Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions


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

The result of the debate was keep per WP:SNOW; that is, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in deletion. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 06:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Problematic essay presented as a genuine argument when reflecting (in practice) minority opinions and majority opinions in a dicey mix. Mainspace essays are generally problematic because they add weight to individual opinions, but this is truly egregious. It is, in fact, a list of opinions privately deemed "unacceptable" - since policy reflects, not dictates, practice, it also becomes a source of inertia against fixing bad ideas. -- Wily D 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ILIKEIT :-) Seriously though, it's a good essay. People do however rely on it too much though, and often mistake it for a policy or guideline. It could be userfied, but I'm not sure which user... -- How do you turn this on (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The "arguments to avoid" essay is a valuable adjunct to WP policies such as WP:NOT and WP:V, as well as guidelines such as WP:Notability, explaining those policies and guidelines in concrete terms. It has proven its value in numerous XfD discussions, by helping people avoid senseless arguments and focus on the significant issues. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has it ever proved anything but a detriment in those? Similar to the RfA one (which is also a blight) pruning with fire seems the only solution.  In any event, I'm confident that's not a criterion for speedy keep. Wily D  15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the fact that many editors don't read it (or the underlying policies it expounds) is the essay's fault. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep If there's a problem, it's that this should be upgraded to a guideline, not that it should be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are specific examples which do not reflect current XfD consensus then the solution is to edit the essay accordingly. That there is a aggregation of consensus with regard to past 'good' or 'bad' arguments for XfD is of obvious merit, since otherwise either 9a) 'consensus' would be a constantly changing ietm depending on the mix of editors commenting on a specific XfD or (b) there'd be endless referring back to past XfDs and you'd get a stream of attempts to cite precedent. If precedent is fairly summarised then that saves a lot of wasted effort. MadScot (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, possible bad-faith nom after nominator was referred to WP:USEFUL after making exactly that sort of argument in an AfD. In fact, seems a little pointed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming bad faith. Your misuse of the essay reminded me about how problematic it was, yes.  That's not a bad faith nomination, that's just a reminder the encyclopaedia needs work. Wily D  17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Ridiculous pointy nom. Please don't nominate things for deletion or drastic rewrites in a huff just because someone pointed out that your vote on another AFD carried zero weight. It's a practice I've seen from several admins that needs to stop. SashaNein (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I nominated it because it needs to be deleted. Would people prefer that I wait a couple months?  I can always come back when people will be unable to argue keep with red herrings and have to face the fact that the page is a blight ... Wily D  18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing that the page is a blight is your opinion, not a fact. SashaNein (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course blight has some value judgement. Horrendously disruptive and without redeeming value has horrendously, which is also a value judgement.  But there's no argument for keep here other than "Nominator was confronted with yet another example of what's wrong with this page, and therefor resolved to do something about it.  Hence we can't trust him." Wily D  18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are continually ignoring the first four keep votes that have nothing to do with your generalization. SashaNein (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That an essay is misused does not counsel its deletion. It is true that AADD is sometimes (often?) linked to in such a fashion as to suggest that it represents prescriptive, settled policy for which some clear consensus has evolved (as certain sections, e.g., ILIKEIT, PRETTY, ITSFUNNY, POPULARPAGE, and anything that persuasively incorporates by reference WP:NOT, may be), and that notwithstanding its being tagged as an essay, it is often understood as a guideline, but those are failures in its use that may&mdash;and should&mdash;be addressed whenever they are encountered (when I was active at AfD, I, for my part, addressed AADD misuses on several occasions, and I continue to recognize that there does exist an overuse/misuse/misrepresentation problem); deletion would be appropriate...well, never, but a move to userspace (a page that is in project space is probably seen as more "official" than one that is in userspace) would be appropriate only were the page necessarily disposed to misuse and were the usefulness of the page outweighed many times over by its disruptiveness, which is not, inasmuch as it is perfectly fine to link to a section of AADD to augment one's argument or offer a cogent, generalized case of a particular submission one might make (as, for instance, when at RfA one offers some analysis in his !vote and then links to his RfA standards page, whence an interested editor may see a longer-form, categorical version of the test employed), the case here. Joe 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Carnildo (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful comment Carnildo. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that is one of the few appropriate uses of that clause in a deletion discussion. Usefulness is not a particularly good indicator of whether an article page is appropriate for an encyclopedia but it is a good indicator of whether a policy/guideline/essay page is helpful to the project.  Incidentally, keep because our history has shown a recurring need to explain these fallacies to new editors (and sometimes to experienced editors).  Deleting the page would just make us copy-paste the same arguments and explanations endlessly.  The occasional misuse should be corrected through education, not deletion.  Rossami (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Widely-used, influential essay. Though not strictly policy, it is used as a benchmark essay by many many editors - it is linked to by over 1000 pages. One of WP's most useful and referred-to essays. Grutness...wha?  00:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Is this serious or a joke? — macy 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is a joke, I suggest the nominating administrator takes his position seriously. If it's not a joke, I suggest he uses far better judgment in the future. SashaNein (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.