Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your argument is invalid


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seemingly useless diambiguation page; unlikely search term for any of the pages suggested in the context of logic, and the internet meme page makes no reference to it.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note also that the direct page Over 9000, referring to another internet meme and redirecting to internet meme, was deleted for the same reason as I have listed this page for deletion. The log can be found here.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved from Miscellany for deletion/Your argument is invalid. Tim Song (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: While this IS an internet meme, it asserts no notability. Best case scenario we have a dicdef.  I'm don't even think that it merits a redirect to internet meme or List of... - BalthCat (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a comment for now, I deleted (and restored) this earlier yesterday and ended up restoring because I felt there was enough of a consensus at the last MfD (to change it from a redirect to a disambg page) to keep it up barring another AfD. My personal feeling would probably lean towards delete but going to think it out a bit more.  James  ( T   C )  02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 23. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In Wikipedia's AfD forum, "Your argument is invalid" (or it's cousin "That isn't relevant") is a thinly disguised way of saying "Shut up", usually made by people who recognize incivility in everyone except for themselves, so perhaps this phrase should be redirected there.  Mandsford 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that; Your argument is invalid seems an unlikely search term already, and if it is ever used, I would think readers would be confused if it just redirected to "shut up", especially without an explanation on the page of why it redirects there.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  06:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't say stupid things Giftiger. "Your argument is invalid" was viewed 64/105/448 times in February/March/April (it's more popular than you!). It isn't an unlikely search term at all. ÷seresin 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading AfD for how to hold a civilised AfD discussion without resorting to telling people to shut up and making unsubstantiated arguments. Not only is that a low average number of hits for the past three months, but it also doesn't show how users found the page (it seems very unlikely they typed that in as a search term), or what they were looking for when visiting the page. As I said above, the Internet meme page doesn't reference this meme, and it is an unlikely search term for any of the logic pages listed.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Zero mainspace pages link to this article, and likely zero pages at all link to it before the RfD (which equates to the pageviews of February and most of March above). Ergo, it is likely that almost all pageviews derive from direct searches, and you yourself said that phrasing is unlikely to indicate that a logic-related page is desired. So, again, please do a little fact-checking before you make such claims. ÷seresin 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the page is deleted, the searches will instead land on a search results page, which will serve the necessary purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, the user is interested in knowing the phrase is an internet meme. And, as almost universally agreed, "your argument is invalid" is unlikely to be a search term for a logic-related article. So what purpose, exactly, would be served? ÷seresin 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And, as also almost universally agreed, there is no indication that the phrase is an internet meme on the article Internet meme. And, again, please add the information there before trying to assist people who are looking for it. There's no use in rendering navigational aid to a non-existent destination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Deleting Your argument is invalid actively obfuscates information. It is clearly a searched-for term, and having a redlink just because someone has it in his head that a target must mention a redirect for the redirect to be valid is absurd. The RfD got it wrong, but this dab is a better solution anyway. It explains that it's a meme, and if someone wasn't looking for the meme (unlikely, but someone had that notion at the RfD) then we have links to likely logic-related targets, and everybody is happy. Navigational pages like this exist to serve the readers—so long as they have nothing harmful, these pages should be kept if they have any chance of being useful. And it is enormously clear that it is so in this case. ÷seresin 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So were you planning on quoting policy, or just making borderline personal attacks and trying to shout us down?  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a personal attack, so enough of that misdirection. No, I'm not going to quote policy, because there isn't a policy that says "Keep navigational aids when they're useful and deleting them is nothing but detriment". We have WP:IAR and WP:UCS for that. Tell me how this page harms the encyclopedia, and how deleting it makes it better. ÷seresin 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The invalid disambiguation page harms the encyclopedia by pretending to give navigational aid to readers searching for an article that might have been titled "Your argument is invalid", but instead only links to articles that make no mention whatsoever of "your argument is invalid". Once the AFD is complete, a cleaned-up version of the page would look like:
 * Your argument is invalid may refer to:
 * If there's any encyclopedic content possible on the topic of "your argument is invalid", it should certainly be added to the encyclopedia. Once that happens, Your argument is invalid can become a redirect the article with that information (and that information could be subject to the usual tests of reliability, notability, etc.). But until then, there's no ambiguity among the 0 encyclopedia topics for "your argument is invalid". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages do not exist to link to many pages with the same titles—they exist to disambiguate, thought this often entails many pages with the same titles. Some users may type "your argument is invalid" hoping to find information that it is an internet meme, others may be looking for articles about logic. This page adequately disambiguates the meanings for the user. ÷seresin 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since none of the articles offer any coverage of the topic "Your argument is invalid", obviously no meanings are disambiguated, and certainly not adequately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an invalid disambiguation page. If there is in fact verifiable sources for claims about the phrase and sufficient notability, an article can be created. Barring any actual encyclopedic content that is ambiguous with the phrase, there is no need for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless search term and invalid DAB page. None of the linked-to pages actually refer to this phrase. And no one is going to look up under a random put-down sentence for information; they will look under Logical fallacies. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.