This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
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)
@ Onel5969 and Megalibrarygirl:
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)
Hi everyone,
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)
The editors' names and dates who nominated these articles for deletion should be removed. 2601:640:4080:5960:1CDC:B452:457C:94D0 ( talk) 20:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't count the number of times I've seen an editor argue that they should get their way because if they don't, it proves Wikipedia is doomed and this is the last straw for them. "If this article is deleted I'm finished with Wikipedia", and so forth. Usually accompanied by some statistic on editor retention from the news. There's probably several variations of the passive-aggressive blackmail !vote. Sort of a Argumentum ad baculum if you are to believe that Wikipedia can't possibly go on without this one editor, or the threat that deleting this article and driving away this edtior will make Wikipedia look bad, or begging for mercy if it's a more matter of eliciting pity. Another relative is saying that if the article is kept (or deleted) it proves AfD is broken.
I was surprised to find it not listed here. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The top and bottom of the page may help readers where else to click. However, what about the shortcuts? After WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON discussion, time may be now for discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added a brief section here based on the RFC. Anyone please feel free to edit. Pinging Jbhunley since he updated the SCHOOLOUTCOMES page itself and might be interested. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering - would it be possible to have something in the WP:ITEXISTS section that mentions people? The reason for this is that I will frequently mention this section when it comes to professions like so:
It's pretty common that I or others will say something like this and even reference this section, however I just noticed that it doesn't mention people despite the section saying "it". I was just thinking that having a small mention of it applying to professions would help, but especially since we could then have a redirect "IEXIST". Mostly this is just because I don't want people to get upset and think that we're referring to them as an "it". Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be worth mentioning that a statement like "I'm sure there are sources" isn't good enough, there has to be actual evidence of sources. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 21:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Likewise with "I know it's notable" Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 21:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved this new section here for discussion:
- PR sources only
Examples:
- Delete All of the sources are PR. – PRonly, 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete All of the sources are promotional, because newspapers and magazines published the articles. – All-sources-are-the-same, 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The articles provide positive coverage about the company, so they all must be PR. – Positive=negative, 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The articles are published in reliable sources, but they are all PR-based because I say so. – Isayso, 00:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes users claim that all of the available sources for a topic are derived from PR as an absolute, but provide no proof for such claims other than proof by assertion, hunches, personal opinion and unresearched speculation. In general, an indication of legitimate news coverage is an article published with a byline from a staff writer of a publication with editorial oversight. One means of determining whether or not a source is a press release is to perform a search in a search engine using the title of the article. Oftentimes, legitimate news articles published by reliable sources are hosted on the publisher's website and a limited number of affiliate websites, as well as some unauthorized "copycat" websites. Conversely, press releases may have the same article hosted on many various public relations websites such as PR Newswire, Marketwired, Business Wire and the like. See also: WP:CRUSADE.
It seems like the key issue here is "but provide no proof for such claims...", but that's an issue with any argument. It is the case that, sometimes, most or all of the sources about a subject (a company's awards ceremony, a new internet company...) come from press releases or other PR work, and that is an important point to make. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Advice on recognizing astroturf PR could be added to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, along with scraper sites that indiscriminately aggregate questionable content, or lazy, understaffed news blogs that take press releases and give them a light paraphrase. All RS stuff, not arguments to avoid. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Bold additions to this arguments to avoid page are fine, but this is the second time recently we've had one that begs the question "What counts as a source?" If you have the correct answer to that question, then your argument based on it is valid. One should not avoid arguments in the form "sources a, b, and c demonstrate notability". That's about the best possible argument. The question is, is the premise of that argument valid? Meaning, are sources a, b, and c good enough, and are there enough of them? The policy Wikipedia:Notability covers these questions, along with WP:RS. Here is not the place for yet another essay on what these policies mean.
Also, this entry was 800+ words long, which is about five times as long as the other entries, on a page that already really long. If there is consensus to add this it would need to be much shorter. If there is that much to say about this a new essay page should be created for it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
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)
@ Onel5969 and Megalibrarygirl:
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)
Hi everyone,
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)
The editors' names and dates who nominated these articles for deletion should be removed. 2601:640:4080:5960:1CDC:B452:457C:94D0 ( talk) 20:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't count the number of times I've seen an editor argue that they should get their way because if they don't, it proves Wikipedia is doomed and this is the last straw for them. "If this article is deleted I'm finished with Wikipedia", and so forth. Usually accompanied by some statistic on editor retention from the news. There's probably several variations of the passive-aggressive blackmail !vote. Sort of a Argumentum ad baculum if you are to believe that Wikipedia can't possibly go on without this one editor, or the threat that deleting this article and driving away this edtior will make Wikipedia look bad, or begging for mercy if it's a more matter of eliciting pity. Another relative is saying that if the article is kept (or deleted) it proves AfD is broken.
I was surprised to find it not listed here. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The top and bottom of the page may help readers where else to click. However, what about the shortcuts? After WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON discussion, time may be now for discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added a brief section here based on the RFC. Anyone please feel free to edit. Pinging Jbhunley since he updated the SCHOOLOUTCOMES page itself and might be interested. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering - would it be possible to have something in the WP:ITEXISTS section that mentions people? The reason for this is that I will frequently mention this section when it comes to professions like so:
It's pretty common that I or others will say something like this and even reference this section, however I just noticed that it doesn't mention people despite the section saying "it". I was just thinking that having a small mention of it applying to professions would help, but especially since we could then have a redirect "IEXIST". Mostly this is just because I don't want people to get upset and think that we're referring to them as an "it". Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be worth mentioning that a statement like "I'm sure there are sources" isn't good enough, there has to be actual evidence of sources. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 21:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Likewise with "I know it's notable" Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 21:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved this new section here for discussion:
- PR sources only
Examples:
- Delete All of the sources are PR. – PRonly, 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete All of the sources are promotional, because newspapers and magazines published the articles. – All-sources-are-the-same, 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The articles provide positive coverage about the company, so they all must be PR. – Positive=negative, 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The articles are published in reliable sources, but they are all PR-based because I say so. – Isayso, 00:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes users claim that all of the available sources for a topic are derived from PR as an absolute, but provide no proof for such claims other than proof by assertion, hunches, personal opinion and unresearched speculation. In general, an indication of legitimate news coverage is an article published with a byline from a staff writer of a publication with editorial oversight. One means of determining whether or not a source is a press release is to perform a search in a search engine using the title of the article. Oftentimes, legitimate news articles published by reliable sources are hosted on the publisher's website and a limited number of affiliate websites, as well as some unauthorized "copycat" websites. Conversely, press releases may have the same article hosted on many various public relations websites such as PR Newswire, Marketwired, Business Wire and the like. See also: WP:CRUSADE.
It seems like the key issue here is "but provide no proof for such claims...", but that's an issue with any argument. It is the case that, sometimes, most or all of the sources about a subject (a company's awards ceremony, a new internet company...) come from press releases or other PR work, and that is an important point to make. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Advice on recognizing astroturf PR could be added to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, along with scraper sites that indiscriminately aggregate questionable content, or lazy, understaffed news blogs that take press releases and give them a light paraphrase. All RS stuff, not arguments to avoid. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Bold additions to this arguments to avoid page are fine, but this is the second time recently we've had one that begs the question "What counts as a source?" If you have the correct answer to that question, then your argument based on it is valid. One should not avoid arguments in the form "sources a, b, and c demonstrate notability". That's about the best possible argument. The question is, is the premise of that argument valid? Meaning, are sources a, b, and c good enough, and are there enough of them? The policy Wikipedia:Notability covers these questions, along with WP:RS. Here is not the place for yet another essay on what these policies mean.
Also, this entry was 800+ words long, which is about five times as long as the other entries, on a page that already really long. If there is consensus to add this it would need to be much shorter. If there is that much to say about this a new essay page should be created for it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)