issue at WT:Notability_(people)#RfC_on_Creative_professionals
--LK (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice in regards to OUTCOMES

I don't know if this already may be classified under an exciting ATA, but we should have some statement that reiterating "Topics of type X are kept/deleted per OUTCOMES" as a argument is something to avoid.

This is coming from a current discussion on school notability/inclusion occurring at WT:ORG, and it is pointed out that the statement of OUTCOMES (which no one is denying is true) is one of those that seems to be reiterated in deletion discussions about schools. But because it's describing the generalized outcome of AFDs, using it to try to influence the outcome of an AFD can be a snowball effect (but hopefully closing admins are already discounting this already). --MASEM (t) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I'd suggest examples like these:

• Delete Even though there are good sources, we always delete articles about ____.
• Keep I looked for sources and couldn't find any, but we always keep articles about ____.
• Keep I didn't bother to look for sources, because we always keep articles about ____.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those formulations; that describes the basic problem. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, that's why we have WP:OUTCOMES in the first place. Referring to it should never be an argument to avoid--if OUTCOMES is wrong, it should be updated. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we have OUTCOMES to discourage or encourage starting an AFD where the likelihood of keep/delete is already known, or at least to require the AFD nom to demonstrate without a doubt why deletion should be done even though OUTCOMES is usually on "keep". OUTCOMES are observations, not guideline or policy, and have no weight in an AFD discussion. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Even moreso, OUTCOMES even says to not use that page as an AFD as a core argument (eg the cases Whatiamdoing listed above). --MASEM (t) 02:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Against the addition. No sense wasting time with the same arguments in the same sort of AFDs constantly if you can just cite past outcomes. How about adding something that says:

• Delete because the current guidelines don't say its notable and I don't believe we should be able to keep anything that doesn't meet them.
• Delete because even though 99% of the time these sorts of articles get kept, I still believe people should have to waste time debating it every single time instead of just citing common outcomes.

• That'd be something to avoid saying in a deletion discussion. Dream Focus 02:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Again, even OUTCOMES leads off that you shouldn't be solely citing past outcomes as reason to keep or delete. I'm perfectly fine with OUTCOMES being an enhancing argument to other points. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the addition with WhatamIdoing's examples. As Masem argued, the OUTCOMES page does not recommend using it as an argument as it is neither policy nor a guideline. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I will only support this if the introductory clauses about sourcing (i.e. "There is/isn't any, as far as I can see") are guaranteed to be kept in. I can't support it otherwise pbp 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My intent is captured by the examples exactly - you can't just handwave and say "OUTCOMES, so keep/delete". The goal is not to outright call an OUTCOMES-based !vote as something to avoid, just one that shows no other logic. I fully support the use of OUTCOMES at AFD in, for example, as part of a well-argued point that some likely sources exists (specifically identify these) but may not be the best or can't access immediately, and ergo by OUTCOMES, keeping makes sense. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If someone was to say, "There's no sources, and we usually delete this, so Delete", would that still be a valid argument? pbp 21:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • For me that would be valid. No sources does not meet the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • In considering specifically when OUTCOMES is used as the primary reason, this either means that the !voter is saying "there are no sources but we keep articles like this", or that "there are sources, but we delete articles like this". The argument you present is anti-OUTCOMES in nature: where those that may want to use OUTCOME would say "there are no source but we generally keep articles like this", that's say "there are no sources so we should delete this", an implicit WP:V/WP:N issue (I'm generalizing a whole lot). So that's a valid argument (though I would expect the user to explain to what degree they searched for sources to make it a strong argument). --MASEM (t) 22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• As an example (but not to challenge the result) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang where the keep !votes simply are rehashing OUTCOMES without other statements, specifically against what OUTCOMES suggests doing. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - OUTCOMES describes the de facto consensus of the community and as such it is a perfectly germane argument for or against deletion. Of course it can be trumped by more specific issues of the article but all things being equal, it is a reasonable point. --Cyclopia^talk 12:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • But again, OUTCOMES itself says it is not to be used in this fashion. And a real problem then comes when policy/guidelines are being trumped in favor of blind following of OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Value

I'm wondering about a section that talks about 'adds value' or 'does not add value' arguments that don't go into detail as to how or why. Mkdw^talk 08:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Version 1

Examples: Keep valuable. – Golem, 05:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Delete adds nothing of value – Scrouge, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC) Value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value with out substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article or addition is value or not value; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument. See also WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It contains valuable information and It's useful.

• "Valuable" and "useful" are very much synonyms in this context; I wouldn't add a whole new section but just add the examples above to WP:USEFUL, where the "you need to say why" argument is already stated. Diego (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility. I had initially considered that except the prose below would separate valuable and useful. Useful as described as providing a service for a reader, as opposed to having something of value that would not provide a service but merely be value or decorative in nature. Mkdw^talk 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and have gone ahead and added the section with some minor grammar corrections I missed in the above proposal. If anyone strongly feels the content is redundant or not a valid addition, please let me know. Mkdw^talk 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Nom

I removed this recent addition as it seemed to encourage vote stacking and non-discussion for merely the purposes of closing an AfD to save time. Mkdw^talk 04:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Red example usernames

I prefer them. For consistency, they should be red throughout the article. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you prefer them red? Have they been red at all in any point other than WP:MUST? Diego (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess the reason is WP:ILIKEIT. But on a less serious note: they actually have been once, but for me it distracts too much from the fallacious arguments themselves, which are the most important. Though to be fair, the black text makes the usernames blend with the text making it less readable… perhaps linking to User:Example (just to make them blue) could help. Keφr 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would we want to draw more attention to these made up usernames? It's the wrong part of the guideline and message we're pulling focus to when readers should be more focused on the actual core contents of the guidelines. Mkdw^talk 20:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps I did not emphasise this enough. I just suggested that they be made slightly visually distinct, to make the examples more readable. Keφr 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the usernames are even useful? Does:

• Delete per nom. UselessUserName 22:00, 27 December 2012 (TUC)

Get the point across better than

• Delete per nom

When pointing out 'arguments to avoid'? Having the signature makes it look like the XfD list BUT the purpose of this guideline is not formatting and usernames -- having the usernames does make each example longer than they need to and in some cases the username and date stamp is even longer than the example itself. Short precise examples are always best to let it sink in. Mkdw^talk 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured article

• Keep Is a featured article

I have never actually seen this brought up in any discussion before. But in theory, any article can be put up for deletion, even a featured article. So does such an argument belong anywhere on this page? Sebwite (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)