Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page.
|This page was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.|
Political spouses (and relatives of Celebrities)
Two AFD discussions this presidential campaign year Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson and, particularly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio a woman with absolutely zero personal accomplishment (no one found as much as a single reliable news account dating form her stint as a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins) except marriage to a man running for President, seem to indicate that spouses of candidates for the Presidency merit articles based on their status as potential First Ladies alone. In the course of these debates, I realized that this approach has been applied in practice to the spouses of quite a number of politicians once they achieve a sufficient prominence, not merely to Presidential spouses. Particularly spouses of governors. (see, for example Neva Egan, Nellie Connally, Mary Rockefeller, Carole Crist, none of these women has any more claim to notability independent of marriage than Jeanette Rubio or Todd Palin, yet we have such political spouse articles from all periods, possibly from every state. They are reliably sourced because spouses regularly get sufficient coverage to source articles, even when, as in these examples, it is based on no independent accomplishment. I think we have to acknowledge in the guideline that 1.) spouses of major candidates in the Presidential primaries of major parties, and spouses of major party candidates for Vice President, can have articles based on that status. And that 2.) spouses of Governors, United States Senators and other leading political figures can have articles when there is sufficient reliably sourced coverage of their lives as political spouses (see: Michael Haley) even in cases where they have no claim to notability independent of coverage generated by the fact of marriage to a well-known politician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- For better or worse, "accomplishment" is irrelevant. What's relevant is coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG, and that often comes for prominent political spouses. I think NOTINHERITED gets misapplied here. It means, here on Wikipedia, simply arguing that a person has a connection to someone or something notable is not sufficient grounds to prove notability. But coverage in sources is, and they're under no such restrictions. For example, Jeanette Rubio is notable because she's been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, period. Those reliable sources may have only covered her because of her connection to someone more notable, but that's not really our business. GNG is GNG, regardless of how it was earned.
- Now, not all political spouses are going to get this kind of coverage. This is not a blanket endorsement of such articles, but it is to say NOTINHERITED can be a red herring in these cases. Trying to judge if someone is "worthy" of coverage or trying to carve out exceptions to GNG like this sets us on a dangerous path, IMO. Neutrality means deferring to reliable sources to determine notability, whether we like the conclusions they reach or not. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with BDD. GNG trumps all, and NOTINHERITED should only apply when there is no significant coverage of the individual. Many famous people don't do anything at all except exist and gather news coverage. E.M.Gregory brings up an important point that it would be helpful to clarify the guidelines to reflect these issues and I like the way it's been tentatively worded. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The overriding guideline should be GNG. No political spouse should be deemed notable solely for being a political spouse. However, many political spouses do garner significant news coverage solely for the reason that they are married to a pol. I think that an added requirement, similar to that of corpdepth, is warranted. The coverage should not solely consist of local sources, national coverage should be the benchmark. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Problem is that WP:INHERIT states: "Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." (2nd to last paragraph,) The exception to this is: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does, after 1932 at least.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was being too America-centric when I wrote the opening post here. We need wording that can be used in other countries, and also cover the the relationships of politicians with of Billy Carter, Francis A. Nixon, and Anne Pingeot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Proposing this addition to penultimate paragraph of INHERIT: ": Exceptions are made for individuals with relationships to holders of holders of high office or candidates for high office when coverage sufficient to pass WP: GNG exists; this is true even in cases where the relative lacks adequate claim to notability apart from the relationship, and where the coverage is caused by that relationship.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- New, improved proposal to replace entire 2nd to last paragraph of WP:INHERIT (because User:BDD is right.): Relatives and other individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people must meet WP:GNG standards before they can have an independent article. The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. However, individuals with relationships to highly important people can have articles when coverage of them sufficient to pass WP:GNG exists, even in cases where published coverage of such an individual stems entirely from a personal relationship and the individual lacks an independent claim to notability. Examples include individuals with relationships to holders of holders of high office and candidates for high office (such as spouses of major politicians). It does not include newborn babies of celebrities even when such births receive a worldwide flurry of press coverage. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like the addition in principle, but I don't know if it's really necessary to talk about officeholders at all. We can go with something more concise: "Individuals may still have coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG even if they are best known for their relationship to another notable person."
- I'd rather not get into the issue of newborns here, which feels a bit CREEPy, perhaps in two ways. The child of a celebrity probably shouldn't have an article, but a royal baby, for example, probably should. Little Prince George is a good example of what I'm arguing here. He's quite literally done nothing any other two-year-old has done, but I don't think there's even a question that he's Wikipedia notable. This hasn't happened for quite a while, but it's very possible a baby born to a sitting US president would be in a similar situation. If we're going to offer guidance on these issues, I think NOTINHERITED is already pretty crowded. Wikipedia:Famous babies? Wikipedia:Notability (babies)? (Somewhat tongue in cheek.)
- Finally, for a non-US example, see Sarah Jane Brown, especially the absurd number of move requests there. These are definitely some questions that came up there. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem is with articles like Sarah Jane Brown, but we have to address it in its most problematic form, i.e., Jeanette Rubio, or Michael Haley (South Carolina) - no argument for notability "even if they are best known for their relationship", they are not merely "best known for" but "only notable for" coverage generated by relationship, this includes Nancy Hanks Lincoln or Martha Washington.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Proposing shorter version: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they passWP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Missing guideline on "Did not win"
I propose we use an essay to cover the "Did not win" section as the examples alone only cover what not to do. It's usually important, although not required, to cover anything wiki-related in an essay to help the reader understand the content of the policy/guideline.
A link to the proposed essay can be found here.
P.S.: If you support the measure but think the proposed essay needs to changed, vote "Oppose"; vote "Fix" instead.
Too much content
You wouldn't think of an essay having too much content, but I remember the original article having only a handful of arguments that were generally and universally accepted to be not suitable in deletion discussions. This article has over 50 argument types. Are these all considered universally incorrect arguments which immediately should be discounted? Can any of them be consolidated together? It's a bit difficult to read this article in its current state.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Creating a redirect
I'm not familiar with redirects to Wikipedia guidelines: a little while ago another user added some (in my eyes at least) unnecessary external links, and in their edit summary they said "won't hurt"; I reverted their edit and wrote "WP:WONTHURT is not a reason to keep something". Is it okay, or even possible, to create a redirect, like WP:DOESNTHURT? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)