This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments...
Click to read more »to be WP:WHATABOUTX and should be avoided in deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 15:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is much more...
Click to read more »comment notability is not determined by other articles, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Also, see WP:RS and WP:IS for information on reliable and independent...
Click to read more »UnitedStatesian Pallaviharsh (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC). Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Pallaviharsh Please...
Click to read more »non-notable list of songs from this other artist". This argument runs into WP:WHATABOUTX, but if anyone links any I will happily nominate them for deletion. BrigadierG...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NSCHOOL. No need to travel to WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...
Click to read more »articles do not impart notability, maybe they should be deleted, per WP:WHATABOUTX. Deunanknute (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Delete - Total lack...
Click to read more »to all articles. --PasséVivant (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX. Feel free to nominate either of those for deletion if you think they...
Click to read more »Harris (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry to say this but WP:WHATABOUTX. There are other articles on Wikipedia that have not established notability...
Click to read more »And in anticipation of the community's input: WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:WHATABOUTX. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »a subtopic of this one. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Per WP:WHATABOUTX, I don't think the AMA article's notability transfers to this one. They...
Click to read more »legislation was enacted. While I am aware of the principle of the WP:WHATABOUTX, these cases seem so exactly parallel that we should surely treat them...
Click to read more »coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you might like WP:WHATABOUTX. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Notwithstanding your...
Click to read more »January 2020 (UTC) Keep per TJMSmith. Nomination seems to be based on WP:WHATABOUTX completely ignoring the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020...
Click to read more »a deletion discussion around them, otherwise you're just employing WP:WHATABOUTX. Weak keep – there's an ok amount of coverage in Russian-language sources...
Click to read more »added by Mhillyer (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) See WP:WHATABOUTX. There are many articles in Wikipedia that might need to be deleted, but...
Click to read more »not by gut reactions. Especially in comparing to other articles, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Merge to Idaho State Bengals...
Click to read more »tag removed with edit summary that similar person has web page (see WP:WHATABOUTX), and that this subject may run for president. My Google news search doesn't...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) But not because of that we're going to keep this article. WP:WHATABOUTX --TL22 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Keep - If he were only here for...
Click to read more »by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Per WP:WHATABOUTX, what other articles there are is irrelevant. It is always the case there...
Click to read more »Different Wikimedia projects have different policies. Also, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Storchy (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC) atakufr nickname is used...
Click to read more »by Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ITSIMPORTANT). List of ways to verify notability of articles (July...
Click to read more »have their own articles, most with similar sources." - is a case of WP:WHATABOUTX and doesn't mean an article is notable; just hitting The New York Times...
Click to read more »notability. The argument about Neighbours and EastEnders is just a case of WP:WHATABOUTX, I could ask the same about a Beatles or The King merchandise article...
Click to read more »coverage from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. WP:WHATABOUTX is never a valid argument for deletion, and is amply rebutted by staying...
Click to read more »other beauty queens have their own pages, I encourage you to review WP:WHATABOUTX. In a nutshell: plenty of articles exist that probably should not. You...
Click to read more »and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia. WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument. Broc (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »The existence of other articles isn't a reason to keep an article (WP:WHATABOUTX), only Wikipedia policies and guidance are. If you think there is significant...
Click to read more »(UTC) The existence of similar articles is far from conclusive, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Numerous Wikipedia articles should probably be deleted, and the identification...
Click to read more »that case. This has no bearing on the consensus on this case (cf. WP:WHATABOUTX). That said, the nominator themselves correctly pointed out that per WP:ATD-R...
Click to read more »WP:ENTERTAINER. Note to closing admin, most of the keep votes point to WP:WHATABOUTX which is not a valid argument in AfD. We don't compare articles to others...
Click to read more »to do that last part. I could be wrong, but to me, that reads like WP:WHATABOUTX. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Keep - Undoubtebly...
Click to read more »doubt that Split Pavilion exceeds the standard for WP:NOTABILITY. But WP:WHATABOUTX warns that Delete discussions should avoid comparisons like this. A work...
Click to read more »announcements. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX, we are discussing this specific page, not other ones. Broc (talk) 12:56...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Delete, per nom. We do not compare articles to each other (WP:WHATABOUTX) and there is a notability guide for events at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. While...
Click to read more »basically WP:ADMASQ and fails WP:NCORP. The page creator's invocation of WP:WHATABOUTX is unconvincing; some of those topics are notable, some appear not to...
Click to read more »person should redirect to the article on the incident. @Shoessss: WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument that should be avoided in deletions. Subject meets WP:GNG...
Click to read more »little sense. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX seems particularly unhelpful here, because the content and presentation...
Click to read more »article? Or no? Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC) See WP:WHATABOUTX. At a glance, Matthew Hussey is the only one which doesn't have obvious...
Click to read more »Yucalyptus (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) @Yucalyptus please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX arguments, as we are here to discuss this specific page and not other...
Click to read more »exist does not prove that this particular article should exist—see WP:WHATABOUTX. —Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »Respectfully Kuba Ali (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC) @Kuba Ali pleae read: WP:WHATABOUTX to avoid such bad arguments in the future. Молдовський винний погріб (talk)...
Click to read more »Sblument (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Response Just be aware of WP:WHATABOUTX at AfD. If you believe there are topics here that aren't notable, feel...
Click to read more »well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples! Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Kku: Your argument is addressed at WP:Other stuff exists and WP:WHATABOUTX. Our guideline, WP:Notability, has been crafted and debated over a long...
Click to read more »Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC) @Yetanotherkiwi, please see WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ALLORNOTHING in regards to consistency and drawing comparisons...
Click to read more »email Yes, I ignored your point about other pages because of reason WP:WHATABOUTX. Other pages need to be discussed on other deletion discussions. Existence...
Click to read more »in those cases as well.StreetSodatalk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is listed under articles to avoid in AfD debates. Articles stand or fall...
Click to read more »the latter.) At best, you're offering an argument that amounts to WP:WHATABOUTX or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't, in the case of her two colleagues at...
Click to read more »been deleted as well. Anna.kaelin (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX. Badbluebus (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Comment I am going to...
Click to read more »another article does not contribute anything to the discussion. As WP:WHATABOUTX says, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does...
Click to read more »(UTC) That's correct, dozens of articles need to be deleted. Also, see WP:WHATABOUTX for arguments to avoid in a discussion. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36...
Click to read more »fulfill notability criteria, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:WHATABOUTX is not a valid argument against deletion. Broc (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2024...
Click to read more »bandmates exists does not logically imply this one should, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Keep or redirect - Keep...
Click to read more »04:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Hi, please see WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:BLP1E or WP:WHATABOUTX. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 13:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Hi. I read the linked...
Click to read more »elsewhere). The remaining arguments to keep seem like anti-patterns such as WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Colin M (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2019...
Click to read more »razor should be applied here. Other arguments for keep above are just WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE - all of which we are told to avoid and...
Click to read more »(talk) 04:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Arguments to avoid on AfD include WP:WHATABOUTX. Looking simply at this article alone, the references are poor and the...
Click to read more »seven times. Walls of text were repeated again. There were several WP:WHATABOUTX arguments,on the term indie and again on music from the Netherlands, which...
Click to read more »articles (please list them so we can look at them:)) doesn't hold up ie. WP:WHATABOUTX. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC) The list include...
Click to read more »WP:NPOLITICIAN. We do not compare the article to others, please see WP:WHATABOUTX, it is judged on its own. Ifnord (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »dispute for a while. 75.174.157.86 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »geographical locations with video games is beyond me. You're saying WP:WHATABOUTX?!, while we're discussing Santa Claus Saves the Earth. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→...
Click to read more »15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Articles are judged on their own merit. WP:WHATABOUTX Ifnord (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Move to Draft:Ford V Ferrari and...
Click to read more »(although I suspect that list will end at AfD at some point too). See WP:WHATABOUTX. As mentioned, 4DX is a similar system to D-Box and a list of films released...
Click to read more »sources talking about a list of preserved Airbus (A320) aircraft. And WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »before the previous AfD and without in-depth coverage. Please review WP:WHATABOUTX. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If the article gets deleted but the...
Click to read more »issue. I wanted to see how people would respond. This feels a bit like WP:WHATABOUTX. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »speculative arguments about future notability nor is this the venue for WP:WHATABOUTX. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 17:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC) I only...
Click to read more »criteria. Other articles aren't considered when we discuss an AfD (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Delete: Barely found anything...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Weak keep per WHATABOUTX. List of territorial entities where English is an official language and...
Click to read more »Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX. Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those...
Click to read more »community. Similarly problematic lists should also be deleted - go read WP:WHATABOUTX: it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but...
Click to read more »hundreds of other books which have wikipedia pages." Sorry but the WP:WHATABOUTX is irrelevant to afds. oh, also Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG, may...
Click to read more »Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX. Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those...
Click to read more »arguments for keeping it are personally not very convincing (WP:TOOSOON, WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL...). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024...
Click to read more »not another person or group of people, such as Catholic bishops (WP:WHATABOUTX). None of the available coverage in independent sources provide substantial...
Click to read more »Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX. Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those...
Click to read more »Fairy Tale (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I would take a look at WP:WHATABOUTX. Other things existing doesn't exclude this from notability standards...
Click to read more »2020 (UTC) Comment IP, regarding the comment on teacher articles, see WP:WHATABOUTX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Speedy keep. He is a...
Click to read more »per nom and everyone above. Let's not compare with other articles (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Keep The subject passes...
Click to read more »guideline for road intersections that we can check? I'm not saying WP:WHATABOUTX, but there are many articles in Category:Road junctions by country. It...
Click to read more »Presidents warrant their own articles is also irrelevant here per WP:WHATABOUTX and therefore not a convincing argument. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17...
Click to read more »IMDb ismore established, TMDb is not. Anyway, your argument is pure WP:WHATABOUTX. We are not comparing TMDb with IMDb, we are judging TMDb on its own merits...
Click to read more »Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX. Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those...
Click to read more »article needs to be considered on its own merits. You can't just invoke WP:WHATABOUTX. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Cielquiparle I was just...
Click to read more »almost unanimously kept. —Kusma (t·c) 08:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX, the article should be looked at alone, not compared to others. Ifnord...
Click to read more »be helpful if you can link to it. If the former, that's basically WP:WHATABOUTX and not a valid argument. And for what it's worth, while I've voted keep...
Click to read more »guys also admitted x article" is not particularly constructive (see WP:WHATABOUTX for details). 3) Speaking of non-constructive comments: You allege that...
Click to read more »Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX. Comment. Have you actually examined the "sources"? The only one that...
Click to read more »example. Carney333 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC) @Carney333: See WP:WHATABOUTX, you are free to nominate the PS minis list for AfD if you have objections...
Click to read more »Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC) So it sounds like you're saying WP:WHATABOUTX… 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC) your lack of substantive...
Click to read more »for a potential dab page. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX / WP:OFFTOPIC means I only have to think about PITA (or one PITA at a...
Click to read more »(UTC) Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's funny, WP:WHATABOUTX. - jc37 15:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Articles cannot be kept for their...
Click to read more »Sblument (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Response Just be aware of WP:WHATABOUTX at AfD. If you believe there are topics here that aren't notable, feel...
Click to read more »January 19, 2015 (Undid revision 643255144 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) WP:WHATABOUTX and as I said, we avoid league as it may change without articles being...
Click to read more »clearly isn't the case. For your notes on fallacies to avoid, add WP:WHATABOUTX. —swpbT 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Equally, "specific and often very...
Click to read more »@E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Please refer to WP:WHATABOUTX. Her notability does not come from being a loosing candidate. The subject...
Click to read more »--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC) @Freetrashbox:, please see WP:WHATABOUTX, one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The existence...
Click to read more »the problem here. As for pages about less notable people, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Strong keep He is ahead...
Click to read more »primary sources. LgShai (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. At AfD we consider the merits of the article right in front of us. Editors...
Click to read more »Wellington Bay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) In response to the WP:WHATABOUTX argument, I'm not proposing to delete any election pages, and issues with...
Click to read more »This discussion isn't about other massacres, so please avoid arguing WP:WHATABOUTX. You haven't addressed the fact that there isn't a single a secondary...
Click to read more »Zabbix (even if that was denied later). Other part of the arguments are WP:WHATABOUTX ('Zabbix is more popular than Nagios and is also open-source'). They were...
Click to read more »original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale (which is backed up by reliable...
Click to read more »Other users have pointed out the same thing several times by now. WP:WHATABOUTX ("tabloids are used on other pages") is not an argument. 3) Only after...
Click to read more »XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Don't bring the WP:WHATABOUTX argument here. If other State Chair articles are not well-cited, then...
Click to read more »the multiple IP !votes are not, given their frequent invocation of WP:WHATABOUTX and misunderstanding of WP:NACADEMIC. An h-index of 16 in medicine for...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Per WP:ATA, that is equivalent to WP:WHATABOUTX Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Keep - meets WP:GNG with...
Click to read more »reports. In relation to "we have Gomer, so what about..." please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.- SchroCat (talk)...
Click to read more »arguments like "What about article x?" in deletion discussions. See WP:WHATABOUTX --94rain Talk 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) See WP:OTHERSTUFF...
Click to read more »Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX. Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those...
Click to read more »should to. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. - SchroCat (talk)...
Click to read more »are independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources.) In general WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument to advance with caution in deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe...
Click to read more »As user tedder said, this is not a reason to keep the article per WP:WHATABOUTX. I highlight the extraordinarity of this event, the fact that all these...
Click to read more »that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted. WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits...
Click to read more »selection random. Uriahheep228 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Don't WP:WHATABOUTX. What's the inclusion criteria? Why is Meir Max Bineth, a minor figure...
Click to read more »marry their dogs. Ogress smash! 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Please read WP:WHATABOUTX. --TL22 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Delete Not a notable term, and...
Click to read more »reports. In relation to "we have Gomer, so what about..." please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.- SchroCat (talk)...
Click to read more »that you agee with me, Jtalledo, but that's a bit WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:WHATABOUTX. I think getting rid of a couple of those (for instance, the GameSpot...
Click to read more »notability. The argument about Neighbours and EastEnders is just a case of WP:WHATABOUTX, I could ask the same about a Beatles or The King merchandise article...
Click to read more »non-notable list of songs from this other artist". This argument runs into WP:WHATABOUTX, but if anyone links any I will happily nominate them for deletion. BrigadierG...
Click to read more »coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you might like WP:WHATABOUTX. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Notwithstanding your...
Click to read more »comment notability is not determined by other articles, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Also, see WP:RS and WP:IS for information on reliable and independent...
Click to read more »guideline for road intersections that we can check? I'm not saying WP:WHATABOUTX, but there are many articles in Category:Road junctions by country. It...
Click to read more »articles do not impart notability, maybe they should be deleted, per WP:WHATABOUTX. Deunanknute (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Delete - Total lack...
Click to read more »to all articles. --PasséVivant (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX. Feel free to nominate either of those for deletion if you think they...
Click to read more »04:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Hi, please see WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:BLP1E or WP:WHATABOUTX. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 13:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Hi. I read the linked...
Click to read more »article? Or no? Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC) See WP:WHATABOUTX. At a glance, Matthew Hussey is the only one which doesn't have obvious...
Click to read more »coverage enough? The reasoning about other people is not valid per WP:WHATABOUTX and the opposite argument (also not valid) could be easily made by looking...
Click to read more »(talk) 04:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Arguments to avoid on AfD include WP:WHATABOUTX. Looking simply at this article alone, the references are poor and the...
Click to read more »another article does not contribute anything to the discussion. As WP:WHATABOUTX says, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does...
Click to read more »by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Per WP:WHATABOUTX, what other articles there are is irrelevant. It is always the case there...
Click to read more »hundreds of other books which have wikipedia pages." Sorry but the WP:WHATABOUTX is irrelevant to afds. oh, also Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG, may...
Click to read more »community. Similarly problematic lists should also be deleted - go read WP:WHATABOUTX: it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but...
Click to read more »comment notability is not determined by other articles, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Also, see WP:RS and WP:IS for information on reliable and independent...
Click to read more »geographical locations with video games is beyond me. You're saying WP:WHATABOUTX?!, while we're discussing Santa Claus Saves the Earth. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→...
Click to read more »coverage from reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. WP:WHATABOUTX is never a valid argument for deletion, and is amply rebutted by staying...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Kku: Your argument is addressed at WP:Other stuff exists and WP:WHATABOUTX. Our guideline, WP:Notability, has been crafted and debated over a long...
Click to read more »15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Articles are judged on their own merit. WP:WHATABOUTX Ifnord (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Move to Draft:Ford V Ferrari and...
Click to read more »--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC) @Freetrashbox:, please see WP:WHATABOUTX, one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The existence...
Click to read more »a deletion discussion around them, otherwise you're just employing WP:WHATABOUTX. Weak keep – there's an ok amount of coverage in Russian-language sources...
Click to read more »or delete both. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX isn't considered as a valid reason to keep/delete an article. -- Chamith...
Click to read more »doubt that Split Pavilion exceeds the standard for WP:NOTABILITY. But WP:WHATABOUTX warns that Delete discussions should avoid comparisons like this. A work...
Click to read more »Respectfully Kuba Ali (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC) @Kuba Ali pleae read: WP:WHATABOUTX to avoid such bad arguments in the future. Молдовський винний погріб (talk)...
Click to read more »well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples! Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019...
Click to read more »other edits outside this topic. As a general note, you are making a WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is generally not accepted. "This article has [X], so then...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Weak keep per WHATABOUTX. List of territorial entities where English is an official language and...
Click to read more »tag removed with edit summary that similar person has web page (see WP:WHATABOUTX), and that this subject may run for president. My Google news search doesn't...
Click to read more »other beauty queens have their own pages, I encourage you to review WP:WHATABOUTX. In a nutshell: plenty of articles exist that probably should not. You...
Click to read more »what I see. Amaekuma (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) That's a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, not a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 22 December...
Click to read more »almost unanimously kept. —Kusma (t·c) 08:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX, the article should be looked at alone, not compared to others. Ifnord...
Click to read more »IMDb ismore established, TMDb is not. Anyway, your argument is pure WP:WHATABOUTX. We are not comparing TMDb with IMDb, we are judging TMDb on its own merits...
Click to read more »This discussion isn't about other massacres, so please avoid arguing WP:WHATABOUTX. You haven't addressed the fact that there isn't a single a secondary...
Click to read more »think other articles may pop up, doesn't mean that is a valid excuse. WP:WHATABOUTX voices against this type of argument.WillC 09:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »WP:NPOLITICIAN. We do not compare the article to others, please see WP:WHATABOUTX, it is judged on its own. Ifnord (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »WP:ARTICLEAGE. For your other arguments, see WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:NOTINHERITED.110.165.185.203 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Per WP:ATA, that is equivalent to WP:WHATABOUTX Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Keep - meets WP:GNG with...
Click to read more »to be WP:WHATABOUTX and should be avoided in deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 15:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is much more...
Click to read more »(UTC) The existence of similar articles is far from conclusive, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Numerous Wikipedia articles should probably be deleted, and the identification...
Click to read more »clearly isn't the case. For your notes on fallacies to avoid, add WP:WHATABOUTX. —swpbT 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Equally, "specific and often very...
Click to read more »email Yes, I ignored your point about other pages because of reason WP:WHATABOUTX. Other pages need to be discussed on other deletion discussions. Existence...
Click to read more »bandmates exists does not logically imply this one should, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Keep or redirect - Keep...
Click to read more »legislation was enacted. While I am aware of the principle of the WP:WHATABOUTX, these cases seem so exactly parallel that we should surely treat them...
Click to read more »Harris (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry to say this but WP:WHATABOUTX. There are other articles on Wikipedia that have not established notability...
Click to read more »example. Carney333 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC) @Carney333: See WP:WHATABOUTX, you are free to nominate the PS minis list for AfD if you have objections...
Click to read more »@E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Please refer to WP:WHATABOUTX. Her notability does not come from being a loosing candidate. The subject...
Click to read more »American Games. Most of the Keep opinions I see here fall into the WP:WHATABOUTX/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category. Owen× ☎ 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) I...
Click to read more »Presidents warrant their own articles is also irrelevant here per WP:WHATABOUTX and therefore not a convincing argument. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17...
Click to read more »And in anticipation of the community's input: WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:WHATABOUTX. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »January 2020 (UTC) Keep per TJMSmith. Nomination seems to be based on WP:WHATABOUTX completely ignoring the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020...
Click to read more »per nom and everyone above. Let's not compare with other articles (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Keep The subject passes...
Click to read more »are independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources.) In general WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument to advance with caution in deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe...
Click to read more »EvidenceFairy (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Comment the argument of WP:WHATABOUTX has been advanced several times above. Let's please focus on whether the...
Click to read more »WP:ENTERTAINER. Note to closing admin, most of the keep votes point to WP:WHATABOUTX which is not a valid argument in AfD. We don't compare articles to others...
Click to read more »elsewhere). The remaining arguments to keep seem like anti-patterns such as WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Colin M (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2019...
Click to read more »not by gut reactions. Especially in comparing to other articles, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Merge to Idaho State Bengals...
Click to read more »WP:ARTICLEAGE. For your other arguments, see WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:NOTINHERITED.110.165.185.203 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC) @Yetanotherkiwi, please see WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ALLORNOTHING in regards to consistency and drawing comparisons...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) But not because of that we're going to keep this article. WP:WHATABOUTX --TL22 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Keep - If he were only here for...
Click to read more »2020 (UTC) Comment IP, regarding the comment on teacher articles, see WP:WHATABOUTX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Speedy keep. He is a...
Click to read more »person should redirect to the article on the incident. @Shoessss: WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument that should be avoided in deletions. Subject meets WP:GNG...
Click to read more »not another person or group of people, such as Catholic bishops (WP:WHATABOUTX). None of the available coverage in independent sources provide substantial...
Click to read more »razor should be applied here. Other arguments for keep above are just WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE - all of which we are told to avoid and...
Click to read more »coverage enough? The reasoning about other people is not valid per WP:WHATABOUTX and the opposite argument (also not valid) could be easily made by looking...
Click to read more »EvidenceFairy (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Comment the argument of WP:WHATABOUTX has been advanced several times above. Let's please focus on whether the...
Click to read more »before the previous AfD and without in-depth coverage. Please review WP:WHATABOUTX. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If the article gets deleted but the...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Delete, per nom. We do not compare articles to each other (WP:WHATABOUTX) and there is a notability guide for events at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. While...
Click to read more »the latter.) At best, you're offering an argument that amounts to WP:WHATABOUTX or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't, in the case of her two colleagues at...
Click to read more »exist does not prove that this particular article should exist—see WP:WHATABOUTX. —Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included...
Click to read more »(UTC) Please review the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:WHATABOUTX. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Is that a rule,...
Click to read more »have their own articles, most with similar sources." - is a case of WP:WHATABOUTX and doesn't mean an article is notable; just hitting The New York Times...
Click to read more »(although I suspect that list will end at AfD at some point too). See WP:WHATABOUTX. As mentioned, 4DX is a similar system to D-Box and a list of films released...
Click to read more »Different Wikimedia projects have different policies. Also, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Storchy (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC) atakufr nickname is used...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NSCHOOL. No need to travel to WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...
Click to read more »in those cases as well.StreetSodatalk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is listed under articles to avoid in AfD debates. Articles stand or fall...
Click to read more »guys also admitted x article" is not particularly constructive (see WP:WHATABOUTX for details). 3) Speaking of non-constructive comments: You allege that...
Click to read more »criteria. Other articles aren't considered when we discuss an AfD (WP:WHATABOUTX). Ifnord (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Delete: Barely found anything...
Click to read more »arguments like "What about article x?" in deletion discussions. See WP:WHATABOUTX --94rain Talk 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) See WP:OTHERSTUFF...
Click to read more »we have an article for? FlipandFlopped ㋡ 20:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX isn't a valid argument at AfD. In any event, that article has 158 references...
Click to read more »(UTC) Please review the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:WHATABOUTX. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Is that a rule,...
Click to read more »to do that last part. I could be wrong, but to me, that reads like WP:WHATABOUTX. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Keep - Undoubtebly...
Click to read more »except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual...
Click to read more »or delete both. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX isn't considered as a valid reason to keep/delete an article. -- Chamith...
Click to read more »marry their dogs. Ogress smash! 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Please read WP:WHATABOUTX. --TL22 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Delete Not a notable term, and...
Click to read more »Erlkönigin3 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC) I just realized I violated WP:WHATABOUTX. Sorry about that. My other question still stands, though--is it possible...
Click to read more »without Wikipedia pages isn't a valid reason for deletion, as per WP:WHATABOUTX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC) weak delete not a clear-cut...
Click to read more »think other articles may pop up, doesn't mean that is a valid excuse. WP:WHATABOUTX voices against this type of argument.WillC 09:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »having a deaf daughter. The main argument for keeping seems to be WP:WHATABOUTX. --hroest 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Let's not forget WP:ANYBIO, none of...
Click to read more »explain. Socialistguy (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. The article on communist killings can be judged on its own merits, and...
Click to read more »20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I swear I usually don't think much of WP:WHATABOUTX arguments, but I can't find any other subcategory of Category:Propagandists...
Click to read more »professorships as proof that this article should be included is a textbook WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is rarely accepted. That the death of the Professor of Greek...
Click to read more »Holocaust category; however, this is not related to our policies and is a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, which the closer should not have given weight to. Madame Necker...
Click to read more »should have been dismissed as fallacies of relevance. No. 4 and 5 are a WP:WHATABOUTX argument which don't even attempt to address the specifics. They should...
Click to read more »Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Endorse. This seems to be a WP:WHATABOUTX argument so I'll start by addressing the single example raised - The cover...
Click to read more »Future maybe WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. Also please read WP:WHATABOUTX, just because other pages have it or are on Wikipedia isn't an argument...
Click to read more »not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX, but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could...
Click to read more »Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Endorse. This seems to be a WP:WHATABOUTX argument so I'll start by addressing the single example raised - The cover...
Click to read more »Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @Beccaynr Per WP:WHATABOUTX, linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of...
Click to read more »20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I swear I usually don't think much of WP:WHATABOUTX arguments, but I can't find any other subcategory of Category:Propagandists...
Click to read more »Holocaust category; however, this is not related to our policies and is a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, which the closer should not have given weight to. Madame Necker...
Click to read more »explain. Socialistguy (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. The article on communist killings can be judged on its own merits, and...
Click to read more »necessarily continue to get non-routine coverage if she loses the election. WP:WHATABOUTX isn't considered a good argument either. Hut 8.5 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)...
Click to read more »should have been dismissed as fallacies of relevance. No. 4 and 5 are a WP:WHATABOUTX argument which don't even attempt to address the specifics. They should...
Click to read more »(Jews did 9/11 comes to mind, not part of my deletion reasoning due to WP:WHATABOUTX, just wanted to point this out) ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 15:51, 19 January...
Click to read more »seven times. Walls of text were repeated again. There were several WP:WHATABOUTX arguments,on the term indie and again on music from the Netherlands, which...
Click to read more »a subtopic of this one. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Per WP:WHATABOUTX, I don't think the AMA article's notability transfers to this one. They...
Click to read more »the problem here. As for pages about less notable people, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Strong keep He is ahead...
Click to read more »fulfill notability criteria, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:WHATABOUTX is not a valid argument against deletion. Broc (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2024...
Click to read more »that case. This has no bearing on the consensus on this case (cf. WP:WHATABOUTX). That said, the nominator themselves correctly pointed out that per WP:ATD-R...
Click to read more »Wellington Bay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) In response to the WP:WHATABOUTX argument, I'm not proposing to delete any election pages, and issues with...
Click to read more »sources talking about a list of preserved Airbus (A320) aircraft. And WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »professorships as proof that this article should be included is a textbook WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is rarely accepted. That the death of the Professor of Greek...
Click to read more »what I see. Amaekuma (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) That's a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, not a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 22 December...
Click to read more »arguments for keeping it are personally not very convincing (WP:TOOSOON, WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL...). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024...
Click to read more »Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @Beccaynr Per WP:WHATABOUTX, linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of...
Click to read more »other edits outside this topic. As a general note, you are making a WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is generally not accepted. "This article has [X], so then...
Click to read more »Yucalyptus (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) @Yucalyptus please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX arguments, as we are here to discuss this specific page and not other...
Click to read more »article needs to be considered on its own merits. You can't just invoke WP:WHATABOUTX. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Cielquiparle I was just...
Click to read more »we have an article for? FlipandFlopped ㋡ 20:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX isn't a valid argument at AfD. In any event, that article has 158 references...
Click to read more »announcements. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX, we are discussing this specific page, not other ones. Broc (talk) 12:56...
Click to read more »speculative arguments about future notability nor is this the venue for WP:WHATABOUTX. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 17:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC) I only...
Click to read more »appropriate rationale; most of the rest were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:WHATABOUTX, or simple unexplained !votes. Meanwhile, there were 9 reasoned "delete"...
Click to read more »issue. I wanted to see how people would respond. This feels a bit like WP:WHATABOUTX. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia. WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument. Broc (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »Fairy Tale (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I would take a look at WP:WHATABOUTX. Other things existing doesn't exclude this from notability standards...
Click to read more »added by Mhillyer (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) See WP:WHATABOUTX. There are many articles in Wikipedia that might need to be deleted, but...
Click to read more »the multiple IP !votes are not, given their frequent invocation of WP:WHATABOUTX and misunderstanding of WP:NACADEMIC. An h-index of 16 in medicine for...
Click to read more »that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted. WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits...
Click to read more »(UTC) That's correct, dozens of articles need to be deleted. Also, see WP:WHATABOUTX for arguments to avoid in a discussion. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36...
Click to read more »XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Don't bring the WP:WHATABOUTX argument here. If other State Chair articles are not well-cited, then...
Click to read more »The existence of other articles isn't a reason to keep an article (WP:WHATABOUTX), only Wikipedia policies and guidance are. If you think there is significant...
Click to read more »their !votes. The rest were some mix of WP:PERX, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ILIKEIT. The canvassed votes distorted the debate and the closer...
Click to read more »except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual...
Click to read more »discount the argument that there are already too many noticeboards per WHATABOUTX. Finally, it is impossible to resolve the argument that a new noticeboard...
Click to read more »having a deaf daughter. The main argument for keeping seems to be WP:WHATABOUTX. --hroest 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Let's not forget WP:ANYBIO, none of...
Click to read more »American Games. Most of the Keep opinions I see here fall into the WP:WHATABOUTX/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category. Owen× ☎ 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) I...
Click to read more »As user tedder said, this is not a reason to keep the article per WP:WHATABOUTX. I highlight the extraordinarity of this event, the fact that all these...
Click to read more »basically WP:ADMASQ and fails WP:NCORP. The page creator's invocation of WP:WHATABOUTX is unconvincing; some of those topics are notable, some appear not to...
Click to read more »dispute for a while. 75.174.157.86 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »primary sources. LgShai (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. At AfD we consider the merits of the article right in front of us. Editors...
Click to read more »without Wikipedia pages isn't a valid reason for deletion, as per WP:WHATABOUTX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC) weak delete not a clear-cut...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is held to a higher standard, so arguments to this effect and WP:WHATABOUTX arguments won't be seriously considered in any fair close. Thebiguglyalien...
Click to read more »their !votes. The rest were some mix of WP:PERX, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ILIKEIT. The canvassed votes distorted the debate and the closer...
Click to read more »