Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Add "Delete because humans might be extinct by then" and "Delete because humans weren't even around back then"
I've seen this said a couple of times in a few AfDs (most recently in a currently active one the Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186). As I and a few other users states there, Wikipedia should operate based on the basis that it will be around when these sorts of things happen (with the exception being things like the Heat death of the universe or whatever. I've never seen the second one in an actual AfD but I figure it could be used and would be a faulty argument. As such, I believe this should be added (though I suppose only adding the first one would be fine too.) Thanks!  P o x y 4  (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - As nominator.  P o x y 4  (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's not clear to me that an event being too far in the future isn't a good basis for WP:TOOSOON. BrigadierG (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL
Hmmmm, that is not mentioned here? I thought it would be. Should we add it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Could certainly go into 'Surmountable problems'? Valereee (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valereee Agreed. Can you add it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting an addition: Arguments based on when the article was created
This is something I see frequently, which typically takes one of two forms. One is about "it's been around for a long time, so it's probably good". The other comes down to one side saying WP:RAPID while the other side says WP:DELAY, two opposing principles of the events notability criteria that merely express a personal philosophy towards keeping vs. deleting rather than provide any real argument at all one way or the other. Idea being, those principles can accompany concrete reasoning to keep/delete (sourcing, evidence that coverage will/won't be sustained, other reasons beyond notability, etc.), but on their own they're useless (like many of the others here). What do people think about something like this:

Examples:
 * Keep Article was just created. Give it time to develop. –WaitForIt (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been around for 10 years. –TenureCommittee (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Article was created just two days after the event occurred. -TooSoon (talk), 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID –DeletionNotAllowedYet (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DELAY –CreationNotAllowedYet (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How recently an article was created does not factor into the deletion policy. One common version of this argument regards the time an article spends on Wikipedia granting it a form of tenure, assuming that because it had not been deleted over the course of many years, it must exist for good reasons. However, there are many articles which attract little, if any, views or scrutiny over extended periods. Similarly, criteria such as notability can change over time, affecting older articles. Another version of this article is common in disputes over our coverage of events. The events notability criteria provides two opposing sections encouraging users not to rush to create an article and not to rush to delete an article. These are frequently cited by those advocating to delete or keep an article, respectively, but neither is a good reason for doing so unto itself. The underlying disagreement to focus on concerns whether the subject has received or is likely to receive sustained coverage over a period of time, as required by the notability guideline.

&mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the Article age section? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha. Somehow forgot that section (and "subject age") existed! &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's gotten very long. I'm wondering if we should start trimming the number of examples to those which provide actual additional info? Valereee (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It does seem like some can be combined. Maybe the two existing sections and the parts above that aren't included can be combined into a single "age". &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"We'd rather not have an article on us"?
Has there ever been consideration for inclusion of the argument, "We'd rather not have an article on us" or "I'd rather not have an article on me" as an invalid reason for deletion? This feels different from "I don't like it" or "They don't like it", but I can't point to a place where this sentiment is addressed. I've seen deletion discussions where the subject didn't want the article to exist but the article was kept anyway (because notable). I know there is the concept of WP:BLP which allows some leeway for a person to ask us not to host an article on them (sometimes) but WP:BLPGROUP suggests that this same courtesy does not extend to groups, esp large groups. A loose necktie (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)