User:El Sandifer/AADD

WP:AADD is a well-meaning but at times over-cited essay that is used to dismiss significant arguments in deletion debates without meaningful reflection. What follows, then, are arguments that are actually quite compelling in deletion debates, and that can be underrated or wrongly dismissed.

In general, the arguments to avoid in deletion debates are ones that are reductionist and seek to cut off rather than extend debate. Often, that includes citations to WP:AADD just as much as the arguments that are counseled against.

Just a vote
Although deletion debates are debates, not numerical battles, the fact of the matter is that, when they are being closed, numbers are often taken into account. Furthermore, in a consensus-based system, one thing that is important is evidence that somebody's arguments have persuaded other people and gained widespread acceptance. Thus, though minimalist, arguments that amount to a simple statement of support or that indicate agreement with another argument do provide useful context in understanding the broader consensus.

Per nominator
Similarly, given that Wikipedia is driven by consensus, it is productive, not reductive, to note one's support for another argument, as that shows what arguments have widespread support.

Just unencyclopedic
The problem here is that "unencyclopedic" is a contested term with no clear agreement on what it means. On the other hand, being unencyclopedic is certainly a problem. The issue here is when "unencyclopedic" is used to end debate, rather than to continue it.

Just not notable
Given that our notability policy defines notability for deletion terms, it can be fairly assumed that when someone says something is not notable, they mean that it lacks sufficient sourcing. This may be disputed, but the intent of a declaration that an article is not notable is fairly easy to decipher.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline
Often, it is fairly easy to look at an article and see what guideline it fails to adhere to. Again, what is problematic here is not simply pointing to a guideline, it is refusing to follow up on it when challenged with further discussion.

I like it
Wikipedia is a resource used for research. Arguments such as "I like it" are useful because they speak to the practical application of Wikipedia - learning. If an article is actually being used as a resource by people, we ought do what we can to maintain it.

I don't like it
Similarly, arguments along these lines often amount to "I see no way this could productively be used as a resource for anybody." That is an important point to consider - useless articles are not things we want to keep around.

It's interesting
"It's interesting" often means "I learned something from this article and am glad I read it." Given that we are in the business of providing knowledge and education, it is difficult to think of a higher recommendation for an article than this.

It's useful
Again, usefulness is the point of the project. It's true, we do not want to duplicate other efforts, particularly when those efforts can ensure a better end result than we can. However, deletion of useful information that is not available freely elsewhere is a genuine problem.

It doesn't do any harm
Implicitly, a call to delete something is an argument that there is some harm done by keeping the article. The harm need not be grave, but it does need to be shown that there is something wrong with the article and that keeping it is ill-advised. "It doesn't do any harm" amounts to a statement that one is unconvinced that the problems pointed to are sufficiently significant. This is a valid issue to raise.

Google test
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl 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. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.

Overall, 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 here: Search engine test.

Pageview stats
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples
 * Delete, Wikipedia does not need pages some handful of people (about 3 per day in this case) might want to find information about. – Trafficdirector 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 115th most popular article. – Porn enthusiast 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary quantity
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. – Countvonnotable 04:56, 7 August 2006
 * Delete An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. – Notbigenough 04:56, 7 August 2006
 * Keep This person's video has over 1 million views and over 1,000 comments which is notable. – Lotsofviews 04:56, 7 August 2006

A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources.

This does not apply to the position taken in WP:NUMBER that articles on actual numbers over a certain size need to establish several reasons why that particular number is notable, which is a well-defined threshold.

Subjective importance
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Delete Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. – Iknownothing 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete People in my city have not heard of her, so she cannot be notable. -– Provincial 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? – Notknownhere 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I know it well. It's on my way to school. – Myneighborhood 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep John is the tallest person in my home town so he should have an article about him. – Smalltownboy 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community; if the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community that's good evidence that the subject is not important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia.

Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.

Crystal ball
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep This is going to be really important very soon. – Youwillsee 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember it in a week/month/year. – Shortattentionspan 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Notability is inherited
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep All examples of X are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All examples of Y are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. – Wheredoesitend 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete UNESCO cannot be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited. – Justthetop 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of 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. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.

In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notability guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents.

See also Summary Style and Article series.

What about article x?
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – KingOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – QueenOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) 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.

Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used.

Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However, a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.

The generic form of this argument, that "there are lots of other bad articles" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Wikipedia) - note that this argument differs from Fooian this vs. Fooian that or Fooian this vs. XYZian that.

See also Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Pokémon test, and User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond.

All or nothing
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles. – AllOrNothing 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles, so this needs to go too. – NothingOrAll 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles.

Wikipedia should be about everything
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide information on everything. – AllInclusive 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep You are trying to remove true information! – AllTruthful 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 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" is not "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. This is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming unmaintainable. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every particle in the universe, every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.


 * see also WP:NOTHING

Do not lose the information or the effort
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep because we would lose the information otherwise. – Essential Essential 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because the information is available elsewhere. – Redundant Redundant 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of people have worked on this. – TheyWorked 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirement of policy and guidelines. In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. Deleted work can be restored to your personal page on request to an administrator.

Note that this argument does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion, as all contribution information is lost, invalidating the GFDL license for the article. However, even in these cases, it is usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a deletion review.

Better here than there
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection. Example
 * Keep If this article is deleted then the stuff in it will end up back in the main article – Keepitherenotthere

Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called "trivia" or "in popular culture" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Foo in popular culture articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as "use in fiction" or "cultural influences", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Wikipedia. Either incorporate the material in the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

 

That's only a guideline or essay
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy. – DissentingView 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:XYZ is only a guideline. – GuidelinesNoGood 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because we should ignore all rules! – Anarwikist 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy.

Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines do explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it is fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you should try to make a reasonable argument for why this particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for breaking it.

Arguments to the person
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep Creator has a history of writing some really good articles, therefore this one must be good and should be kept. – GoodCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Creator has made only 27 edits so far. – FewEdits 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of articles that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. – BadNom 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Creator has previously created many articles that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. – BadCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, nominator is a blocked user trying to destroy Wikipedia. – Tenacious Defender 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions.

Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

Repeated nominations
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Keep Did not we argue all this yesterday? – DejaVu 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. – Yawner 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted. – Trytryagain 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.

If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.

If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.

Citations to policy
Arguments that simply cite policy are at times less complete than is ideal, but provide a clear perspective that should be considered. Although the lack of context and detail in them can be regrettable, it is rarely difficult to understand what is meant when somebody simply states that an article fails WP:V. Clarification, where needed, can always be asked for.

Just unencyclopedic
This argument can be problematic for a number of reasons, but on the other hand, no shortage of articles that reach AfD are transparently silly.