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.|
Another argument to add?
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:
|section example Click [show] for further details.|
Being the first example of something or one of the few examples of its type can occasionally help garner coverage in reliable sources, but being rare does not always guarantee notability and being the first to do something does automatically mean that the page should be kept on that basis alone. We would still require coverage in reliable sources to show that the subject passes notability guidelines. On the other hand, being the first or few of its type does not automatically mean that coverage does not exist to show that the accomplishment is automatically non-notable.
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.
- 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?
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.
Spacing and trimming example usernames
I love how the usernames in the examples are witty and fitting with the theme. Some of them, however, are approaching full sentences and include spaces. This leads to confusion when reading the examples, even more so for the editors most likely reading this page who are not as familiar with deletion discussion. Names such as "I just cannot accept it" and "Who has the secret?" read more like continuations of the !vote rather than signatures -- even while I knew that each example was signed I still sometimes got myself confused. I think an easy solution would be to reduce the spacing in these examples, moving ones like "I just cannot accept it" to something like "NotAccepting" and the like, but was wondering if anyone else had other suggestions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.