Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

WP:IDONTLIKEIT[edit]

Actually, a lot of the examples given as "I don't like it" seem like valid reasons for deleting something (trivia, "cruft," superfluous, etc.)--Atlantictire (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. I don't see a "superfluous" there but "trivia" and "cruft" are both contentious labels used to offend. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • One person's trivia is another person's significant data. Plus, there's no real measure that makes something "trivia" or "cruft" in absolutes--determination is merely a matter of personal preference. Hence: "I don't like it" is the best classification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Arguments like "trivia", "cruft" etc at least indicate actual real arguments such as WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the like. That means they don't belong with non-arguments like "It's against my religion". I agree they should be removed. Reyk YO! 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's exactly why the author has thought they must be avoided: This essay has another section called Just pointing at a policy or guideline in which it condemns using WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the like without an explanation as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • In that case, it should be covered there. It is misleading to conflate completely vacuous IDONTLIKEITS like "it's embarrassing" and "it offends my religion" with policy based arguments whose only fault is being too terse. Reyk YO! 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • It is covered there; even there is a link. Only you seem to have missed it. (If you want an accurate address, look for "This is the converse to" with your browser's Find command and read the whole paragraph.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

          P.S. The article intro also covers the topic; and to avoid some people missing it, there is a link to intro in that section too. How can you miss all this? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

          • Thanks for the arrogance and condescension. I agree that we should probably remove or rewrite those paragraphs as well. If I say something should be deleted because it is cruft, I usually mean that it is poorly sourced, overly detailed original research. It is not acceptable for anyone to claim that view is somehow equal in weight to someone saying "It's against my religion" or "It's annoying". Because if someone says "It's cruft" and is asked to clarify, they can always point to guidelines and policies that back that view up. That's why "It's cruft" belongs in the WP:JUSTAPOLICY section, if anywhere. But no amount of elaboration will make "It's against my religion" and "It's boring" a valid argument, so things like that belong in IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. They are two very different classes of arguments and do not belong together. Reyk YO! 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Wow! I has been a while since someone called me arrogant and condescending! I must say I am thrilled.

              However, apart from the fact that my comments were made with good intent and lightheartedness, you must put yourself at the other end of the pipe: While you think it is correct to says "It's cruft. ~~~~", closing admins think "Whoa! Chill dude!" and ignores the comment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree words like trivia and cruft are not bad words to be used in deletion discussions, but if they are used as tersely as the examples given without explaining why they may be trivia or cruft, that's as good as saying IDONTLIKEIT. I do believe removal is warranted, but we should make sure we caught commenters from just saying these terms without justification. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

They Like It (Hey Mikey!)[edit]

I reverted this edit, an attempt at creating an IDON'TLIKEIT-esque section about when an outside group endorses or reprints an article. I reverted on the grounds that it would appear to already be covered by other criteria, and isn't a frequent enough argument in AFD to warrant specific commentary. I'm open to alternate opinions if anyone has any though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Before adding it, I read the article to see if it was already covered. I didn't find it, so please indicate which section covers it in your opinion. However, it could be included as a section within THEYDONTLIKEIT with some change to the introduction, since the principle is similar. As to it occurring in practice, it is not as common as most of the things here but it does happen. I've seen it a few times. There was a recent case in which the fact that a right-wing wiki had based their article on ours was presented as a reason for deletion. (I voted for deletion in that case for more valid reasons, not that it matters.) Zerotalk 11:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the LIKEIT/DON'TLIKEIT group is intended to cover the whole spectrum of votes based on personal POV rather than policy or article merit. I don't think it's necessary to try to cover the many possibilities WHY someone might hold those POVs, such as reference by a group one doesn't like or any of countless potential others. This list isn't meant to be completely exhaustive, just to cover some of the more common ones that come up often. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave it like this unless someone else chimes in. Zerotalk 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Another argument to add?[edit]

I'd like to propose a section that deals with rarity or pioneering claims or at least try to see if we can add this into one of the pre-existing sections. I've noticed that on more than a few occasions we'll have AfDs where someone states that someone is the first to do something or that the topic is the first of its kind, or one of a very few examples of its type. I've written up a small example below:

It could probably fall under the section for subjective importance at WP:LOCALFAME, but it also sort of falls under WP:ITEXISTS. I sort of want it on its own because a lot of people tend to argue this from the angle that the article subject is a pioneer and therefore a groundbreaking example of its type. It could fit under SI, but that section is big as it is and tends to fall under "I know about it, I don't know about it" and rarity/pioneer doesn't always fit under the idea of known or unknown. It would probably help to have a section that dealt with the specific idea of being a pioneer of something. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tokyogirl79. Why, these arguments are all valid. One of them even cites a policy. And besides, they are not one of a kind. For no, opposing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll change it to be a bit more clear, as I was referring to people who make unverifiable claims and say that someone is well known because they have 8,000 Twitter followers, all the while not producing any actual coverage in reliable sources. What I'm trying to show is that we've had people that have claimed to be the first at something, whether it's a book, movie, or whatever, and say that just being the first science-fiction book to write about infectious retrograde amnesia makes the book series automatically notable. I've had AfDs where people have made unverifiable claims about being the first film completely made by minors, as well as AfDs that said that there are few businesses that sell a specific items or meet a specific demand, so they are notable because they are one of five people who do that thing. What I'm trying to do is show that being new or simply saying that something is the first to do something doesn't automatically mean that it's notable. It may sound impressive in theory, but ultimately it's no different than if I were to say that I was the first person to play the banjo with my feet or that because my band is the first death metal polka band, that I'm a notable pioneer because of that. My point is that at some level someone will always say that they're the first to do something or that they've taken something that was already well established and put a new spin on it, thus making them a pioneer in any given subject matter. Being first doesn't always mean notable, after all. I'll try to find more AfDs where people claimed stuff like this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's an AfD where someone tried to claim that a guy was a pioneer in his field but there was a lack of sources to back this up. Here's another one that says that someone is one of the first to do something. Here are more AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enectali Figueroa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karsten Obarski (this one argues that the author of the software warrants a separate article because the software was the first of its type, despite him not receiving any true coverage), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I, fanblades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maradonia and the Seven Bridges. Basically my point in bringing these up is that it's a pretty common occurrence to where someone will deliberately twist guidelines around to say that because they say that someone is the first to do something, that the subject will automatically be notable with or without coverage of it. At the end of the day being the first to do something doesn't mean that doing it is automatically notable. That's basically the long and short of it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I just want something to point to at NOT that would say that just claiming to be the first (whether it is true or not) does not automatically mean notable when nobody believes that being the first or few to do that particular thing is worth covering. Nowadays everyone seems to be claiming that they're the first to do something in a large field, essentially saying that because they made a minor change to something, that they're automatically notable because of that. Sometimes changes can be big and gain the coverage. For example, putting vampires in modern day settings and creating urban fantasy is a small change that makes a big difference. But saying that they're the first person to write a vampire novel where the main character is a vampire lawyer doesn't automatically mean that the book or author is notable. We get this a lot with books and movies (hence the examples) but we also get it a lot with extremely fringe medicines and sciences where not even the more mainstream fringe sites covers them. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I do see where it would be confusing for some newbies, though, as they'd say "but didn't this other thing say that this does count?". It's just that we get so many people that think that all you have to do to assert notability is to say that you're the first to do something or you're pioneering a field. When you ask for sources, they only give you primary sources, blog/SP sources, or a single source that just reprints the person's claims without doing any research into it. I'd like to have it clarified that just claiming to be first at something doesn't mean squat without coverage in RS and that saying "first/pioneer/rare" doesn't always mean that (if it's true) that it's necessarily an accomplishment that would automatically give notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This essay miscited?[edit]

People have been using shortcuts, like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, to illustrate their points in non-deletion discussions. Perhaps we should create a section on advising readers to be careful of citing shortcuts and this essay in the future. --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Likewise users have been misusing WP:POINT. Which just means "never play devil's advocate when making edits". Keφr 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Or was that deliberate irony? In that case, congratulations, I have been trolled. Though that might be a slight violation of WP:POINT.