User:Visviva/Opinionations/I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong

The following is a list of some frequently-used arguments that do not hold water, and why they should be given no weight in deletion discussions. Many of these arguments are used as forms of gatekeeping, to justify discounting or ignoring the positions of editors who are not regulars on AFD or do not subscribe to the motivated reimaginings of Wikipedia policy that have become popular on AFD.


 * "Fails WP:NLIST"
 * "NLIST", the shouty shortcut for Notability, does not provide a basis for deletion. It lists one situation in which lists should definitely not be deleted. If you want to argue that an otherwise encyclopedic list should be deleted because it is beyond our scope, you need to use your words and make an argument based on the nature and purpose of Wikipedia.
 * "WP:ONUS means that 'all you have to prove' for deletion is that this type of article is not specifically whitelisted by a notability guideline"
 * Verifiability (WP:ONUS) is not a notability or deletion policy. It does not provide any guidance on whether a particular topic should be addressed in a standalone article (notability), or whether a particular article is so unsalvageably unencyclopedic that no other remedy will suffice and it must be cast out from the project entirely (deletion). Instead, it is part of the verifiability policy, and provides guidance on how to apply the principle of verifiability in content disputes that may arise in a particular article.
 * "Your argument that this article has encyclopedic value is just WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSUSEFUL"
 * OK, two problems with that. First, all Wikipedia policies and guidelines are a means to an end. They are valid (if at all) only to the extent that they serve Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. Accordingly, an argument based on encyclopedic value is at least equal, and arguably superior, to an argument based merely on a legalistic reading of policy. Second, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is just an essay like this one, listing some reasons why some people don't like some arguments. It does not refute anything. Shouting one of its many shortcuts rather than engaging with the substance of someone's argument merely highlights the weakness of your own position.
 * "Your rationale for keeping this article is not policy-based, and should therefore be ignored"
 * There is no basis in policy for requiring arguments to be "policy-based". Nor could there be, since any valid policy arises organically from community consensus (setting aside the rare cases of policies imposed by the WMF due to legal requirements). Requiring consensus to itself be "policy-based" would be incoherent. All policies on Wikipedia are a means to an end. When something as serious as the deletion of an article is under discussion, all arguments should be ultimately grounded on the nature and purpose of Wikipedia as each user understands it. Sometimes policy gives us a convenient way of structuring those arguments so that we don't have to repeat ourselves or derive everything from first principles every time. But the purpose of the project should always be foremost, and all good-faith arguments on that subject should be given substantial weight in evaluating consensus.