User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments

I'm starting this page because I'm starting to notice that I'm making the same arguments on several AfD talk pages and would like to avoid paragraph long entries. Below are the most common questions and concerns I've seen come up on these deletion discussions. For a page that's slightly more specific about authors, read this.

Basics

• Why is this up for deletion?

• If your page is up for deletion, it's likely that it didn't pass notability guidelines and/or lacks coverage in reliable sources. Everything must pass notability guidelines to remain here on Wikipedia, regardless of its subject matter.

• But this exists! Doesn't that matter for anything?

• In a nutshell, no. It doesn't. Existing does not equate to notability. (WP:ITEXISTS)

• Wait- I see that (random topic) has an article and it's far less notable in my eyes than (subject at hand). Why does that have an article that remains on Wikipedia?

• The existence of other articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that the article up for deletion should remain on Wikipedia. Just because an article on Spielberg's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate is on Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should be here. Sometimes the existence of such an article only means that the article in question hasn't been seen and nominated. Other times the other page usually remains on Wikipedia because it does fulfill one of the criteria to pass notability guidelines. Either way, pointing something out doesn't argue towards keeping an article unless you're pointing it out to show how it remained on Wikipedia because it was kept on a point that would absolutely apply to the article at hand. Precedent does help out somewhat, but it's fairly rare when you get down to it. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

• This was done because they're a hater. Close this AfD immediately.

• Whoah there. While some times we have nominations that are way beyond obvious attempts to attack a subject matter, you have to assume good faith. Sometimes the people coming on to nominate your favorite Star Wars book aren't really here to show their distaste for Timothy Zahn. They might genuinely believe that the article doesn't pass notability guidelines and unless you can prove that they're operating in bad faith, you shouldn't accuse them of such. Accusations can sometimes end up backfiring and making you look bad, putting the integrity of your edits and opinion in jeopardy. I won't lie- it's hard to assume good faith, but you have to unless you can prove otherwise. If there's a valid argument for deletion, then the AfD will remain up until it reaches its natural close, either by a speedy keep or by it closing after the 7 days are up and being kept or deleted. Barring it getting extended for another week, anyway. (WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT)

• The author/creator is notable, so this is notable by extension.

• Notability is not inherited by the subject having an association with someone notable. You might argue that the film "Bikini Babes from Outer Space" had an Oscar winner in it, but that doesn't mean that the film is notable. The only time you can say that notability is inherited is when you have someone that's so overwhelmingly notable that they're a household name everywhere. For an example of one such person I'd suggest William Shakespeare. He's pretty much one of the few people who would be at this level of notability. The catch to this is that since he's so overwhelmingly notable, it's almost a given that anything he's created would have been covered in reliable sources. (WP:NOTINHERITED)

• This is popular. How can you say it's not notable?

• Popularity doesn't equate to notability on Wikipedia. All popularity means is that it's more likely that someone will cover it in a reliable source. You can have a person that's received more than a thousand visitors a second to their site, yet still never gained any coverage in reliable sources. (WP:ITSPOPULAR)

• This is the only thing of its type and it's the first to do this (or conversely it's one of the few of its type) - why doesn't that count?

• Accomplishing something or being the only example of something may help gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee of actual coverage. We would still require coverage for several reasons. The first is that we need coverage in reliable sources to back up the claims that they were the first/only of its kind. For example, a lot of teenagers and children like to claim that they're the first person to create a full-length movie at a young age, but without proof that they are the youngest person we have to assume that this claim is inherently false as there were likely more than a few to create such a film and even show it at a local get-together. Even after the claims are proven, we still need to have enough coverage to show that this accomplishment is notable. At some level there will always be something new to pioneer or a new spin to put on something, so just being the first isn't always a guarantee of notability. The same argument applies to something that is one of only a few examples of its kind.

Sources

• Why do I need sourcing? Isn't my word good enough?

• Sorry, but no. Every article needs some form of reliable sourcing to prove the claims made in the article. A lack of RS is often a trigger for many AfDs. Even if you're the head of a college or Jimbo himself, you'll need to back your claims up with something other than you writing something on Wikipedia. (WP:TRUE)

• But this is obviously notable/true. You know it's notable/true. Why do I need to source it?

• Because sometimes claims are wrong and (more likely) the claims of "totally notable" don't match up with what Wikipedia considers to be notable. A great example of "obviously notable" would be your average genre author that hits the NYT bestsellers list. I've had multiple instances where I've started working on an article for an author in my userspace, only to discover that the author really hasn't gotten much or any coverage and wouldn't pass notability guidelines. It's frustrating because they're well known within their genre, but still don't pass notability guidelines. (WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE)

• No, you don't understand. This person/place/thing is the best thing ever and angels wept at its/their creation because it was so great.

• One thing to be careful of is approaching an article deletion with a bias. You may have good intentions, but if you're going into something with any form of a conflict of interest (be it personal, professional, or otherwise), then you need to make sure that you view things from both sides. I've had AfDs where I really, REALLY wanted to vote a certain way but couldn't because the notability (or lack thereof) was pretty obvious. This is especially something to watch out for if you're actually involved with the subject matter, such as being the author of a book or the cousin of a painter. You're more likely to see notability where there might not be any. (WP:COI)

• People say "reliable sources" but what is a reliable source?

• Reliable sources are mentions of the subject in places that Wikipedia considers to be a reliable and verifiable source, such as many newspapers, news programs, and books. Note that I said Wikipedia. You and I might both know that "Billy Bob's Blog o' Books" has put out quality reviews for years and that the interviews are actually with the people that they claim to be. It's just that he's not someone that Wikipedia considers to be a trusted/absolute authority. (WP:RS)

• Wait, aren't blogs usable as a source? And what do you mean by "trusted/absolute authority"

• Sometimes. It all boils down to verifiability and whether or not the person is seen to be a trusted/absolute authority and what the person is writing about. Most times, as in the case with Billy Bob's blog, the person running the blog isn't a trusted/absolute authority. By this I mean that they aren't someone who is routinely quoted in scholarly texts or other outlets. For example, if I were to start up a movie blog right now, I wouldn't be seen as a reliable source. My opinions might be true, but there's no way to verify that I'm not writing something to the specifications of the movie studio. However if I manage to get to the point where Rotten Tomatoes lists me as one of their trusted critics on the Tomatometer, then my blog would be usable because RT has verified me in some way. Another example would be where I write a blog about zebras and get quoted once by a newspaper, that doesn't make me an authority. If I had a degree in zebra-ology and published several scholarly texts in peer-reviewed journals, that would make me an authority to where my blog could maybe be used as a reliable source. Even then you'd still have to make sure that my blog has undergone some sort of scrutiny and in most cases this usually requires that my blog get regularly cited in various reliable sources. Most times the blogs are written by average Janes and Joes, which doesn't really amount to much as far as Wikipedia goes. The exception to the "get a bazillion degrees before you're an authority" is if the person is extremely notable and/or held a very big position, such as being the editor in chief of the New York Times. (WP:SPS)

• Why are people saying that the page lacks coverage in RS? Don't they see how many cites I put in the page?

• You might want to look at what people are saying about those sources. If the sources are unreliable and/or only trivial mentions (meaning that the subject is only briefly mentioned), then they won't show notability no matter how many you add. No amount of trivial (WP:TRIVIAL) or unreliable sources equal out to one in-depth and reliable source, no matter how many you add. If anything, overciting a page with unreliable sources will make people assume that the subject is wildly non-notable because if you had an in-depth source, you'd have added it. It's better to minimalize the amount of cites. 80+ unreliable sources on a subject won't change a thing. The only exception to this is if the trivial source mentions that the topic accomplished something that is extremely notable such as a book receiving a Newberry Medal or a journalist receiving a Pulitzer Prize. (WP:OVERCITE, WP:CITESPAM)

• I've heard people say that an article can be kept on one cite. Why can't my article be kept based on this one in-depth review by the NYT?

• The instances where an article can be kept based on one source are insanely rare. This usually ends up being instances where the subject has won an award or distinction that is so overwhelmingly notable that it merits a keep on that basis alone. Most articles will need at least 3-5 in-depth and reliable sources to comfortably pass. Why most? Because if a subject has received a lot of recent coverage, it could run the risk of falling under WP:ONEEVENT. (This usually applies to people, such as "Sally ate a live scorpion and got coverage in 100+ news sources".)

• My book/film/subject won an award or got this level of distinction. Why are people telling me that this doesn't count?

• Most awards and distinctions do not count towards notability in the slightest. I'd say that less than 5% of the awards and distinctions out there contribute towards notability, and that's counting every award/distinction that exists or did exist. Of that 5%, I'd say that .5% are of the caliber that would give total notability. For example, let's say that old Billy Bob gave "Eating Spiders for Fun and Profit" his award for best business book of the year. That award would not be notable, nor would an award given by the local film festival for the movie tie-in. Now if the film festival was particularly notable then it (the award) would contribute to notability, but it probably wouldn't give absolute notability unless it was on the level of an Oscar.

• People just found more sources when I didn't find any. Why should I change my argument?

• If they found enough coverage in RS to show notability, then the article should be kept. It's always a bit embarrassing to say that you missed something or were wrong, but in those cases it's usually better to bite the bullet and change your vote in those instances where you check in on an AfD you previously debated on. Search engines (especially Google) can be fickle when it comes to finding sources. Most times the lack of sources will show up uniformly across the boards, but sometimes a simple change in words in the search field or a difference in spelling can make a huge difference. Also, some people have access to databases that others do not. For example, I have access to a large amount of academic databases via my college's library so I can sometimes find sources that would not show up in a regular search.

Consensus and arguments

• There are fifty "keep" votes to your "delete" vote. Why was the article deleted?

• AfDs aren't decided on a vote, but on the weight and strength of the arguments. We've had several instances where several people voiced keep arguments on a deletion discussion, yet they didn't keep the page. Even if you ask every person you know to log in and vote, that doesn't guarantee a keep result unless they can base it on guidelines and make it convincing. Nor does creating several accounts to vote. If anything, doing one or both could result in your getting blocked from Wikipedia, depending on how you go about these things. Sockpuppeting for AfDs is pretty much one of the worst things you can do to support the article. I also need to add that this works the other way - one good policy based "keep" argument can result in an article being kept, if the delete arguments aren't strong enough. (WP:NOTAVOTE)

• Why should I listen to (random user)? They're obviously ignorant because (insert reason here).

• Be very, very careful about how you discuss other users. Saying that the other user's argument is invalid because they're not a true believer or because they misspelled a word will almost always backfire on you. You could have been making extremely skilled arguments for or against the article, but saying that Editor A is a doody head and/or is the missing link will depreciate the value of anything you have or will say from that point on, unless it's to say that someone hacked your account. (And even then, that claim would be viewed with some skepticism and result in you losing access to the account since we then can't trust that you're you.) (WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH)

• Why are people refuting my argument?

• Sometimes people like to debate arguments made by others in order to clarify or argue against a claim. Sometimes people would like some clarity on your claims. Saying "fails WP:GNG" is succinct, but sometimes people would like to know how it fails WP:GNG. It's usually better to elaborate slightly by saying a little more, such as that you looked for sources and could find none.

Etiquette

• People are saying nasty things about me. That's so mean!

• Sometimes people are harsh when it comes to AfD. I'd like to say that everyone goes to these with an open mind and a willingness to be proven wrong, but that's not always the case. Sometimes people go in with such a strong will to have something deleted or kept that they lose sight of WP:CIVILITY. Pretty much everyone has said or done something on an AfD (or on Wikipedia in general) that they're not proud of and feel like a jerk for saying/doing. Odds are that you'll keep doing this throughout your editing life here on Wikipedia. (Although if you're going around swearing at people and wishing death on them, your editing life will be fairly short.) If you find yourself getting into a shouting match or in a heated situation, the best thing to do is to get someone to step in and provide a third opinion. If possible, try to step away from the debate for a while to cool your head before you do or say something that can't be undone at all.

• Somebody just called me out as such and such. I'm creeped out that they know who I am in real life.

• This is one of those things that falls into an uncomfortable space on Wikipedia. Let's say that you wrote an article about yourself on Wikipedia or that you were someone who was paid/asked to create an article on Wikipedia by someone. If someone discovers that you have a huge conflict of interest, it's sometimes good to note this on the AfD discussion. This is because sometimes you'll have people coming on to Wikipedia and trying to hide that they're the author/director/subject because they're here to promote something. This doesn't mean that the editor should completely dox you. To avoid any unpleasant reveals, it's always better to be up front about who you are and what your relation is to the subject matter. This doesn't mean that you can't edit or contribute, but if people find about it after the fact then it greatly injure your arguments if they think you've been hiding it. I'm trying really hard to be nice about this, but if you want to write an article about yourself or something you did, your name is going to be out there anyway. Now as far as you being a paid editor, the same rule applies to an extent. If you're advertising your services, your information is out there to begin with. This doesn't mean that someone should use it to harass you or make you feel unsafe, but I've seen many instances where it was fairly easy to find out who was editing, partially because I've had instances where editors have used the same Internet handle to post in other places where they say that they're involved with the article topic. However I will note that the most that an editor should(state when discussing evidence of another editor's COI is that they've found evidence to suggest a potential COI. They should not give out your personal information, although something like "the editor's handle is the same one used as the film's director on Twitter" or similar is fine. WP:PRIVACY, WP:COI)

• No, you don't understand. I'm not related to the subject at all and someone is doxing me. (Or that you are, but the other person is going to release all of your personal details you'd like to keep private.)

• If this is the case, then it needs to be brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents fairly quickly. This can be seen as harassment and isn't kosher. While there is some reason to saying that User:ButterfliesAreFree is actually Don Baker and that he's editing on his own book, there is zero reason as to why private information such as his home address and contact information needs to be released onto Wikipedia. And there's zero reason for the personal information of an uninvolved editor to be released anywhere on the Internet without your consent. (WP:PRIVACY, WP:HARASS)

• I'm going to sue you all for harassment.

• Don't make this argument. Seriously. Making legal threats anywhere on Wikipedia is a blockable offense. If someone is harassing you to the point where you feel like your personal safety is at risk, bring it up at WP:ANI or WP:DR immediately. (In this case you should also contact the WMF immediately at emergencywikimedia.org.) If you feel that people are being incredibly unfair for no good reason, bring it up at WP:ANI or WP:DR. If you feel like someone's defaming you... yep- WP:ANI or WP:DR. Threatening to bring in a lawyer in order to get your way is not going to win any arguments or keep an article in a particular state. (WP:LEGALTHREAT)

• Why are people saying that I'm being rude? I didn't think I wrote anything bad.

• Always remember that you aren't there to give inflections to whatever you typed. You might have said "Snooki is the best author ever, I can't see why her works wouldn't get coverage", but even obvious sarcasm doesn't always come across on the Internet. We've had people who have said similar things in all seriousness, so people tend to take things at face value in many instances. As such, bluntness or certain phrasings can come across as you being rude or making a personal attack. If you're accused of this, it's a good idea to clarify what you meant and if necessary/appropriate, apologize.

See also

• The differences between academic papers and Wikipedia articles
• Author notability
• Notability for YouTube and social media personalities
• Reliability of Wikipedia