Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 1

"It's useful"
I edited out the American physicist and Indian High school student to read just physicist and high school student, since it really doesn't matter in the least where in the world they're from. The example stands just fine without any territorial or other such potential bias. Oh, and it's from my IP instead of account as I CBA logging in on my freinds laptop. 195.112.6.10

Comments
Some parts of the essay are good, but others seem unconvincing. My least favourite section is "It doesn't do any harm". Although this argument is clearly overinclusionist and wrong, the explanation does nothing to establish why non-notable topics should be deleted - just because there are 6 billion people in the world doesn't mean all of them are going to have articles overnight, and I don't seriously believe resource constraints will ever be a problem. I think a better argument would discuss the maintenance overhead of each article, the spread of misinformation (which you did address), and the inflation of lists and disambiguation pages with less useful entries. Deco 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's unlikely that every single person on the planet would get an article, like a lot of the examples contained in the essay it's taking things to ridiculous extremes to make the point more clear. Still, I'd agree that it could be clearer that it doesn't take everyone on the planet having an article before non-notable articles are a bad idea. Now that I think about it, it would probably be worth pointing out the issue of manpower restraints as well as resource constraints, admins and editors who do RC/vandal patrol are spread fairly thinly as it is. Of course, resources aren't the key reason why non-notable articles are a bad idea, the fact that they're unencyclopaedic is more vital, but from my experience most people making the "it doesn't do any harm" argument have difficulty seeing how the fact that an article is unencyclopaedic is harmful; they tend to consider being informative (even if it's being informative about things nobody cares about) as more important. I wanted to add maintainence haul into the equation but couldn't for the simple fact that I don't know what the maintainence haul is, and couldn't for the life of me find the info. Anyway, I'll probably have a crack at making that particular section better, but I never intended this to be a personal essay so feel free to change/add anything you want to. -- Daduzi  talk  02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've tweaked the section a bit, but further comments/modifications are always appreciated. -- Daduzi  talk  12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Google test
I must say that I really liked your essay, because exactly these things have crossed my mind a lot lately (especially the cruft argument). I have taken the liberty of adding a section on using search engines to determine notability. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just added two additional sections (per nominator and just policy) and divided the arguments in several groups. Feel free to adjust. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability
I would take issue with "Wikipedia has a number of fairly strict notability guidelines that need to be met before a subject can even be considered for an article." [Emphasis added.] This keeps coming up in discussions on whether or not to keep articles, and shouldn't.

From Non-notability:


 * This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".''


 * Notability should not be used to argue for or against the inclusion of information on Wikipedia – instead, official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability should be used. However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information.

[emphasis added]

The article goes on to give great guidelines on how to handle articles that may be nominated:


 * 1) No solution is possible for articles on non-verifiable subjects, or topics that directly violate official policy.
 * 2) Articles that lack quality can be tagged as such, or readers can judge for themselves that a page is not written with the same standards as other articles.  A suggested fix is to specially mark articles of quality, and also articles without quality.
 * 3) Categories can be reorganized or further split off to form smaller more specific categories in which to place topics of differing degrees of fame.

Notability isn't on the List of guidelines. That list "is a comprehensive summary of all guidelines that are in use and have the current consensus of Wikipedia editors. Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions and could be changed and improved more easily."

The issue at hand is consensus. As has been noted at Notability, notabliity is a sticky wicket:


 * This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the talk page to discuss major changes.


 * Although notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of some editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy).

I'm obviously one of the editors that doesn't agree with the "opinion of some editors". I can't see how one can assert or deny notability without violating Neutral Point of View Neutral point of view. Let's take a brief outline for an article as an example: (assume all statements are verifiable and citations obtainable)

This person:
 * Was part of the original staff of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
 * Is credited in an Academy Award-winning film.
 * Created the largest known database using the early flat-file version of the database software FileMaker Pro with more than 10,000 records.
 * Was a member of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus (SFGMC), considered the "grandaddy" of the more than 100 LGBT Choruses worldwide. (See GALA Choruses.)
 * Served on the Board of Directors of Golden Gate Performing Arts, the non-profit parent corporation of the SFGMC; and produced the concert in 1987 that raised the money to retire the loan that financed the SFGMC's historic nationwide tour in 1981.
 * Was a member of the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, which has won several Grammy Awards.
 * Has worked as an Associate Instructor teaching Watsu, a ground-breaking form of bodywork done while floating the client in warm water.

Is this person notable? Can you imagine the discussion that would ensue? I warrant one of the first arguments to be put forth would be notability, which some people would feel was met. This person is directly associated with topics that are included in Wikipedia, etc. Others would feel that this was a perfect example of violating the Deletion of vanity articles official policy. (The latter people would be correct.)

So, at the risk of starting some sort of flame war, I'd like to see references here to Notability removed, as this would just fuel the flames of the controversy already surrounding the controversial guidelines associated therewith. There are other official policies and actual guidelines that are in place or being developed to use as reasons for deleting an article.

For example, I don't think the following is a sufficient argument (which you have pointed out in your similar example regarding WP:POV:

Delete. Fails WP:BIO.

The first paragraph of Notability (people) (formerly/still known as WP:BIO states:


 * This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included. Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline.

So if someone wants to cite the guideline, they need to cite the specific portions of it that they feel are applicable to the discussion at hand, not cite it as a blanket reason for deletion.

Additionally, a guideline that is proposed, e.g., Notability (pornographic actors) should definitely never be cited as a reason for deletion in and of itself. By virtue of its being a proposal which has not gained consensus, there are most likely portions that enjoy even greater contention than that of a guideline such as Notability (people). Again, the editor arguing for deletion should list those points that are relevant to the discussion at hand rather than citing the proposed guideline.

Since these sorts of edits are what I would consider to be rather major, I leave them to you to either perform or ignore, as you see fit. I realize that this was a long slog, I appreciate your making it this far, and thank you for your consideration. &mdash; Chidom   talk   18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not the original author of this essay, but I have contributed a couple of paragraphs to it, including the just a policy one, so I suppose I can also comment on this a bit. I partly agree with you that including the notability guidelines is tricky, because they are only guidelines and not policy and most of them are still under development. Also, the exact same points can be made by referring to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS in many cases where notability is an issue. On the other hand, I certainly looks like the notability guidelines will be an important part of Wikipedia guidelines and maybe even policy in the future, looking at how quick the concept is being adapted by the community. One could ofcourse argue to reinstate mentioning those criteria once this had happened and the process is finished. Personally, I think we should take the notability references out for now and only refer to real policy, but it is not a major issue for me, so I'll leave it up to Daduzi. I have just read Non-notability/Essay, which increases my feeling that we should leave out notability here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed them
I guess I kinda changed my mind on what I wrote earlier, but I just removed all reference to the concept of notability from the essay, where applicable replacing them with references to policies. This way, the essay sticks only to policies (and a few guidelines) for making the arguments, leaving out the more controversial notability concept. These are the changes I made:. For a short while I considered including even a seperate heading to describe why notability would not be a good idea to use withour further arguments, but I've decided to refrain from that because that way the essay would lean the other way, towards people not liking the notability idea. So for now, it is removed all together. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two more arguments
I'd like to suggest two more arguments that I've seen bandied about in AfD a lot...

"Keep: I thought AfD was to provide information on anything." --AllInclusive

"Keep: It violates the spirit of Wikipedia/Jimbo Wales' vision." --FriendOfWikiSpirit

Both of these are similar; in any case they're not true. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The "spirit of Wikipedia" argument in particular is annoying because it assumes the keep voter can read Jimbo's mind.

Should these be included in the "arguments to avoid"? Expanded of course. ColourBurst 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right that the first one pops up now and then (assuming you mean Wikipedia rather than AfD :) ), although mainly from new, inexperienced users. But sure, you can add it. With regard tot the second, I (luckily) have never seen that one in an AfD, so I would leave it out for now. But the choice is yours :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the page is ideally kept to common problematic arguments, and would avoid ones that don't come up as often to avoid a flood of information. I agree that the first above is quite common, and the second is not. Deco 09:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've written up the section on "providing information on everything". Let me know if there are any problems.  ColourBurst 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1.2 Just a policy or guideline,1.3 Per nominator
I disagree with both these sections. If the nominator already put things completely clearly, why do I necessarily need to restate them? Same thing with briefly mentioning a policy. If there are no reliable sources, and I say "delete, no reliable sources", do I really need to say more? While AfD is not a vote, there are certainly voting elements to it. If 3 people are "voting" keep, and only the nominator has asked to delete the article, probably it will be kept. If 3 people want to keep, and 20 want to delete, probably it will be deleted. So "me too" votes are, in fact, counted, so they do, in fact, have a purpose. Some people prefer brevity. --Xyzzyplugh 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I was the one who contributed those sections, I'll answer your points. I do see your point and sometimes brevity is indeed a virtue.


 * With regard to the per nom: It is very disappointing (the actual word that came to mind was annoying) when someone goes through lengths making a point in favor of keeping an article and in the end it gets deleted because the nominator said only fails WP:NOTE and there are a couple of per nom votes, but no real argument. I will change the sections to mention that if the nominator makes a clear, well sourced point for deletion, one could think of supporting this with a per nom vote, but I'll a remark that this useless if there are already a couple of those votes.


 * With regard to the other one, I'll still think that it is a valid point. Saying delete, no reliable sources does not give much information to other editors. Does it have no sources at all? Do the sources not reflect what is stated in the article? Does it have sources, but are they to non-reliable? Also, please keep in mind here that there is often a lot of debate on what exactly constitutes a reliable source. Similar reasoning can be applied when referring to other policies without further comment.


 * I hope this clears things up a bit and I welcome any further suggestions. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the "per nom" bit is not true. Disappointing, perhaps, but a "per nom" vote does count, if the issues are otherwise debatable. Ask any administrator how they will close a deletion discussion with 5 good arguments to keep, and 5 to delete. Now ask how they will close a deletion discussion with those same 5 good arguments to keep, and 5 to delete, and 5 "delete per nom". It matters. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it appears to matter. But according to the Wikipedia policy that "AfD is not a vote", it should not matter and therefore it certainly does not need to be encouraged. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I nuanced this argument a bit. Some nominations (those by JzG, for example), tend to be very well-framed and supported, such that a per nom vote is entirely reasonable. I think it is common sense that attention be paid to the arguments for deletion in the nomination. If I am off-base, please revert it back. Eusebeus 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting
Before reading this essay, I wrote a somewhat similar one (with a more narrow focus) here. I think our general normative conclusion (that Wiki content policy should be used as ground for deletion in lieu of many other inferior reasons) is similar. I enjoyed reading your essay. ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ILIKEIT
Dear Daduzi,

You started off with the User:Daduzi/Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page some time ago. Me and other contributors have added to it and it is quite stable now for some time. I was wondering if you would agree with moving (or copying) it to the project space, it might attract more attention there. Regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it as well! :-) Carcharoth 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe this is a good idea as well. *Sparkhead  22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good. Daniel.Bryant 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support this move as well. However Special:Contributions/Daduzi says he last edited in September, which makes this even better a candidate for being an essay in the general space rather than leading people to believe it 'belongs' to this one user. What say the rest of you? -- nae'blis 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not sure what to do here. If you don't think the user would mind, move it to the Wikipedia namespace, possibly as a subpage of Deletion, but leave a note on the talk page making clear that you moved it, not the user. The redirect left here will go across namespaces though, and I thought that was not allowed. Definitely need to leave something here indicating where it went, and have the edit history over there for correct attribution. Also, a note on the user's talk page would be good, in case he or she comes back. Carcharoth 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't a clue as to how to do this, but ...
...how would one go about proposing that this essay become a guideline? Does anyone know how that process works? (I'm not sure that that isn't what's being proposed in the section above this one.) I think it's useful information that should be more readily available and referenced more often. (I could even see putting a link to it in the AfD, Prod cfd, etc. templates.) Alternatively, a proposal to incorporate this information in How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette.

I could also see a spin-off from this essay into one about discussions in general (i.e., for surveys, nominations, etc.). These arguments really should be avoided in any type of discussion where recommendations by editors are being solicited in a discussion. &mdash; Chidom   talk   18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great
Great page and very helpful. Thanks. Dgray xplane 05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How about IAR?
Does anyone object to adding a section of WP:IAR? I've seen it be used latetly a few times on deletion discussion. Such as:
 * Keep per IAR. -Iignorerules
 * What does everyone think? -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it needs a clarification that IAR isn't an argument on its own, you need to support how it improves the encyclopedia. Since guidelines represent consensus on what constitutes improving the encyclopedia, you better accompany it with a darn good rationale why we should ignore those. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So long as you add a section on WP:SNOW. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * IAR isn't an argument on its own but could be used to break through e.g. arguments that are technically true but not practically relevant. It's probably not the best way of phrasing that, thuogh.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Go do something else!" argument
Here is an argument that I see from time to time, and I wanted to see what people thought if it should be added here.


 * Example: Keep - Why are you wasting time trying to get this article deleted? You could be spending your time working on article X. --User:WikiTaskmaster
 * Example: Delete - We don't need people wasting time on articles like this when they should be improving article X. --User:WikiTaskmaster

There are several problems with this argument. 1) No one is obligated to do anything on Wikipedia. We're all volunteers, so we are free to work on whatever we want as long as they are good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Any edits that improve the encyclopedia are welcome regardles of how unimportant they are. 2) The importance of articles (or debates) is subjective. What is meaningless to one person may be a high priority for someone else. 3) This argument doesn't address the argument at hand at all. Whether or not another article is more in need of work than this one has no bearing on whether it should be kept or deleted. —Cswrye 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very valid point; I'd say it merits inclusion here. :] --Keitei (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How can an article violate a policy...when the "policy" is a "guideline"?
One of my favorite "delete" comments I see a lot is "violates WP:RS". Yeah. You can't "violate" a guideline. Per Wikipedia "guidelines": ...it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Except, that isn't how it's done. WP:RS is used all the time as a basis for deletion, with NO exceptions that I can find. Thoughts? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can give you my opinion. The page itself is a guideline, because it's not meant to be followed to the letter. But the concept of providing reliable sources is just WP:V. After all, what some random guy said on a forum does not provide verifiability; they could easily be lying, or be misinformed, or some such. -Amarkov blahedits 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can certainly violate a guideline (maybe the term "violate" is too strong, but you can "break" or "go against" a guideline). It's not problematic if people or issues break guidelines, because guidelines can have exceptions. However, if people disagree whether such an exception is reasonable, it may be useful to discuss that, and that is what happens on AFD. Basically, people say (using shorter phrasing, but still) that they believe a certain page runs counter to our guidelines. Other people concur, or dissent that (1) it doesn't run counter, or (2) it's a reasonable exception because so-and-so. For instance, in the case of RS, a reasonable exception could be made if (a) it is common knowledge, or (b) a source could plausibly be thought to exist. That's why we discuss it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

wtf?
Why are people citing this as policy? Gah. oTHErONE (Contribs) 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They are? Where? Note that linking to a page does not mean "citing it as policy"; see Per for an explanation.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic. I'm starting to see this referred to more often in AfDs. In fact, seeing links to this essay on AfDs is how I learned of it. Frankly, I would not like to see the trend continue. While this is an interesting essay and makes many valid points, I also find that it somewhat dismissive, unbalanced, and fails to consider why many editors use the shorthand phrases that they do. Agent 86 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's only an essay, and will never ever be more. No matter how far you cut it down, something there is going to be used as shorthand by someone. -Amarkov blahedits 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm finding this is happening more and more. Not a good trend, especially considering that the essay is slanted in favour of deletionists. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Google test example
"Similarly, there are many examples where a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee for being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, for example in the case of wide spread urban myths." But if an urban myth is pervasive and well known, it can be notable. I think the example erroneously suggests that falsehoods cannot be valid subjects, perhaps confusing a false assertion in an article with an article about a false assertion. Just wanted to point that out; I can't think of a good replacement for it right now. Postdlf 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the good arguments?
Is there an essay that lists good arguments? It would be valuable to link to that from this one. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be like the worst essay ever. People would constantly be saying "That doesn't fall under Arguments to use in deletion discussions, so you can't use it!" -Amarkov blahedits 15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would not differ from what they're doing now. I've created a companion essay for this one, though it's probably more cynical/nihilistic than you had envisioned. — CharlotteWebb 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but seriously, this essay is full of negativity. There should be a guide to good deletion discussion arguements if anyone cares to write it.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm using this for school!
I keep seeing users pop out of nowhere and suddenly claim that they're using the article to be deleted for a paper. Recently here. I think pointing out the weaknesses of this argument (Wikipedia is not here to cater to your strange choices for research and laziness of looking for better sources) would be a nice addition, at least as a section of "It's useful". ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I like/don't like it
in recent AfD debates I've heard these used more about notability than about content--and much more using it against the validity of a statment implying inclusion than the other way round. How can one like content? I think te equivalent for content might be "I know in my heart it's true" vs "this sounds like nonsense to me." Should this one be moved within the essay? DGG 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the "It's all true information, trust me", it's a common argument in AfD. And people have used it to argue for a keep/delete vote.  ColourBurst 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand
I have seen such an argument about an article on zh:wikipedia. I found that I could understand that article.---user talk:hillgentleman 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE used as IDONTLIKEIT
It's not a recent trend, but it's becoming one of my pet peeves when authors are making comments such as "Delete as indiscriminate knowledge". I view this as nothing better then the IDONTLIKEIT argument, but substitutes a policy instead of an essay. Therefore I suggest to clarify that use of WP:NOT should be avoided unless the editor is referencing one of the specific points on the section or explain why the article is "indiscriminate knowledge". In short, the burden of proof should be on the editors claiming that an article is indiscriminate knowledge instead of having other editors prove that the article isn't indiscriminate knowledge. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything can be used as IDONTLIKEIT if you fail to explain why. We don't really need to list everything that doesn't imply a reason why. -Amark moo! 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting
I find it interesting that there are more sections to disprove keep comments than there are delete comments. This essay is biased towards the deletionists (I should note that I don't see myself as either a deletionist, or an inclusionist). Does this essay really convey what Wikipedians really think? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most duff arguments are from new users or even meatpuppets who don't understand AfD properly, and they normally !vote 'keep'. I'd say that duff arguments to keep are more varied than duff arguments to delete (which normally just say 'non-notable' or similar). Besides, the essay doesn't seem that biased to me; there are a few more sections explaining the problems with keep arguments than with delete arguments, but that's because their opposites never come up (for instance, I've never seen Delete there should be no information in Wikipedia). One thing that I have seen, and maybe should be added, is Delete I've never heard of them (in the face of several reliable sources showing notability). --ais523 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And "Delete because her brother's famous, she can't be, even though I never did any research to see if she was." KP Botany 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Most duff arguments are from new users or even meatpuppets who don't understand AfD properly, and they normally !vote 'keep'" - this adds weight to my view that AfD is biased towards established users who are (primarily) deletionists. If a new user (not meatpuppet) thinks certain topics should be included on Wikipedia, where exactly do they go to register their opinion if not AfD? The main problem is that there is far too much instruction creep here now, which potentially creates a hostile environment for new Wikipedians. Beyond the obvious WP:V and WP:OR requirements, I think AfD primarily should be about "ILIKEIT" and "IDONTLIKEIT", so long as people can explain why they like or dislike certain things being in Wikipedia.
 * Incidentally, regarding "opposite" arguments - the opposite argument to "Wikipedia should be about everything", which I've seen crop up from time to time, is "Wikipedia should be a classical encyclopedia, we should sweep out ALL pop culture articles, it's just cruft." AdorableRuffian 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Othercrapexists
I'd like to raise an opposition to the received wisdom that othercrapexists is not a good argument. I agree that in the main this is true, however othercrapexists should be a good counter to systemic bias and so should not always be assumed to be nonsense. An example would be the Articles for deletion/Affluence (KCR) AfD as the comparison to similar articles from other areas of the world where wikipedia has a better developed article set serves as a useful means of determining the notability of the articles. MLA 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the point you bring up is exactly why the othercrapexists criteria is there. Two articles may have similar content (or maybe only similar subject matter, I've seen arguments like "but my little company that has no sources sells software, just like Microsoft and IBM"), but one may be covered in reliable sources, meeting WP:V and the other may not be so lucky.  For your example, the argument's hinging on whether "light rail" (in the Hong Kong context) is rail, and I'd say that those would be closer to streetcars than rails.  ColourBurst 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping my point is somewhat more subtle than that. Othercrapexists in respect of some notable and verifiable thing exists so therefore my related but non-notable and non-verifiable article should exist is fine.  However, I think it is easy to use this as a means of excluding articles through wikipedia's pronounced systemic bias.  On the example that I put forward, the prevailing argument was that it should be deleted until the putting forth of an argument that seems on the face of it to be othercrapexists and I believe it was a good use of that kind of point as it helped to clarify the equivalence to other articles that are better covered. MLA 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had another thought about this and that is that othercrapexists is a form citing precedent, particularly for those who might not be familiar with wikipedia's complex processes. While I sympathise with the concept behind othercrapexists, I'm finding myself in opposition to this particularly as ilikeit is cited quite so frequently these days. MLA 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" covers good as well as bad arguments, in my view. To state that a comparable article survived a previous deletion debate is absolutely relevant to an AfD discussion - the whole point of such discussion is to establish consensus, and any evidence of an existing consensus is germane to the debate. It is a far more useful argument than simply invoking WP:N without explanation or citing an arcane and pedantic interpretation of a policy or guideline (something which I feel is often used in bad faith, by experienced Wikipedia editors, to intimidate newcomers). Bad arguments include using the existence of an article on a notable topic to argue for the retention of a non-notable one, or using the non-existence of an article to argue for the deletion of an existing one (better phrased as "OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST" - if this was consistently applied, of course, Wikipedia would have no articles at all). AdorableRuffian 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"is unlikely to become one"
User:The Sky May Be added the phrase into the header. What purpose does this add to this page? A lot of essays are unlikely to become policy, yet they don't have this modification. The future standing of this essay doesn't really affect how it's applied or not applied now, either. ColourBurst 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because s/he disagrees with the essay and is trying to do a minor POV push. I first thought it was a simple subst of the tag and didn't pay that much attention, but now that you bring it up, I'm going to restore the original essay tag. --Farix (Talk) 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as NPOV doesn't apply to essays. See Essays are not policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted my edit
On second thoughts, I've reverted my edit where I put on that essay-NPOV template. I have instead created the essay Essays are not policy. As they say, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait and See
I would like to add "Wait and See". I have never added to an essay before. CAn I just add it, or does it have to be ratified? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Essays are opinion pieces and represent the opinions of the user who wrote them, and often other users as well. Feel free to add to the essay, but don't worry too much if your addition is reverted; there are people who disagree with the essay, and different people will like different parts. --ais523 10:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

About the shortcuts
There has been some discussion about how this essay is referred to in deletion discussions and (as one of the original authors, together with Daduzi), I must say that the diversity of shortcuts referring to the different sections encourages overly enthusiastic citation of this essay. Personally, I'd like to see most of those shortcuts deleted (e.g. the inflammatory WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:SCORCHEDEARTH, which show very little respect when used in reply to arguments). But, I would like to know how other people feel about this and would like to hear some opinions, before (if at all) nominating the shortcuts for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:SCORCHEDEARTH is concerned, I think it is an appropriate way of describing attempts to defend an article by stating that other similar articles should be deleted as well. And I don't see either of these shortcuts as inflammability, but rather being blunt about someone else's argument. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that blunt or rude would a better description. The argument still stands however, this essay is cited too often and read to little by those who cite it. I believe that occurs largely because of the large variety of "funny", blunt or otherwise inappropriate redirects that have been created to link here. Currently, we have:


 * WP:ILIKEIT - by far the most used
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT - also quite often used
 * WP:INTERESTING - also quite often used
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - used often, way to blunt though
 * WP:USEFUL - used ~40 times
 * WP:AADD - used ~20 times, most neutral link
 * WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT - unused
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE - used 2 times
 * WP:ATA - used 7 times
 * WP:ITSFUNNY - used 6 times
 * WP:HARMLESS - used 3 times
 * WP:NOHARM - used once
 * WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING - used once
 * WP:SCORCHEDEARTH - used 4 times
 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT - used 3 times

I mean, this is just too much... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For certain, WP:ILIKEIT is the one used the most often. It comes from the consequence of being the first shortcut made (long before the essay was moved to WP: space, to get an idea of how long it existed), so most people referred to it that way.  I know it promotes "just a policy" thinking, but even without the current shortcuts people will just revert back to the "NN, D" style of arguing which is just as bad.  So ILIKEIT is the new NN.  I'm not sure we can prevent this without modifying people's behaviour.  As for "other crap exists", do you have an alternative that would get the point across?  WP:COMPARE?  WP:JUSTASNOTABLE?  ColourBurst 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ILIKEIT was used before it even was a shortcut. -Amark moo! 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know how long it has existed, together with Daduzi I was one of the early authors. The first shortcut was WP:ILIKEIT, to which I have no particular objections. My problem is mainly that we do not need this diversity of shortcuts, as it distracts from the main message of the essay, that you should use sound arguments, not shouting links or hollow phrases. This diversity of links actually promotes shouting them around, which is contrary to the essay itself. One or two good links should be more then enough I think. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure this is a shortcut problem, rather than a behavioural problem. The "I like it" meme has travelled so far that even if you wiped out all the shortcuts except WP:AADD tomorrow it'll just cause people to go ILIKEIT instead.  Which is ironic given that the essay was designed to wipe out these arguments.  I think a better way to solve it is to put a nutshell statement saying "try to fully explain your reasoning behind your keep or delete statement; short statements that don't explain the reasoning don't help the deletion discussion."  That way people don't have to read through the whole essay to get the point.  Of course, purging a large number of the shortcuts wouldn't be bad, either. ColourBurst 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think I totally agree with you. Its a behavioural problem, of which the many shortcuts are a symptom (which does not mean some of them should not be deleted). I liked the idea of the nutshell statement and included one just now, you're welcome to tweak it as you see fit. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can drop a few of those on WP:RFD; I tend to agree that this page has way too many shortcuts.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I had planned, I justed want to gather some opinions here before doing so. But I'll guess I'll nominate the unused and hardly used links, together with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which I still consider unnecessary rude. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And so is done, input is appreciated at Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6, where I nominated several redirects for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not notable
I've seen far too many deletion nominations and comments that simply state that the subject of an article is not notable. Instead, I would like to see better explanations as too why the subject is not notable. Comments such as "No reliable sources to establish notability" or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes WP:N" are far better then simply saying "non-notable". However, I'm having trouble on how to phrase this in the essay. So I welcome additional comments --Farix (Talk) 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably closest to "it's unencyclopedic" and "just a policy" in the reasonings. Try looking at those.  ColourBurst 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Written and included. Feel free to cleanup, expand, and/or clarify. --Farix (Talk) 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove IFD from the opening paragraph
I'd like to remove IFD from being mentioned in the opening of this. The "discussions" that occur there are often minimal (if any) and most of this does not include IFD. Specifically, the code UE (unencyclopedic) is a valid claim for images. If it had a value to us (aka, encyclopedic) we'd put it in an article somewhere, but the nominator (and others) are saying that they don't see how this is useful. It's most likely used on images of a user they uploaded for their userpage (a picture of a user isn't encyclopedic) so we don't need it (would only generally apply if the image was also an orphan, aka not used), but can be used in other times. -- MECU ≈ talk 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've only seen a bit of IfD, but from what I've seen, it's quite hard to decipher what UE, OB, OR, etc means unless you've read a few nominations. But IfD regulars use them, and don't have shortcuts to point to.  I'm not sure they're immune to the allures of the "short arguments" (WP:WOTTA, anyone?) ColourBurst 23:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A guideline or policy? Preferably not!
Someone just put up the tag that proposes this essay to become a guideline or policy. As one of the early authors, I want to advise strongly against doing so. As I have explained before at several locations, this essay is being cited too much by people who have misinterpreted its intention. The essay was meant to encourage people to use sound arguments rather than dumping votes, Google searches or links to WP:ACRONYMS in AfD discussions. Quite the contrary has happened though. This essay is being cited too often in AfD discussion without the citing person giving any additional rationale for providing the link. In addition, the contents of this essay are so diverse that they do not reflect a consensus opinion as a whole. Many people agree with certain sections of the essay, but not with others. In addition, its contents reflect the current situation of Wikipedia, as is exemplified by the later addition of arguments on notability and the like. Therefore, its contents might change to much to ever reflect an "official" guideline (and especially policy). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree--I too saw it recently used & had to explain. As I havent that much personal involvement on this p., I consider myself objective enough to remove the tag, & I just did so,DGG 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Policies and guidelines: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." This page is not actionable, so it should not be a guideline. Consensus is the policy on consensus. This page has a useful role as an essay, to be actionable, an entirely different page would need to be written, which should be started elsewhere. GRBerry 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarifying why I feel this is not actionable. Although it recommends against a bunch of behaviours, it doesn't really say not to do them, it just says that there are more effective ways to opine.  GRBerry 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to have a guideline which sets out the kind of arguments that administrators should find persuasive when considering an AFD. Except we have one already - Deletion guidelines for administrators. Personally I don't think this essay should be used as a guideline as many of the sections would not command consensus and some could simply discourage editors from commenting on AFDs - not the solution we want. Perhaps some of the sections from here that do command consensus could be moved there? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I added that tag, and here's why I added it: I am not looking to say that this page should be a guideline on Wikipedia. The reason I added the tag is because in the AfD discussions I have partaken in in the month since I returned to editing, it had been treated as if it already was a guideline, or even a policy, for the deletion of articles. People are very consistently linking to or referencing the page, usually doing so below the point on the page where it explains the things listed are a part of an essay and not policy or guidelines. I'm not trying to make this page a guideline, I'm just trying to get a consensus on the matter - either way - so that it can be referenced correctly in deletion discussions. I hope you all understand what I'm getting at here. --CastAStone|(talk) 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that makes perfect sense. I also think the linking to subsections is part of the problems. I am going to put a short, once-sentence statement at the beginning of each section to clarify the idea and make clear this is an essay. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added a short statement at the beginning of each section that is directly linked by a shortcut. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This essay should not become a guideline. As a frequent participant on AFD, I'll explain as follows. Wikipedia votes that don't contain a rationale, or a good rationale, are still useful. It's easier for an administrator to deal with a nomination followed by 10 "Delete per nom"s than if the nominator, with equally strong reasoning, were not supported by others. If we're trying to build consensus, then any user's contribution to that consensus is worth something. I'll also note that User:W.marsh, who handles deletion as an admin, has a little bot to help him tally the "delete", "keep" and other votes. YechielMan 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: All or Nothing
The point in that section about the process having possibly been applied incorrectly to previous AFDs is well taken, but I don't see how that applies the other way. If an article on the most notable of a very similar group (say, characters in a specific tv show or one list in a grouping of nearly identical lists) is deleted at AFD then surely the other members of that group are in danger of being deleted as well, right? Recury 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Each and every article should be decided on its own merits. Not everything has to do with notability. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merits are fine, but if a subject isn't notable, then it's going to get deleted. Recury 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the example you gave above is too specific. The argument is to be interpreted more like:
 * Delete this article on hip-hop band X, we also deleted the article on hip-hop band Y
 * What the section means is that the results on band Y do not have any influence on the results for band X. In addition, notability criteria certainly do not apply to all areas of Wikipedia. There is broad agreement, for example, that cities and town, regardless of "notability" deserve their own articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your essay doesn't distinguish between specific cases like mine or general ones like yours. That's my point. Recury 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer to say  that they have different standards. Some of this has to do with the way WP got  started,and the need to fill inn content rapidly. This accounts for the otherwise absurd choice to add articles from a ninety-year old culturally biased encyclopedia, and it also applies to the use of a gazetteer. Logically, there was no reason to stop there--a  complete list of schools and post offices and street names could also have been used, and there are some who continue to want just that.  It is only lack of editors who have prevented the need to come to terms with the lack of geographic limitation--as stated, WP must  include every village everywhere~
 * However, there are advantages in arbitrary very inclusive criteria in some cases, and this might be one of them. Just imagine AfD if it were otherwise. DGG

I find that if someone argues Keep, you have an article on Y which is the same sort of thing as X, what happens most often is that Y gets put up for deletion too (normally deservedly), which is quite a good outcome as long as there aren't any WP:POINT violations involved. Of course, it makes the original !vote pretty useless, so it's an AADD in that sense. --ais523 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've read an article and decided ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT - what do I do now?
If WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are "arguments to avoid" in supporting the keeping or deleting of an article, where is the best place to express the subjective opinion that articles on certain subjects should or shouldn't be part of Wikipedia? Everyone has different opinions on what is "encyclopedic" and what is "notable". If I think, for example, that articles on schools should be part of Wikipedia, where exactly do I go if I want to help establish consensus? I would have thought that AfD was one of the best pages to establish consensus on what should be kept, but it would seem that some editors have decided point blank that this is not so.

AfD in particular seems to be somewhat biased in favour of "delete" voters, and these little shortcuts ("ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep the article!") mainly add to that bias. AfD is no longer just about cruft and vanity - we have someone there now who wants to delete articles about number 1 hit songs by a major artist (Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song)) using a subjective and strict interpretation of the WP:N guideline. AdorableRuffian 11:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not my subjective interpretation. It is pretty commonly agreed that notability requires for X to be the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources. If you want to talk about changing guidelines and policies, the talk pages of the relevent guidelines and policies are the places you should go. — coe l acan t a lk  — 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is "pretty commonly agreed", show me a page which explains this. I did not say that I wanted to change the WP:N guideline, I was questioning your interpretation of it. The WP:N page does not state that the subject of an article should be the primary subject of multiple cited works and I highly doubt that such an interpretation would be agreed upon by the majority of Wikipedia editors. It sets the "bar to notability" far, far, higher than would generally be considered reasonable. Going by your interpretation, citing a textbook about the pancreas in the article Islets of Langerhans, or a Beatles biography in the article Ringo Starr, would not "count" under WP:N, as the article subjects are not the primary subjects of the cited sources. AdorableRuffian 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is to see if the stuff really doesn't belong on WP, based on the content policies, and if it does belong, but you don't like it, then just live with it! Or try and discuss a change in rules -- but remember, the final consensus will still stand and you'll have to accept it. If it really doesn't belong, then you should nominate it on AFD. We should have less subjectivity here on WP, not more. mike4ty4 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"This number is big" - establishing notability
May I draw attention to the following sentence:

Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they don't, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired.

In fact, the subject may not be notable before they write a piece on it! Influential journalists have the ability to make a subject notable. Certain websites, certain bands, certain other things, have only become notable because a notable journalist has decided "ILIKEIT". For popular music in particular, journalists can be "kingmakers". Look at all the bands in the UK who only made it big because a NME or Melody Maker journalist thought they were great.

This isn't a criticism of the general argument, merely an observation that professional writers are not always held to the same high standards as amateur Wikipedia editors. AdorableRuffian 11:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We'd then have to establish "influentiality" of a journalist, etc. I think the gist is that Wikipedia should not decide it, since Wikipedia is just to report on what is already out there. It doesn't have so much to do with "professional" vs. "amateur" as it has to do with the purpose of Wikipedia itself. The world outside of Wikipedia is what defines and creates notability. mike4ty4 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A few random thoughts about these arguments
ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS - when used in good faith, these arguments are direct attempts to establish or cite consensus. Saying you like/dislike the subject of an article is obviously not a very good argument, but ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT are often (incorrectly) invoked when a person explains why they like/dislike the article itself. In this context, these are primarily arguments about what Wikipedia is/is not and are a perfectly valid means of expressing an opinion about what should or shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument based on an existing consensus about which articles should be kept or deleted; where it refers to previous deletion discussions, it is more often than not a good argument.

INTERESTING, USEFUL - again, fair arguments if "interesting or useful to readers of Wikipedia" is implied (and the editor elaborates a little on why s/he thinks the article is interesting or useful). The essay tells us to "avoid subjective judgements" in deletion discussions, which I find ridiculous as such discussions are inherently subjective.

Arguments without arguments - just plain bad. No argument from me.

This number is big - this may be a good argument if used in conjunction with OTHERCRAPEXISTS as stated above, to establish that a valid comparison is being made. If, for example, a band verifiably sold nearly as many records or had nearly the same number of hit singles as a notable band such as The Beatles, then there is a strong argument for keeping the band article. "This number is small" may be an equally valid deletion argument if used in a similar way. See also my comments about journalists above.

ITSFUNNY, IDONTKNOWIT - bad. I'm surprised at how often the latter pops up.

NOHARM - possibly a bad argument in itself, but poorly explained in the essay. There are severe limitations on Wikipedia's size other than the notability guidelines (e.g. the finite number of people who wish to edit and contribute to the encyclopedia). Relaxing inclusion guidelines does not mean we will end up with articles about everything. One could say that NOHARM argues for a presumption in favour of keeping an article if there are no more convincing arguments either way.

ABOUTEVERYTHING - a perfectly valid opinion, but not a strong argument in favour of keeping an article if the overwhelming consensus is that there should be at least some restrictions on what articles are included. Again, Wikipedia will never have articles on everything so long as it is maintained by a finite number of human beings (rather than these guys).

SCORCHEDEARTH - actually a good argument which cites the existence of a consensus in favour of keeping the article. If consensus has changed, the evidence of this should be cited by those who wish to delete the article - simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "SCORCHEDEARTH" is not helpful. Strangely, the essay here seems to imply that deletion discussions are somehow separate from the consensus-forming process, when surely they are (or should be) a key means by which consensus is established.

Fame in x - "big fish in small pond" is a tricky issue on Wikipedia, and this part of the essay does not really address it properly. Forget about your Aunt Mildred in her sleepy village, and think about well-known politicians, sportsmen, and local "characters" in large or medium-sized towns. That is where the main problem lies. Not only that, there may be geographical bias in the "reliable sources" themselves. In the United Kingdom, for example, most of the print media is based in London, so readers in, say, Newcastle have far more opportunity to read about London-specific phenomena than readers in London have to read about Newcastle-specific phenomena.

Google test - this is just a variant of "this number is big" and is only meaningful if a relevant comparison is made.

AdorableRuffian 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No harm and redundancy
I took the (ironic) liberty of butchering the "no harm" section and replacing it with some links to meta that cover similar material, and in fact use very similar wording:


 * "inclusionists counter that there is little harm in keeping material that might some day be improved as information on the topics become more widely available"

The "no harm" argument is an extreme inclusionist position best discussed in the philosophical context of inclusionism versus deletionism, which the meta articles already do much better than the rambling diatribe we had there before. Thus the drastic change. If you liked some of the material we had, I think it would have more room for review and expansion at m:Deletionism. Deco 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"For the people"
Rossami rolled back my inclusion of the WP:FORTHEPEOPLE section. I had specifically added that in response to issues I'd seen with afds on the Essjay, Daniel Brandt, and Barbara Schwartz issues. from what I've seen, the only disruption from these articles to the project in each case has been a very, very small minority (or lone people) that do IAR things to impose their perceived will on the community... and then all the disruption consists of the community backlash (as to be expected). The articles themselves aren't problems, as content is... content. like schroedinger's cat it's neither here nor there until someone does something to it. The problem is that getting rid of any mainspace article "for the good of the community" is a hollow argument--what community? Whose? Do the 4-5 people on a given Afd that invoke this speak for all... 10,000+ active editors? And are we getting rid of the content truly for the good of the community or to appease the disuptive extreme minorities that won't/can't let something go? Deletions should be based on precedent and policy, not strawman IDONTLIKEIT on a grand scale... that's why I added this.

Can anyone cite me cases (please link to them) where as he put it, "A fair number of deletion decisions are based on what's best for the project.", as supported by closing admin statements? thanks. - Denny 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I tried to add a brief note but didn't have enough space in the edit summary and didn't have time at work to comment extensively here.  Decisions based on legal liability can be an example of deletions "for the good of the project".  All the great work we are doing and all the volunteer hours will be wasted if we set ourselves up to be sued into shutdown.  You can find examples by reviewing the OFFICE files.  It's not the majority of deletions performed but it's a sufficient minority that I had concerns about the wording of your draft.  Your wording struck me as rather sweeping - strongly implying that the very concept of "the good of the project" is a false concept, not merely that "the views of a minority may or may not speak for the views of the majority".  Taken to the logical extreme, your essay would seem to imply that we can't (or at least shouldn't) delete anything.  That creates overwhelming problems for the project.  Why would we delete any page except because by deleting the page we make the encyclopedia better?  If I'm misunderstanding your point, please correct me.  Rossami (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your points are actually great... let me clarify. Legal/OFFICE issues weren't my intention, but specifically the things I see on AfDs (actually very prevalent on the three I am/was following): Essjay, Daniel Brandt, Barbara Schwartz. A lot of the opinions put as Deletion reasons were based around the ideal that the articles simple existence--not citing any legal/BLP ground mind you, just their existence--was a problem, and that they should be deleted to long-term problems/disruption. I guess the same could be said for that GNAA article also. Basically, getting rid of something because it could lead editors to do stupid things for personal or emotional reasons, or due to possible long-term trollery isn't a valid reason to delete. We shouldn't remove stuff for non-policy, non-legal reasons, because they MIGHT be headaches later, or long-term. Every sitting President's article for forever will be a troll/vandal magnet. Do we remove them? Of course not, and shouldn't cut off our noses for possible future problems that seem to be in each case from a minority of people who decide IAR means "my way or the highway" against concensus. In other words, "delete this for the good of the community" rather than for policy/established reasons of how we deal with all other articles isn't valid, and supreme bad faith in their peers. does that make sense?


 * Take a look at this revised draft: User:DennyColt/Forthepeopledraft; I really think this is important to include. - Denny 05:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no way this has consensus. Some articles are horrendous shitfights, and the value of having them in the encyclopaedia is small enough that it's at least possible to consider that one should delete them. Your personal view that this is not a valid reason for deletion is not sufficient to negate that others do. That you see this on AfDs should give you a clue. Policy follows practice, not the other way round. Grace Note 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite even one article that was deleted for the good of the people as such? Note: Peppers doesn't count, since that was a Jimbo/OFFICE action... note also that all of the other things in this "essay" are opinions. - Denny 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian Peppers. GNAA. In any case, I do not have to show articles that were deleted, only that the argument is often used. Yes, I know that this essay features opinions, but this kind of thing has a nasty habit of finding itself quoted as though it was policy. Grace Note 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those weren't deleted "for the good of the people". The GNAA article was deleted because it was entirely unverifiable in reliable sources, and Brian Peppers was deleted as a non-notable individual (read: just another sex offender with a facial deformity).  Chris cheese whine 10:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this addition. An admin does not have to cite a reason as contributing to his decision to delete for such a reason to be valid. The closing admin during the Daniel Brandt deletion review did not say he was discounting the votes that had that as their reasons, so that is not a definitive judge of what is or is not a valid argument for deletion. If someone votes delete because they do not feel that a particular article that will never cease to provoke arguments and bad blood is worth the fuss they should have the right to state as much. We're here to write the best encyclopedia possible, adding an article that greatly detracts from the time and emotional state of being of a large number of otherwise productive editors on a regular basis when the article is of questionable worth in the first place could very well result in net degradation to the encyclopedia as a whole. Every time some massive drama explodes out of an article like Daniel Brandt, people go on extended Wikibreaks, some people leave Wikipedia altogether, in a case like the recent Daniel Brandt wheel war we lose valuable admins, and then there's the thousands of KB of wasted discussion. Some articles are simply not worth it. It is not assuming bad faith to assume that something that has happened multiple times in a row will happen again. It is assuming that the people who caused these problems were reasonable people who thought that they were doing the right thing, and that similar reasonable people will do the same in the future because such is human nature. Regardless, this essay is not just a collection of opinions. It is highly cited (how often does WP:ILIKEIT turn up in AFD?) and what is added here should reflect consensus. If this page fails to reach such a consensus it should be removed.-- Dycedarg  ж  05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would comment that "Some articles are simply not worth it..."would likely generate as much kb's of debate over the (non)inclusion of subject matter as you are trying to save by deleting articles on such subjects. An article such as Sexual Intercourse attracts vandalism simply by the subject matter, but would never be considered as being deleted as too much trouble. However, a subject matter attracting far less vandalism but considered far less noteworthy might? I have never seen anything like that in discussion. LessHeard vanU 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear, but you missed my point completely. This has absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. This is specific to situations with articles such as Daniel Brandt which several people stated should be deleted because it does nothing but provoke massive fights all the time, while being of generally little worth to the encyclopedia. Obviously those arguing in favor of deletion failed on that article, but there was no mention of the votes using this reasoning being discounted, so there is no reason why this reasoning automatically shouldn't be used in future debates.-- Dycedarg  ж  07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected regarding vandalism as opposed to edit warring, although I would continue to contend that pre-emptively declaring articles as having its worth to WP outweighed by the likely friction it may cause is still going to generate just as lively debate as having the article (with potentially the same result of losing editors over the matter). It just moves the controversy to a different arena. Even if it could be agreed on a few subjects that this still outweighs the risks in having the article there will be the problem of defining the point at which this happens, again with the resultant debate.
 * Thanks for the clarification, though. LessHeard vanU 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted to village pump
Just now, for a broader view. - Denny 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Other arguments to consider
Recently, I've been noticing arguments in AfD that favor deletion seemingly because somebody can vandalize an article. I consider these to be straw man arguments for the same reason that they are exercising any sort of concern, ironically: that is, anybody can edit this thing. So that said, I'm not convinced that "somebody might spam/vandalize/urinate upon/spray paint/AfD the article" is a valid argument, and it's my opinion that such an explanation should be in here. Thoughts? Maybe somebody can formulate something a bit more...well, diplomatic? =) --Dennisthe2 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * take a look at the "For the people" section directly above this--basically, I think we need something like this... for all these scenarios where people want to toss an article because hypothetical (or known) editors/admins won't be able to control themselves in the future. Which indicates a problem with those people, not the content... - Denny 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I didn't see this - but it covers the exact same issues I'm concerned about. WP:BEANS, for what it is worth, also comes into play - deletia as a form of prophylaxis, anybody? =) --Dennisthe2 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a section on ad hominem arguements: People who use arguments against the person making the arguement, not against the arguement itself. Arguements such as:


 * Keep the nominator frequently tries to delete articles about this subject, so we should ignore them
 * Delete we should ignore the comments of all those argueing keep because they are all from IP addresses.
 * Delete People argueing keep have all edited the article in question, so they have a vested interest in keeping it.
 * Arguemnts like this pop up ALL THE TIME in AfD. We need to steer people away from them. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, almost, Jayron. Be mindful that this one you address is kind of a sticky wicket - in some cases, there are people who really are doing AfDs because they just don't like something, or are simply trying to prove a point.  So cases like this, I think, need to be taken on an individual basis, rather than trying to prevent it outright - is Joe User deleting the furry-related articles because he really hates furry fandom, or is he indeed just trying to clear it out?  Maybe he is misinterpreting the part of WP:LOCAL (or whatever it is) that notes that notability within a group is not a qualifier for notability here, necessarily.  Just sayin'.  --Dennisthe2 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Two points in response
 * Bad arguments that happen to get the "correct" response should not be encouraged even though they happen to get it right. Simply because an article should be deleted does not mean all arguments for delete are good arguments.
 * Contrawise, the existance of a bad arguement in support of a good position does not nullify the position itself. For example, simply because a deletion arguement is support by someone "out to get" a certain class of articles does NOT mean that the article is worthy of keeping automatically.
 * Both of these arguements are ad hominem arguments, and should be avoided at all costs. In EVERY case, deletion or keep (and in some cases speedy keep) can be decided from facts at hand while NEVER resorting to faulty arguements.  If an article should be kept, it should be kept REGARDLESS of who is arguing for delete or why they choose to do so.  Likewise, deletable trash is deletable EVEN if some of those supporting delete do so in bad faith.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New section proposal: Ad hominem arguments.
Here is a draft for a new section, perhaps under the "fame or shame" or maybe the "point of view" header:

Ad hominem arguments
Examples:


 * Keep The nominator simply hates all Death Metal bands and is obviously out to delete every article related to this topic. -- Dontlikethenom 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Everyone supporting keep is obviously a member of the He Man Woman Hater's Club, and thus their arguements are invalid. We must then keep this article. -- Deleteitnow 05:07, 9 April 2004 (UTC)

The ad hominem fallacy assumes that because bad people are in support of a position, the position itself must be bad. While at the outset, it would appear that we don't want to encourage "bad behavior" by appearing to be in the same camp as those people who commit the "bad behavior", it should be noted that ad hominem arguements avoid dealing with the substance of the argument, and thus should be avoided. In this case, this issue is if we should delete or keep the article based on the article's adherance to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Disruptive editing, such as deletion nominations that appear to be about making a point can be dealt with through other fora at Wikipedia, but WP:AFD is not one of them.

The principle should always be: Does evidence exist that shows whether this article, with proper editing, can comply with established wikipedia policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV? If the answer is yes, the article should be kept. If the answer is no, the article should be deleted. This evidence exists independant of the motives, personalities, and actions of the people involved in the discussion. An WP:AFD discussion is about the presentation and vetting of this evidence. The deletion or keeping of an article is based on the merits of the article itself.

In many cases, bad faith nominations of patently notable and well-written articles can be speedy kept based solely on the content of the article. The nominator, if obviously acting in a malicious and disruptive manner, can be warned with the appropriate warning templates and, in cases of repeated violations, referred to a forum such as the adminsitrator noticeboard or request for comment. However, WP:AFD is not the place for such actions. Keep discussions at WP:AFD solely content related.

There's my proposal? Should we add it to the page? Comments? Suggestions? --Jayron32| talk | contribs 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This, to me, looks good. It feels like there should be a reference in here to WP:ILIKEIT, though. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not support the addition of this one. We should not try to cover each and every possible bad argument in this essay. It's already way to big. Arguments like this are very rare in deletion discussions and can be dealt with by directing people directly to Ad hominem. Also, it repeats way to much general information that applies to all bad arguments, not just this one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Soudns like a good addition to me. We don't want to cover everything, but ad homs occur used to occur quite frequently in AFD when I was a regular, and somehow I doubt that has changed much.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Two more types of arguments

 * 1) Magnet for vandalism/POV pushers
 * 2) Article is a mess

Would everyone agree that these are two bad arguments? Every page is a magnet for vandals and everyone has a POV on a subject so wikipedia would have to be entirely deleted if this was a valid argument. As for the second it is a bad argument since XFD is not WP:CLEANUP and the state of the article is not a cause for deletion. Koweja 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I see them used often, as well. - Peregrine Fisher 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That an article has been a particular attractor for vandals is a fact that can reasonably be weighed in a deletion discussion. We would never delete George W Bush just because it attracts vandals because it is a clearly encyclopedic topic and there are very many good editors who keep the article on their watchlists in order to revert the inevitable vandalism.  That's a very expensive task but we do it because the encyclopedia is clearly better with the article.  We might not make that same cost-benefit decision for a minor stub about a non- or semi-notable subject.  If Wikipedia can not find the necessary critical mass of informed and interested editor/volunteers to keep the article clean, to revert not just the overt vandalism but also all the subtle vandalism, the encyclopedia is better off without the page. This is a relatively rare situation but it happens enough that we can not categorically state that "vandalmagnet" is always and forever an invalid argument.  On the same note, "article is a mess right now" is a non-argument but "no one has shown any interest in cleaning it up or maintaining it in over x months despite requested cleanup" can be a valid consideration during the discussion.  Rossami (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Rossami. Those can not be the only reason, but they can be used as supporting reasons. -Amarkov moo! 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented earlier in the WP:Forthepeople section that defining the point when notability is outweighed by "more trouble than it is worth" is likely to create as much talk as it seeks to save in individual article AfD debate.LessHeard vanU 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsequitur as precedent
We have WP:WAX for the "other crud exists" argument, but what about something to the effect of nonsequiturs? For instance, "Fred Johnson shouldn't be deleted because we have an article on California highway 91!" Is this something for an inclusion into WAX, or should it be a separate argument? --Dennisthe2 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... do we really need something listing random absurd arguments people could make? It's really an insult to the reader's intelligence to tell them "If A is completely unrelated to B, then saying 'Keep A because of B' is stupid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 March 2007
 * I think we should stop telling people that it's a stupid argument only when people stop making the stupid arguments in the first place. Chris cheese whine 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is taking it way to far. We should only cover arguments that pop up regularly and not try to cover each possible invalid argument that we can think of. Whats next? Cover arguments like "Fred Johnson shouldn't be deleted because my dog just pooped", because they do not make sense? Lets stick to the relatively sane, yet invalid arguments. Nonsense arguments, personal attacks and stuff like that can easily be dealt with in other ways. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Delete per nom"
Eh? You really think that the arguments specified in the nomination should be paraphrased just to give an admin something different to read? If the nomination argument covers all the topics and reasons that you also think is reason for delete then stating "per nom" is surely fine? You could always comment as regards specific rebuttals or expand upon a point, after consideration, later. LessHeard vanU 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This has the drawback of encouraging a pile-on. AfD is supposed to be about the arguments, not the numbers.  Though, to be fair to you, a few admins still treat it as if it were about the numbers.  The official advice is "if you have nothing to add, don't".  A small number of "per nom" means the nominator has got something right.  Lots of "per nom" doesn't do anything more.  Chris cheese whine 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, although the advice of "if you have nothing to add, don't" is potentially disingenious; the nominator unknowingly reflected a consensus who didn't indicate support for the deletion under that guideline, and the admin decides on keep or no consensus as they are unaware of that weight of opinion. Perhaps paraphrasing the nomination, although also falling foul of "...adding nothing...", would then be justified? LessHeard vanU 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of weight of opinion - if 200 users drop in and say "keep per X", where X is a user whose entire reasoning boils down to "it's cool", then the four or five "delete per nom" should be more than sufficient. You can still have a "consensus to delete" if the delete comments are in the vast minority.  Chris cheese whine 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * X is not the nomiminator, though. I am only arguing for the independently arrived at support of the nominators contentions, which covers all the points of a would be contributor. If seven or eight editors come to AfD to comment and find that the nomination has covered their concerns comprehensively then what can be added? Those independent views should, however, be noted by the admin in deciding where consensus lies. The problem is then how to express that consensus without failing "...nothing to add...". True consensus cannot be found if those whose reasons have already been articulated elsewhere feel they cannot add to what has been said and so say nothing.
 * Where a supporter/opposer has already stated ones thoughts I agree that a restatement or reiteration of the reasons given is necessary, if simply to indicate that you understood what that person was saying (which probably applies to the nominator also... hmmmm!).LessHeard vanU 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "Keep per xyz" should also be added -- such votes don't bring anything new to the discussion, and are often a result of canvassing. utcursch | talk 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed in general, but sometimes an ed. does present so clear a case that there isn't much more to say. But people should at any rate give some indication they have looked at the article, not just the nomination or the prior discussion. If we dont have time or interest to check an article, we should modestly go on to one we do have interest in. DGG
 * Exactly, that is why this is in the list. People should be able to explain themselves why they feel the article should be deleted or show somehow that they really looked at the article rather than just adding their name to a growing list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

When somebody says "delete/keep" per Wikipedian-X, it's almost like saying "Hey, I'm a meat puppet!" Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no possible answer to the devastating logic and reasoned argument put forward here... LessHeard vanU 12:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather think that it's almost like saying "Hey, I agree with what s(he) said, but since s(he)'s already said it well enough, I repeat the same argument." Now, this is a rather lengthy sentence, so "per XYZ" doesn't seem that bad a replacement.  -- Black Falcon 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Sometimes one doesn't have much to add to a discussion that has not already been written. So, what to do in that case? One can not participate, but participation is a form of showing consensus/support for one action or another. Or, one can participate and write the same argument that has been stated multiple times above once again. This unnecessarily clutters the discussion. I generally dislike "per nom" arguments at the start of an AFD (when few arguments have been made), but someone adding to an AFD that is already 30KB long and has comments from 50 users doesn't need a repeat of arguments that were previously made. A "per XYZ" often suffices. -- Black Falcon 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In an ideal Wikipedia, "per nom" would be a bad argument, because consensus would be evaluated on merit, not on number of people who agree. In our imperfect Wikipedia with imperfect contributors, merit can't be the only measure of whether or not an article should be deleted. So if one person sums up all reasons to delete, and 10 different people come up with 10 bad reasons to keep, then the assumption is that nobody agrees with deletion, so it shouldn't happen. "Per nom" is sometimes necessary. -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bad Thing here is not the "per nom" per se, but rather large numbers thereof. I'm sure that it is explicitly mentioned somewhere that a head-count is not a part of judging consensus.  Chris cheese whine 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that some admins will still relist an AfD if it doesn't get 'enough' opinions, and I've seen deletion review relist AfDs at least partially due to low participation. While there is supposed to be no quorum, and IMO, if the issue is notability/sourcing and the article clearly has no reliable sources with the subject as its primary focus, it should be enough that the nominator points this out and the five day grace period has elapsed for people to find sources, in reality it makes things a lot clearer if two or three people have reviewed the nomination and shown that they agree with it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why the "per nom" section also includes the statement "if several people already have showed support for the nominator". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people should be allowed to say "delete per nom", but they have to put their names in very, very small typeface in a continuous line following the original nomination. They would still be free to !vote again if they think of a different reason. This would make it easier for the closing admin to see (a) whether a particular argument has consensus support, and (b) how many distinct arguments there are. Carcharoth 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC) needed '']]&#93; 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an incredibly good idea! Sue Rangell &#91;[[Wikipedia:Don't be a dick|'' citation

The main problem with "per nominator" votes is that it encourages many ones to support an option because "X user says this, and I trust the good X user judgement", but this one may have not even have an opinion himself about the subject. "Leader worship" should not be encouraged Perón 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be generalized
The reasons are more-or-less specific to AfD discussions, yet the intro lists all of the XfD discussions. It would be good if someone made a pass through this and generalized where the reasons don't need to be specific, and added rationales that applied to other namespaces. —Doug Bell talk 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the arguments do apply to the other debates, e.g. the guidelines about pure votes, ILIKEIT posts and 'per nom' posts. Although the focus is on AfDs, that's inevitable, because articles are what we're here for, and AfD is by far the largest deletion page, with over 100 pages a day - TfD averages about 5-10, MfD 1-2. For that reason I think the examples given should focus on articles, because that's what most people will be interested in. We could add a "Keep, this is a great template" example to the ILIKEIT section, but it wouldn't add anything - it's already obvious to anyone how it applies to the other XfDs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to pick one or the other: either it applies to all deletion discussion, or it applies to AfD.
 * The word "article" is used where "page" should be used.
 * There is no discussion of the types of arguments to avoid in discussing the deletion of user pages, project pages, or portals (at MfD, which looks like it averages more than 1–2).
 * There aren't any arguments to avoid when discussing categories, redirects or images, which are part of the content just like articles.
 * Frankly, the best thing is to probably just remove the other XfD discussions from the top of the article because the essay has very little relevance to them. —Doug Bell talk 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It does apply to other deletion debates as well. I recently added a section specifically about TFD/CFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic
"Delete as unencyclopedic" isn't short for "Delete because I think it ought to be deleted". It's short for "Delete for any number of reasons listed at Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which I have not bothered to specify". In other words, it's too vague. I think the essay should simply indicate that it is too vague rather than attempting to interpret what Cyclops' statement is shorthand for. Punctured Bicycle 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)