Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia discussions |
---|
Arguments to avoid in |
Arguments to make |
Common outcomes |
On Wikipedia,
While involved in a discussion, there are arguments that can make or break a case. Inclusion of material can hinge on what existing
Unlike a
Arguments without arguments
Just a vote
Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Include – ThoughtlessMcInclude 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove – ThoughtlessMcRemove 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include because it should be included – Because This 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove because it does not belong – Because That 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
It is important when engaging in a discussion that your comments are not
Per others
Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Include per consensus – Echo 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove since that is what everyone else wants – Copycat 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Discussions are a place where people present ideas in working toward a solution. Simply going along with the crowd does not present any new ideas. If you agree with one or more other users, you should specify why you think their ideas are good.
There must be sources
Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Include – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Prejudger 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include – There must be plenty of sources. Presumer 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include – You should find sources, instead of deleting it. ItsUpToYou 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
We keep content because we know it can be sourced, not because we assume it can, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.
Just pointing at a policy or guideline
Examples:
- Include Meets WP:NOR – Policylover, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)]
- Delete per WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)]
- Include because we should ignore all rules! – Anarwikist, 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)]
While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that content should be removed, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.
As noted
Keep in mind that content can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)
Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g.
Begging for mercy
Examples:
- Include I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? – DoNotHurtMe, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include You would be doing me a big favor if you changed your opinion – Mindchanger, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I need more time to work on it – Not Finished Yet, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I am on vacation now, and I won't be able to work on it until I get back home – InTahiti, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I placed this template on top of the page so my work wouldn't get deleted – ConstructionSign, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I placed hidden text next to my work telling others they were not supposed to delete it – WarningMarker, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)]
Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.
You should also make yourself familiar with
If you feel you need more time to work on new content, an option may be to request
Personal point of view
Article appearance
- Include Makes article look good – Vanity Fair (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove Makes article look bad – Eyesore Buster (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its
Personal taste
- Include I like it in there – All for me (talk), 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove I hate it in there – Yuck (talk) , 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include This is great, and I think it should stay. – Peacock (talk), 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
- Remove: No need. – WhoNeedsThis (talk), 06:07, 5 April 2004 (UTC)
- Remove: I'm so ashamed this article is on Wikipedia. – Mortified_Molly (talk), 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Remove: Got bored of reading. Not of interest to English-speakers. – HastyHannigan (talk), 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Remove: This makes me look stupid! – Reputation Defender (talk), 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove This offends me. – OnTheDefense (talk), 11:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Remove Does not belong here. – MembersOnly (talk), 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Remove That would never appear in a paper encyclopedia. – WebExclusive (talk), 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "
As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other
In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions.
It's interesting
- Include Makes the article more interesting – WOW 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove No one is interested in reading that – Boring! 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
There are many interesting facts out there. There are also lots of things you may perceive no one is interested in reading. You never know. Once again, this is opinion.
Simple truth
- Include Is verifiable – C4Urself 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include Is sourced – Good Enough 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
It's useful
Example:
- Include Useful. – Usefulisgood, 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Remove: We don't need this here. – Judgmental, 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include useful encyclopedic content. But many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded. Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.
A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikivoyage for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided unless it supports a cogent argument.
If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in
There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—
It doesn't do any harm
Examples:
- Include Why change this, it is not harming anyone. – Hippocrates2, 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Remove This content is very harmful to many people. Get rid of this now! – BiographyPolice, 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.
In some cases, such as
It's valuable
Examples:
- Include valuable. – Gollum, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC)
- Remove adds nothing of value – Scrooge, 05:05, 16 Demember 2012 (UTC)
- Include: This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our groundbreaking product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin,
- Include: This content is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – SaveTheKids!Please!,
- Remove: The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. – SaveTheTroops!Please!,
Value is subjective. Simply saying it has value or no value with out substantiating the position of why or how is not a helpful or persuasive contribution to a discussion. Remember, you need to say why the content is or is not valuable; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument.
Additionally, Wikipedia is
Surmountable problems
Quality of writing
- Remove Has a lot of misspelling and poor grammar. – English Teacher 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove This paragraph is messy and poorly laid out. – LostWillToFix,
- Remove It's not referenced properly – Lazy1, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include We'll find some sources later – NotRightNow, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Material that is included on Wikipedia is judged on its accuracy and strength of sourcing, not on the quality of writing. A paragraph or two that has spelling, grammar, or punctuation problems can always be corrected. Consider that
In the Wiki model, content which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such content is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and it can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such content is cleanup, not removal.
With that said, if content is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then removing it now, and possibly adding it back later, is often a better option. For example, problems like
Sources are inaccessible
- Remove The only sources given are offline. – Cantmakeittothelibrary, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove With only offline sources given, there is no proof that this is not a hoax. – The Secret Keeper, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]
- Remove One look online shows that this does not even exist. – Jumping to conclusions, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Google Books only allows you to see pages 1-45 of this book, and the source claims it's on page 57. – Restricted access, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove All the sources given have fallen victim to linkrot. Therefore, we have no way of knowing about this. – Evidence Destroyed, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]
- Remove The book sources don't have any ISBNs, so they must be fake. IAmANumber, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove The sources are behind a paywall. InformationWantsToBeFree, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I can't access this so I don't know if it's true. Suspicious, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I won't accept your argument until you cite sources I can check myself. NoTrust, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we
There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources.
Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)
Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Remove This hasn't been improved in 2 years! – TheyDidntWork, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Remove Creator has totally neglected this article – Plant and run, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Each time we discussed this, User:WantItKept promised they would improve it. But that never happened. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his promise. Last straw was long ago, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There are variants, such as "maybe someday but probably not" handwaving, and "who'll ever work on it?" attempts to skirt the rules:
- Include I know I can improve it, I just have no time now to explain how. PrettyPleaseWithACherryOnTop, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merge If we merge these two little stubs on basically the same topic, we'll have one crappy stub that's a little longer. Keeping them forked might attract an extra couple of editors. ShotgunSprayer
- Oppose split We do clearly have two unrelated topics with the same name in this article, but if we split them, we'll end up with very short stubs, and I don't see anyone volunteering to develop them. An Indiscriminate Smelter, 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes content is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited in a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the material is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. Content should be assessed on its own merits, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.
Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the content better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the fate of the content is not dependent on
Similarly, whether a merge, split, move, category/list conversion, userspacing/draftification, or other action might entail more long-term work, might not produce immediate major improvements, or exists in a state someone things "begs for attention" of a different kind, is never a rationale to avoid compliance with
Conversely, a vague suggestion that something reasonable might eventually come of substandard material is not a very good rationale for retaining it, especially if its compliance with policies and guidelines seems dubious. If the entire page is trash, but the subject does need an article, the
Exceptions:
- While "no work" sorts of arguments may not be good ones for removal of content, they often are excellent arguments for a merge of sections or pages in cases where an excessive number of undeveloped sections or redundant pages exist. (A counter-exception is that user essaysare usually left as-is.)
- Content of a potentially dubious nature that is about a living person, but which has not been sourced properly (or at all), should be removed on sight.
- Material that unambiguously is speedily deleted.)
- Other exceptions include sockpuppetsare typically struck rather than deleted, especially if others have already replied to them.
Relevance and significance fallacies
Sourcing
- Include Despite the fact there is no sourcing, I know this is accurate – KnowsBest 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, inclusion is based on
Personal knowledge
- Include I am an expert on this subject – TheUltimateAuthority 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include I work for this company and know this is about to happen there – Insider 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Unreliable sources
- Include Someone on this blog said that it is true – OneIsEnough 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include A friend told me about it on Facebook – Word of mouth 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include There is a whole web site devoted to this subject – Make It Notable Yourself, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include Look what I found about it on Twitter – Tweet Me, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or
Trivial information
- Include Without this information and the sources that come along with it, the article will be completely unreferenced, and will be in danger of deletion. – Anchor Baby, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Include In all the publicity this school has received, they mention this particular honors student – WayToGo!, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include This was mentioned in the community times – HighRatings, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include I heard someone say on the 5 o'clock news that the police have been called to this gas station – NuisanceProperty, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Remove One sentence is trivial coverage. HennyYoungman, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
In order to meet the
The subject doesn't have to be the main topic of the source material, as long as we have enough sources to write from a
Unchallenged material (or content age)
Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
- Include: Has remained in the article for 6 years already and no one has challenged it. – Dried up 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Oppose change: This page has said this since the wikiproject was started! – SovereignProject 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: I inserted that two months ago and no one objected then, thus it must have consensus. – UnclearOnTheConcept 14:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The argument also exists in inverted form:
- Remove: This has only been here for two days, and the page was stable before that. Why should we keep this addition? – StatusQuoStonewall Jackson 02:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
On Wikipedia,
Just as
There is a big difference between material that, on the one hand, someone simply inserted and no one bothered to talk about until now, and, on the other, material that has been repeatedly challenged and retained (by source- and/or policy-based consensus, not a
There is also a difference between A) resisting poorly-thought-out changes that did not have solid rationales, and B)
In short, if some material is not suitable for Wikipedia by current standards, it will be deleted or corrected, regardless of how old it is.
Google test
Examples:
- Include There are 345,400 Google hits for this term, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
- Remove Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
- Remove Zero Google hits, must be a hoax. – MustBeAHoax, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
- Include She's the first Google result for her name, so obviously she's important. – FirstIsBest, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test.
Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet.
Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as
Number of editors involved
Examples:
- Include A lot of editors have worked on this – Busy at work, 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remove This content was written by a single editor – My Personal Article, 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remove The only editor who ever worked on this has left Wikipedia – Who Cares?, 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in a subject, but it does not measure the number of reliable sources or its
Article size
Examples:
- Include I've added a lot of information on the subject – Book of Wealth, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Article is only one line. Clearly a DICDEF – Mr. Webster, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include We don't have enough information about this – Flashcard, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include There's so much information here that some of it has to be good – Impressed by Length, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
- Remove because it's WP:TLDR – DidntRead, 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)]
Subjective importance
Examples:
- Remove Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. – Iknownothing, 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
- Remove People in my city haven't heard of this, so it must be unimportant. – Provincial, 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? – Notknownhere, 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include I know it well. It's on my way to school. – Myneighborhood, 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include John is the tallest person in my home town so he should be on the list of the world's tallest people. – Smalltownboy, 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Include Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. – OnlySchool, 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of things are well-known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest
Arguments that state a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this, Wikipedia should include all significant information, even if it isn't significant within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because information is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality do not mean the information cannot be included.
Crystal ball
Examples:
- Include This information may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. – Youwillsee, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Include Of course this unreleased single should be included. It's by The Scrotums. – Mycrystalballisinforservice, 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Include We all know there will be a presidential election in 2032. – Everyone's a psychic, 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Remove This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. – Shortattentionspan, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is
Inaction by sources
Examples:
- Remove None of the source coverage would have occurred had the one event not occurred. – Lookherenotthere, 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remove We don't have any sources that mention this after 1990. - Lookherenotthere, 14:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of content is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources already exist, not on subjective judgments of why there aren't more or newer sources. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not.
However, especially for science-related material where understanding in the field may change rapidly, old sources that are contradicted by newer, equally reliable ones, must not be given
Inaction by editors
Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in Wikipedia discussions.
Examples:
- Remove: Nobody has added sources for this information, so it's not verifiable. – HopToIt, 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reverting again since you didn't resolve the problem I pointed out, and it doesn't really matter if others don't see it. – MyWayOrHighway, 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Remove until you fix the problems with the rest of the article.
- Remove because nobody added this to the other article on the same topic.
Verifiability is based upon whether
In actual practice, many additions without sources are
Similar arguments are sometimes made along the lines that the objector's concerns have not been addressed yet, even though a solution to (or refutation of) them has already been provided, and there appears to be no agreement that the objector's position is correct.
Subjects are connected
Examples:
- Include We should say that she once worked with someone famous – Keeper, 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC)
- Include All examples of foo should be discussed in the article. – Classifier, 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
- Include: this person's brother is famous, so he's famous too. – Adrian Listmaker, 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Remove her actions shouldn't be mentioned here, she's only known because the U.S. President's wife – First Lady 18:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Include This is an album by a famous artist, so it's relevant in this article. – The internet's busiest music nerd, 9:29 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Include This subject has its own article, so it should be mentioned in this article. – Wheredoesitend, 9:29 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Content does not qualify for inclusion merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. We can't argue that "____ should be included, because it is associated with
Sources about one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. In addition, information about a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always apply to the subordinate entities.
Wikipedias in other languages
Examples
- Include: given that its also in corresponding articles on other Wikipedias (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. – Interwikis=Notability, 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Include: there was a long discussion at the French Wikipedia and they decided to include it.
- Remove: This material about Mexico isn't covered in the same article at the Spanish Wikipedia. – TrappedBehindTheLanguageBarrier, 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Remove: This material would be against policy on the Arabic Wikipedia.
- Delete: German Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline about this, so we shouldn't either.
Information will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in
On the other hand, the fact that corresponding articles at other Wikipedias don't have something that en.Wikipedia does is not a reason that the information should be removed. It may be the case that nobody has yet added this to the other language's Wikipedia or that it just hasn't been linked to from the English language article. It may also be the information is important in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa. En.Wikipedia also sees more editorial activity on most topics than other-language Wikipedias do. Finally, all of the various Wikipedias set most of their policies and guidelines independently, aside from legal and WMF-mission-related requirements mandated by
Individual merit
What about other content?
Examples:
- Include This information is in article x as well. – EmperorOtherstuff, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
- Include That other article has information that's even less important. – PokePerson:O, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
- Include You say this is promotional, but there are other articles with content just as promotional as this one. – Blay Tant Marqueter, 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Include If you remove this you have to remove the whole section. – AllOrNothing, 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either. – EmpressOtherstuff, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
- Remove You guys forced me to remove the information at article x, so you have to allow me to remove the information at article y. – NoFair, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as
When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether the inclusion and organization of such material is compliant with core policies such as
Horse trading
Examples:
* Support Support x, provided I get to do y at article
* Opposed Oppose x, unless I get to do y at article
Meta-reasoning
Wikipedia should be about everything
Examples:
- Include I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide information on everything. – AllInclusive, 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Include You are trying to remove true information! – AllTruthful, 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Include This thing exists, so it should be included. – JohnPaulSartre&Ringo, 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge"
That's only a guideline, proposal or essay
Examples:
- Include WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy. – DissentingView, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)]
- Remove WP:Notability (ABC) is only a proposal. – Idontlikeproposals, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)]
- Remove WP:XYZ is only a guideline. – GuidelinesNoGood, 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)]
Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "
About the person
Ad hominem
Examples:
- Include The author of this has a history of writing good content. – GoodCreator, 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Remove The author has made only 27 edits so far. – FewEdits, 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Remove The author has previously been reverted a lot and therefore makes poor choices. – BadAuthor, 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Remove Politically motivated. – POVPusher 00:02, 16 April 2011
A content discussion is about the content in question itself. Though the suitability of related content may be mentioned during the discussion, and some discussions are bundled together, the debate is not about the author or any other editors of the article. Content is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes make edits that others feel should be reverted, and likewise,
There is
Edits by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be reverted entirely. This criterion does not apply to edits made before the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban).
Page ownership
Examples:
- Include I created this article – MyPage 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove I added this then changed my mind, so my opinion should count for more – Regretful 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
On Wikipedia,
Reputation
- Include Without this information, this company will lose business – Advertiser 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
- Remove This article is about myself, and I don't want the world to know that about me – Ashamed 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Even an article about oneself is not owned by that person. Other editors are permitted to add and modify sourced information within Wikipedia's guidelines. Even if the article says something negative about someone, if it comes from a reliable source, it is perfectly acceptable there (see