User:Benc/Deletion

Ah, deletion. Everyone has their own opinions on this issue, and I'm no exception. :-)

Being vague
Examples:
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic.
 * Delete. Violates policy.

By themselves, phrases like "not encyclopedic" and "violates policy" are extremely vague. If you're trying to explain the reasoning behind your vote, you need to be more specific: how is this article not encyclopedic; which policy does it violate? If, for the sake of time, you'd rather just vote without explaining your rationale, do it in a single word. Please don't use one of these pseudo-rationales; they're distinctly unhelpful.

Crusading
Examples:
 * Keep. I'm the page author, and here is my dissertation why this page should be kept, and why you're dead wrong if you vote "delete". (Huge discussion follows.)
 * (Lengthy responses to every single non-"keep" vote.)

No matter how logical and reasonable you think you are being, writing a very lengthy article defense often accomplishes the opposite of what you were aiming for. Why? Solution: write everything you must, as succinctly as possible. Avoid "you're wrong, and this is why" type responses; this is not a good way to persuade people to embrace your point-of-view.
 * Generally, people on VfD want just the facts, ma'am. Longer, rambling accounts are less likely to be read and understood.
 * If you respond to every non-"keep" vote, some may assume you've embarked on a holy crusade to keep the article, and take you less seriously.
 * If you allow yourself a knee-jerk reaction to every critic, personal attacks become more likely, both from others and from yourself.

Holding Wikipedia to the wrong standards
Example:
 * Delete this computer, sci-fi, or Internet-related article. Topics like this one are why some people call us "the Encyclopedia That Slashdot Built".

Bad: "Gee, I don't know if that girl I'm trying to impress would like the fact that I enjoy science fiction. Guess I'd better burn my sci-fi book collection just in case."

Good: "To increase my knowledge (and to impress the girl) I'll keep my sci-fi book collection but expand it to include literature, romantic poetry, and so on."

In other words, the solution to our topical bias involves creating and expanding "non-slashdotty" topics, not deleting the more technical or esoteric topics. We're here to build an encyclopedia according to guidelines developed by the community. We are not here to rip out chunks of it in order to conform to Joe Critic's view of what we should be.

Of course, some articles are genuinely non-notable within their class. In this case, attack the article, not the class. Don't use a bogus "but we should look less like Slashdot and more like Brittanica!" argument. Wikipedia is neither.