Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

DEFUNCTS

From the discussions at Talk:Listed buildings in Scalthwaiterigg#Proposed merge of Listed buildings in Skelsmergh with Listed buildings in Scalthwaiterigg, Talk:Listed buildings in Whitwell and Selside#Proposed merge of Listed buildings in Fawcett Forest with Listed buildings in Whitwell and Selside and Talk:Grade I listed buildings in East Suffolk District#Possible Merger? and CFDs Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Category:Armidale Dumaresq Shire and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Category:Thedwastre Hundred (no consensus) it may be worth mentioning that although articles on defunct municipalities or districts should not generally be deleted or merged with the current ones that lists and categories (apart from things directly relating to it like elections etc) are often deleted/merged when it comes to lists and categories. Obviously if a municipality or district is renamed then the current name should be used with the old name redirecting to it rather that being a separate article. For example the current municipality Selside and Fawcett Forest as well as the merged ones (Fawcett Forest and Whitwell and Selside) have separate articles and shouldn't be merged but the lists should namely Listed buildings in Fawcett Forest and Listed buildings in Whitwell and Selside were merged into Listed buildings in Selside and Fawcett Forest. Similarly East Suffolk District as well as the merged Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District exist but the lists were merged to Grade I listed buildings in East Suffolk District. On the other hand if renamed rather than abolished we don't have an article for both names like Ansty and Staplefield (new name) with Cuckfield Rural (old name) redirecting there. Similarly Category:Daventry District now only contains things directly related to the district and other articles were moved to the current district. @PamD:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Headings

I think that the headings for this page should be phrased such that it is clear that they are fallacies (e.g. someone might think that "Notability is Inherited" is a valid argument in the page's current state). This follows the convention of, for example, List of common misconceptions. Godtres (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding tragedy and death count as a notability fallacy

I commonly see the level of tragedy or the number of deaths during an event cited as a reason why an event is/isn't notable. Obviously this isn't a valid argument under any notability criteria, but it's common enough that I think that it warrants inclusion here.

I've listed some instances of this argument being used, all from the last two months. Note that there were many more instances, I specifically chose ones where it was the only justification rather than one in a list of justifications.

I propose that the following be added to the bottom of "notability fallacies":

Tragedy

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  • Keep Twelve people died, obviously notable. –DyingIsNotable (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Huge tragedy, so sad. –EmotionalResponse (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete Everyone was fine. –NoHarmNoFoul (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep People died. How can you be so heartless to delete this? –HolierThanThou (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:NEVENTS because hundreds of people died. –DidNotReadNEVENTS (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if it has coverage, there were only three deaths. –CanCountTo3 (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep We need more articles like this to balance all of the sad articles. –AlwaysAnOptimist (talk), 0:00, 08 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not something is tragic does not affect its notability. While there are many notable places or events where people were hurt or killed, it does not inherently confer notability. Events such as crimes and accidents still require significant sustained coverage from secondary sources as described by WP:GNG. Tragedies often receive a brief burst of news coverage shortly after they occur, but this is not sufficient to claim notability. Some events can be so disastrous that they are inherently notable under WP:NEVENTS, but this requires significant social or political ramifications as described by WP:EFFECT, well beyond those caused by a typical deadly incident.

I'm open to different wording or examples, but this is a common notability fallacy, and it would be helpful if it was included in some form. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well... I understand the motivation, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. Reduced to its unemotional basic form, these comments really mean "Keep, because the subject has a quality that is generally associated with a lot of media coverage". If you really need this page to say something, then you could add an example to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's in the news, but frankly, I doubt that it's worth doing.
I don't know if you noticed, but in every one of the diffs you gave, the AFD result was in line with the supposedly "bad" rationale. AFD isn't supposed to be a debating club or a logic class. It's meant to make a decision. If people get the right result, but explain the reason poorly (e.g., saying "deadliest shooting so far" instead of "deadliest shooting so far, and you know such an unusual event is going to produce a huge number of sources"), then it's not necessarily the kind of thing we need to warn them away from. Also, Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions anyway, so adding it here won't stop people from saying the thing that irritates you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The fact that these keep closing in favor of bad rationales when policy is against them is the problem. WP:N and WP:NEVENTS suggest that most if not all of these were the incorrect result, but "people died and it created a brief burst of primary source coverage" keeps tilting the scale. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this (alone) would have any kind of impact. You would first have to get rid of the WP:THREE fetish. The idea that three reliable, in-depth, independent sources are necessary and sufficient for notability seems to be deeply ingrained. And as wrong as that is (in both directions) it would take a major readjustment to get rid of it. As long as it persists the fact that such events will almost always be covered by at least three such sources means that the "tragedy argument" can practically always be replaced by the "three argument". So while I agree that it is a bad argument I don't see adding it having a real effect unless WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, etc get taken more seriously. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
More or less agree with the above; I don't think this will solve the problem its intended to solve 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If you want to go after the "three dogma" (according to which three reliable, in-depth, independent sources are necessary and sufficient for notability) you could see if you can work something out with some of the anti-fringe editors (I'd be interested in such a discussion myself, too). Recently some people have argued that WP:SENSATION should be strengthened to get rid of articles on alleged UFO sightings even when three usually reliable sources cover them in-depth when that coverage is uncritical. A recent case was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2007_Alderney_UFO_sighting. The result was the same as in your "tragedy cases": consensus was that it passed WP:GNG because of the sources. jps in particular may someone to talk to. This is from a current WP:FTN discussion:
WP:SENSATION really ought to be expanded into a full policy and the UFO nonsense is perhaps the best exemplar of why and when we should basically ignore even erstwhile "WP:HQRS" This is a fight that we've been having a lot more recently and it is likely to only get worse until we truly nail down how to handle this sort of thing when it comes fast and furious from the media. jps[[1]] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, WP:SUSTAINED has been the weakest link of notability discussions, even though it's arguably the most important part of sorting notable encyclopedic topics from run of the mill stories. There's also the related issue of people describing WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources as GNG-fulfilling secondary sources (which I attribute to schools not teaching the distinction of primary/secondary/tertiary very well). But WP:SENSATION is definitely also relevant. I think the sustained and sensation aspects might blend into each other a little bit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I think an important problem is that these things are so hard to nail down. Any definition will be to an extent arbitrary. And then there is the issue of applying those definitions. In the case of WP:SUSTAINED there is the additional complication that articles are written almost immediately after an event. That means that there is a WP:CRYSTALBALL element involved. For past events we could try to apply a criterion on whether or not there are sources about them that appeared x months/years after the event. But that won't help with current events -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
As I see it, the solution is to determine whether the sources are primary (breaking news or updates of unfolding events) or secondary (retrospective analysis after the event is no longer unfolding). For events that don't meet GNG with sustained significant coverage in secondary sources, including current events, there's one alternative: WP:NEVENTS. If it doesn't meet either of those, then it should not have an article. WP:DELAY is relevant here. The real problem, of course, is getting the "brief burst of coverage equals notability" crowd to stop participating disruptively at AfD, which is especially difficult when AfD admins are often unwilling to make closes that upset them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
"Disruptive" is not synonymous with "disagrees with me." The majority of the people contributing the diffs mentioned above are established editors (including one who has been an administrator since 2005) in good standing, and the only thing "disruptive" about their participation seems to be that they hold a different opinion than you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Disagreeing is not disruptive. But making up one's own notability standards in AfD discussions in complete disregard for actual notability guidelines? That absolutely is. The fact that established editors are doing this makes it more of a problem, not less. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this more a case of different interpretations of the rules. There are two points. The first is whether or not meeting WP:GNG is sufficient for notability. From what I have seen it seems to be common practice to make this assumption despite the fact that according to its wording topics meeting GNG are merely presumed to be notable. But of course GNG shifts the burden of proof to those against inclusion, i.e. once GNG is met proponents of inclusion do not have to prove that other criteria like WP:SUSTAINED are met, instead opponents of inclusion have to prove that they are not met. At least that is my interpretation of "presumed" and "assumption" in GNG. The other point is what sources are accepted for GNG. As you said there seems to be a common practice of using pretty much any reliable news source; which goes against WP:PRIMARYNEWS. This is also something that has come up again and again in the discussions on UFO articles like the one I mentioned above: sources that merely report that someone said that they saw something are used to argue that GNG is met. Meanwhile those opposed to inclusion of such topics point out the lack of critical analysis and scientific investigation and point to WP:SENSATION. But any attempt at changing this dynamic would require a much larger discussion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Per nominator/X"

I disagree that "per nominator" or "per [user]" is inappropriate for AfD per the reasoning here, and given how often I see it, I question whether it has consensus in practice. I propose that the section be removed (or deprecated, if there is an alternative process to preserve history). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree. Basically, "per X" should be accorded the strength of "X". If X says "Nom hates this article, lack of RS is just a pretext for his hate" and Y says, "Per X" neither one should count for much. If X gives a detailed source analysis showing why an article meets GNG, and Y says "per X" that's a very, very different thing. More to the point, in the second case, saying "I agree with X about notability" should not really be treated any differently. Is it? Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's a big difference between merely saying "per nom", and saying "per nom, because X". - jc37 21:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    Should there be? If you make a great argument, what is the real logical difference between "Per Jc37" and "Per Jc37 because <restates argument>"? Isn't that just penalizing editors who don't necessarily know what they need to do to make their opinion "count"? Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    I know this may sound harsh, but if they don't know the basics of WP:CON, then they should probably not be participating in a straw poll.
    I'm of the opinion we should do everything we can to move away from this idea that "drive-by voting" is acceptable and ok.
    Consensus means discussion.
    And, knowing who I'm talking to, my guess is that you and I agree on most of this? I'm curious where the disconnect might be. - jc37 00:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't exactly have a shallow learning curve. If a newcomer has reached a debate and wants to participate in good faith, they shouldn't be penalized just because they haven't had a chance to read the 3000-word WP:CON page yet and didn't realize that one of two logically equivalent ways of commenting is given more weight than the other. Understanding the concept of consensus is a requirement for closing/acting on the outcome of any discussion, but it is not a requirement for participating.
    The thing I'm more concerned about is incentives, though. The existence of this section incentivizes editors to reiterate what others have written, which is (a) a waste of their time, and (b) leads to a ton of duplication that makes discussions unwieldy in the same way that bludgeoning does, wasting everyone else's time. Overall, if someone else has made a complete argument that fully represents my thinking, it seems to me that the most honest thing to do is to just say that by saying "per X." {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    I just said the "basics" of WP:CON. That to determine things on Wikipedia, we come together and discuss. And after a time (set or open) someone may cme along and assess the discussion and may "close" it for an outcome. That doesn't take 3000 words.
    Yet, we have all-too-many editors who think this is like an election. Drop your vote in the box and drive on. And "how dare you try to discuss my vote with me". This lack of engagement with one's fellow editors needs to be fought against with both hands. - jc37 05:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, I agree and disagree with pretty much everyone here on some thing or another. I try and focus on good ways to improve the encyclopedia, rather than just loyalty to a perceived faction. In specific, I've seen editors argue at DRV that a "Per X" carries less weight even though X's argument was well articulated and policy based and didn't really need anything added to it. I don't think Per X should be encouraged per se, but rather that a Per X where X really made a good argument shouldn't be discounted just because someone else has failed to rephrase X--I know I've said "Keep per Cunard" (or Daranios, both editors who have a habit of developing great sourcing for things that I've not been able to) when I should have said, "Keep as Cunard's sourcing clearly demonstrates a GNG pass." I like to think neither indicates a drive by, even if there's not much left to say in light of sourcing found. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, but you also understand CON. The point of the entry here isn't to disallow "per nom". It says "avoid it". It needs to be here to inform editors who might otherwise think that driveby voting is ok. This isn't a prohibition. It's a bit of a warning and a "be aware that..."
    And it really depends on the nomination too. If there is a nomination (or an essay, for that matter) that clearly says everything I would say, then sure, I've said "per nom", myself.
    But I do that, aware of the hazard that some new info may show up, which might have more weight than the nom, or which the nom didn't cover. In that case, my comments are likely to get less weight than something more clear in response. And that's how it goes sometimes. - jc37 05:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions/Archive_16&oldid=1217231494"