Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 4

Template at the bottom
Can anyone explain to me the reason for having the template at the bottom, under the "Other arguments to avoid" section? It looks like it has links to articles in the main namespace that relate to logic. I think since it has no references to specific WP processes, it does not add anything to the essay, and in fact is confusing; I would propose removing it. Can anyone enlighten me? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really see any harm in pointing users to a list of argumentative fallacies. Deletion discussion is just a form of debate, after all. Torc2 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't it doesn't do any harm an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just an essay. Torc2 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As all (or almost) all of those logical fallacies get used in XFD fairly regularly, it is quite relevant to WP:ATA. - Koweja (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then, could someone (more experienced and knowledgable than I) add some text to give context to that section? I was totally confused - currently, it looks like the template lists other Wikipedia essays (slimilar to the list of guidelines template that appears at the bottom of many guideline pages). UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Nom example
"Keep Did not we argue all this yesterday? –DejaVu 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" is a bad example, because closing a second discussion because the last one occurred a day ago is perfectly valid. Pages can be relisted because consensus can change, but not in 24 hours. Either it should be removed, or at have the time frame changed to something more reasonable, say a month. - Koweja (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The time frame depends on whether it was a keep,or a no consensus. Two or three weeks after no consensus is reasonable.
 * I'd say a month minimum, and if the AfD was relisted for further comment and still resulted in no consensus, at least six weeks to two months. Opinions don't change that quickly.  By allowing quick relists, all you're doing is reshuffling the deck and hoping you get dealt more agreeable voters.  There's a secondary reading to this example though that again implies that precedent is irrelevant.  "Did not we argue all this yesterday?"  Well, did you?  What was the result?  Why are those results not still applicable? Torc2 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' Google test
Interestingly enough, in his forword to Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine (see at Google books: ), Dawkins talks about a Google test he performed to test the viability of the word's inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary. User:Dorftrottel 13:27, January 12, 2008

Divisive as deletion argument
I've officially had it with this word be bandied about as a mantra people can recite in pro-deletion arguments as simply a code word for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As such, I've added my sentiments to this section. I'm sure the word actually had some important and independent meaning at some point, but I believe that ship has long since sailed. -- Kendrick7talk 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually "divisive and/or polemic". And I believe they're words used fairly commonly, including by User:Jimbo Wales.
 * That said, if it's being misapplied, then perhaps some text describing such misapplication could be written up (rather than just saying using the word "divisive" is bad, describing what ways it may be being used may be "bad").
 * Could you give some examples where you feel it's been unjstly, or misappropriately used in an XfD discussion? - jc37 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) A further point on the way this word "divisive" is used because I never get good answers when I ask, or if I do it's along the lines of "it's obvious" etc. I think what it means is the community is divided, therefore there's no WP:Consensus, and therefore X should be deleted, which is really the opposite of our deletion policies. As such, it might really deserve its own section. -- Kendrick7talk 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about every XFD discussion related to userboxes, ever, as an example? - Koweja (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) - What you may or may not know is that "divisive and/or polemic" is the criteria for speedy deletion, per Criteria for speedy deletion (Though I note that Kendrick7 attempted to change the policy wording to remove the word "divisive"). Which is why those words are specifically used.
 * However, merely saying that something is "divisive", without explanation of how or why it should be considered such, could be an example of WP:AADD (for one example). - jc37 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If something is divisive it means it divides the community in a hostile manner, creating rivalry, controversy, etc. It does not mean it creates non-consensus, ie, making people disagree with each other. Those are two very different things. PS for some context on what sparked this sudden interest in adding this word here, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:27, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec again) It's hard to argue the word isn't so overused it's become vacuous. Here is just one month's worth of argument from last June. Ultimately, I'm not getting the underlying wisdom here, or how it fundamentally differs from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Kendrick7talk 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the discussions you linked to are not about userboxes, but Wikipedian categories (also known as user categories). - jc37 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just explained how it fundamentally differs from IDONTLIKEIT.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen it on AfDs -- particularly on, like, the tenth AfD on an article, where its code for everyone sick of this discussion so let's let the deletionists win. Just to restate my basic argument from that MfD User:Equazcion points to, I really think this idea of divisiveness, at least in user space, though is really an attempt at a don't ask, don't tell policy towards certain contributors who have non-mainstream beliefs, because what is or is not divisive is applied completely ad hoc. I'd be happy for an expansive policy going the other way as to the meaning of this phrase, but others seemed happy with a status quo I can only consider discriminatory. -- Kendrick7talk 02:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just can't see the difference. Divisive just means "multiple people don't like it" so it's just an extention. -- Kendrick7talk 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I can see how the word "divisive" may be being used in that way, that's not it's intended use. "Divisive" means that it's something that Wikipedians may argue/disagree about, in such a way as it creates a communication/collaboration gap. Such things exist in mainspace articles (such subjects as religion and politics, for example). However it was determined awhile back that such divisiveness is not welcome in userspace, as it just "divides" Wikipedians, who are presumably attempting to come together in a spirit of collaboration. That's part of why userboxes should state something positive ("likes", for example), not negative ("hates", for example).
 * Once we get into the discussion of "Supporters/Opposers of an issue", consensus is varied on that. It was decided, for example, that such subjects are not to be used in categories, since you can't provide references supporting the allegation of whether some person actually does support or oppose the purported issue.
 * So yes, stating the opinion that a userbox is "divisive", is a valid comment in a deletion discussion. If one feels that the userbox is not divisive, they are welcome to explain how so in the discussion, in order to aid the eventual closer in determining consensus. Clarification, information (and references) are welcome in a discussion. Constant reproval of commenters, not so much. - jc37 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the way the term is used in arguments, I don't think that warrants changing anything. If people use it as "code" for something which it does not mean, then simply correct them. Don't look towards changing policy. People misusing a policy does not denote a problem within that policy.  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:03, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with User:Equazcion's comments above. (Though I might clarify to "...politely correct them..." : ) - jc37 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, you know what they say about the road to hell. Again, I'd be happy if there was a policy which could be fairly applied across the board, but it comes down right now to people wiki-lawyering over one word that isn't even in the applicable policy half the time that I can see (e.g. Userboxes aren't even in template space).I might just write an essay contra WP:Divisiveness as I think it's ultimately wrong headed and exclusionist, which is the wrong starting point for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. -- Kendrick7talk 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to create such an essay, though I might suggest that you create it first in userspace, as that seems to (usually) be the current convention. - jc37 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * off topic, but something I've been wanting to do is reorganize the essay category into subcats. I dunno, I put WP:NOTART in WP space a while back. Problem with user space is no one can find them. -- Kendrick7talk 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The real problem here is that AfD itself is malformed: one can simply renominate an article until a "delete" result is achieved. The article then gets one appeal before being effectively salted.  Imagine if any legal system worked this way: people would be put on trial repeatedly until a conviction was secured.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * divisive &ne; IDONTLIKEIT. I understand your frustration with the sometimes inappropriate use of the term but this wasn't the way to try to solve it. Rossami (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, well, I wanted to get to the "D" part of "BRD" in some general forum, just to bounce the idea around some more and feel the pulse of the general community. I'm not trying to solve anything (and why are newbies running around giving me advice this week?) -- Kendrick7talk 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, 2003! Duh nevermind. -- Kendrick7talk 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if Rassami were a "newbie", I don't think that comment would have been warranted. Try not to bite.  Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it like that -- I really did wake up to this today. It's been downhill since. My utmost apologies. -- Kendrick7talk 04:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Divisive" is a perfectly relevant term to use in deletion discussions; the problem is with the uncertainty of the pertinent policy. For speedy deletions in template space, CSD T1 permits the speedy deletion of templates which are "divisive and inflammatory", a provision which has been much abused because of its essential subjectivity (hence why I strongly oppose any suggestion of applying it to userspace). However, at MfD, there is some debate over whether "divisive" templates are allowed, and over how a "divisive" template differs from an "attack" template.

A userbox saying "This user thinks Walton One is a dickhead" would be speedily deleted under G10. A userbox saying "This user wants to kill all Jews" would be taken to MfD, and, probably, deleted very quickly per WP:SNOW. In contrast, precedent and practice establishes that userboxes saying "This user supports X for president" or "This user supports political party Y" are allowed. The problem is when we get borderline cases, such as the Iraq userbox currently up for MfD. Due to the lack of a clear policy at present, any discussions on such cases are inevitably dogged by accusations of political bias.

I don't have a strong opinion on how we should deal with controversial userboxes, or what level of controversy should be allowed. But what we need is a clear, consistent and firm set of rules which can be consistently applied to every single case. This will help avoid bias or the perception thereof. WaltonOne 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to separate this from the discussion of userboxes, because the argument is used elsewhere. Excessively divisive is a relevant argument on user box content, and other user page content as well/. But the argument is used elsewhere in the encyclopedia also--that having an article would produced unremitting conflicts between editors. In that context, it is generally recognized a a bad argument. We can distinguish this by using an example from a subject page in mainspace, without mentioning userspace at lal. DGG (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would hope we can all agree this is a bad argument for an AfD. I've seen it in the various AfD's for Israeli apartheid for example. -- Kendrick7talk 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More discussion on userboxes per se: Requests for comment/Policies/Userbox content -- Kendrick7talk 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I like this one. Could we possible expand it, to perhaps "It's negative"? I see that argument used by deletionists or exclusionists a lot for material that paints a person in a negative light, even though it is verifiable. This argument was used for the deletion of List of nicknames for George W. Bush, for instance, and again for a long page on Bill Gates' arrest record. A negative article can be handled in a neutral, just-the-facts way. Reporting on a side, just as people who call Bush nasty nicknames, does not imply advocacy of that side. It seems there are many Wikipedians who think it does. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible new one for the list
"It's better to keep something that might not be notable than to delete something that might be." I've ran into that sentiment twice on a couple recent AfDs. Torc2 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it usually is better, and that's policy--the bias to is keep articles unless there is reason to delete them, that's the effect of no-consensus closes, and that's what the argument says. obviously, as an more effective argument it depends upon the details of the article,  DGG (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is that in the policy? Default is to keep if people disagree whether the topic has established notable, but not if the topic asserts no notability but someone insists it might be notable. Torc2 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the motivation behind the default in AfDs favoring keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it clearly didn't work, and I think it's still clearly wrong. "No consensus, default keep" is only a valid result when the lack of consensus was over things like whether the level of notability document is sufficient to keep.  It is not a valid approach in cases where there is no notability whatsoever established, but somebody objects to deletion based on their personal belief that it might be notable.  That essentially changes the deletion requirements from consensus to unanimity - anybody who thinks there might be notability can force no-consensus-default-keep.    &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 13:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a slight strawman. What you are talking about aren't claims of notability but more ILIKEITs disguised as claims about notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That's why I think this fallacy should be included here; the argument carries some weight if there's some evidence of notability -- (which is one reason I like the WP:MUSIC guidelines so much - the criteria are just enough to establish the probability of notability) -- but it doesn't work if people have spent time searching and come up empty.  That's what happened the few times I ran across the sentiment a month ago and what prompted the complaint.  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk.  ) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"I like it", "It's interesting," and "It's useful" are not necessarily bad arguments
Wikipedia exists because editors contribute to articles that they like and find interesting and/or useful. I help other editors improve articles that are not particularly relevant to me, because I am also able to work on those articles that I do like, find interesting, and that are useful. Having interesting articles attracts editors; having useful articles make us a better reference tool. Wikipedia also relies on fundraising drives. Those donating money do so for a variety of reasons, some of which include because they come to Wikipedia to edit or read about topics that they like, find interesting, or that are useful to them. While the reverse "I don't like it" non-argument simply reflects arrogance (just as saying that you don't find something interesting or useful does not mean that it is not worthwhile for many others), "I like it" arguments could reflect why that particular editor contributes to our project or maybe even donates money. So, while maybe not a standalone argument, any of these three can be respectable as part of a larger argument. Also, because only a fraction of editors ever participate in AfDs and so one "I like it" could really represent a much wider segment of our community, readership, and donors. Finally, dismissing someone who likes, finds iteresting, or finds useful something is essentially saying, "Well who cares what you like, or what interests you, or what your kind finds useful is irrelevant." Thus, I recommend we either acknowledge this reality in the essay or remove these items from our list. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of the essay is, that by itself, the mere fact that someone finds an article 'interesting' or 'useful' is not sufficient reason for it to be included in an encyclopedia. As you state, "So, while maybe not a standalone argument, any of these three can be respectable as part of a larger argument." Your statement is applicable to nearly all of the items in the article - standing alone they do not constitute sufficient argument for/against an article - provide detail about how/why WP policies support the retention/removal of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello! One problem that I notice then is that some in AfDs will attempt to dismiss an editor's whole argument if it contains any element of the items indictaed on this list. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is an issue of editors either misunderstanding or purposefully misuseing "ILIKEIT". Perhaps a better/more clear statement of the "ILIKEIT" might help clarify for those who dont understand (please feel free to offer suggestions) - but those editors who purposefully misuse will still purposefully misuse this and other guidelines. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Your analysis is true as far as it goes. But it ignores the fact that we are here for one primary purpose - to write the best encyclopedia that we can. One of the critical success factors for a wiki is a clear and consistent sense of purpose among all the participants. Wikis without that sense of unified purpose have, to a project, failed. (We know this not just from the academic studies but also from our own experience with some of the predecessor projects which lead to Wikipedia.) I have no interest in seeing this project fail like the others and so have a strong interest in maintaining our central focus on building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia can not be all things to all people. If we try, we will fail too. The reason the clause is on the page is that whether or not something is "interesting" or "useful" has no bearing on the core question of whether or not it fits within the encyclopedia. Something can be very interesting to me and can drive a great deal of personal passion and commitment but if it is at cross-purposes to the goal of creating an encyclopedia, it doesn't belong here. And if that's the only reason that I'm participating in the project, my contributions probably don't belong here either. If it's "interesting" and it's encyclopedic, then the topic belongs in the encyclopedia. But frankly if the topic is encyclopedic, it belongs here even if it's not interesting. Saying that "it's interesting" adds nothing useful to the discussion and doesn't help advance the question of whether or not content under discussion fits within the goals and mission of this project. That's why the clause has to stay. Rossami (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia though. The Five pillars assert that it also contains elements of specialized encyclopedias an almanacs.  Something can be interesting and almanacic or specialized encyclopedic without having to be simply encyclopedic and still be consistent with our project.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rossami's argument - with a caveat. Part of the decision in deletion is, "will this article develop effectively?" That's why we ask questions like "are verifiable sources for this topic easily available?" I would probably be more likely to keep an interesting article on the basis that interesting articles tend to be better developed and maintained, simply because they attract more interested editors. When the number of editors on an article shrinks, the wiki process is defeated and it can stagnate. Dcoetzee 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of what makes Wikipedia special are the interesting articles that "you wouldn't expect to find in Encyclopædia Britannica." Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is "just an encyclopedia". It's free from Britannica's paper limitations but still bound by the vision of being an encyclopedia.  It can simultaneously be a general encyclopedia and a suite of specialized encyclopedias but the content is still encyclopedic.  And many interesting and/or useful topics are encyclopedic.  We should and do cover those.  Nobody is arguing that we have to get rid of an unusual article just because Britannica doesn't have an entry by that title. But at the same time, there are many interesting or useful things that are clearly not encyclopedic.  For example, a phone directory is useful.  It doesn't belong here.  The wiki software and editing process is fundamentally not structured to support that kind of information.  It belongs in the kinds of specialized directory sites and tools that are designed for the purpose.  For another example, many people think that rumors are interesting.  Rumors almost inevitably fall afoul of our policies on reliable sources, etc. Those interesting or useful but not encyclopedic topics belong in some other wiki.  We are first, foremost and only an encyclopedia and must maintain that clear and single-minded purpose.  If we lose our sense of shared vision, history has shown that the project will fail.  Rossami (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Five pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia and almanac. There are many specialized encyclopedias.  Thus, Star Wars articles, game show articles, science fiction articles, monster articles, comic book articles, X Files articles, battlestar articles, etc. are all consistent with encyclopedic content.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi raises an interesting point. The arguments of "it's interesting" or "it's useful" are not inherently illogical. They are not even necessarily bad arguments to raise in deletion debates.

Notability is essentially a political question. It would be great if the community could have provided more guidance on what is notable. However, the inclusionist/deletionist debate continues to rage, and the community has only been willing and able to agree on (and enact as policy) a few aspects of notability. For instance, the policy notes that anything that's not verifiable is probably not notable either. But the rules are often hazy on what verifiable stuff, exactly, is notable; and those matters have been left to AfD, etc. to settle on a case-by-case basis.

Accordingly, it's inevitable that deletion debates will include some political wrangling about what we should consider notable. I don't think we should discourage such arguments, unless the particular situation is one that is clearly covered by the rules. (And even then, there are certain situations when we will need to ignore all rules; but that can probably go without saying explicitly here.) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "I like it", "It's interesting" and "it's useful" are not necessarily bad arguments, as long as the Wikipedian gives the reason why he thinks so. After all, most Wikipedians initially like Wikipedia because they find something quite useful or interesting to them, such as Roronoa Zoro's favourite foods. But I do agree that if an article is full of original research, and it is unlikely not to be a substub or stub without any original research, then the argument is bad. On the contrary, "I don't like it", "It's not interesting" and "It's useless" are bad arguments since what a Wikipedian dislike may be quite interesting to another, such as an alternative rock album. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those three are necessarily bad arguments, as they don't give us any useful information as to why a subject should have its own article. WP:NOT a collection of information that is merely "interesting" or "useful".  It is a collective summary of important human knowledge.  "It's interesting to me", however, may be an indicator that an article is likely to be maintained and expanded if kept.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is inherited changes gears in the example
The section seems to be about inherited notability, but the examples mention inherent notability. There seems to be two really different concepts at work here. One kind of inherited notability comes from a specific source (e.g. not every member of a notable club is inherently notable) - the WP:MUSIC reference fits this. The other is inherent notability, like the current examples give. "All examples of X are inherently notable." "Inherently" implies a kind of birthright here: just because it's an "X", it's notable. Aside from confusing things, this isn't really an argument to avoid in all cases. There are a lot of notable (no pun intended) instances where notability is inherently assumed: geographic locations, schools, many politicians for example. Any ideas how to correct this? Do we want to include both forms of inheritance in this and qualify all the exceptions, or change the examples? I dunno, I'm open to suggestions.  &mdash;Torc.  ( Talk. ) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another argument to avoid?
I think someone's mentioned this before, but using Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as your argument is an argument to avoid. It's only an opinionated essay, not a guideline or a policy, and yet I've seen a lot of users cite it as their reason to delete/keep an article on AfD.-- TBC !?!  21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read "This Page In A Nutshell"? (And while it is "only an opinionated essay", each of the opionions is one that is supported by WP policies and guidelines.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this clarify?
Would changing the headers from "Examples" to something like "Examples of arguments that are insufficient by themselves" be of use in helping to clarify the meaning of this essay to both those who link here and those who are directed here by others? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ILIKEHIM and IDONTLIKEHIM
Could these be added as new items on this list? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "encyclopedic"
This text was removed:
 * It should be noted that the word "encyclopedia" means "broad in scope or content," or "comprehensive," and an encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Thus, an article's "unencyclopedic" nature might justify its rejection from featured article promotion, but would not meet any criteria for deletion. In that context, it is simply an incorrect use of terminology.

Would GlassCobra care to explain why? 129.174.91.117 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Appears highly useful and relevant. Re-added. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The text seems very unclear and not directly related to the use of the argument in AfD. If some similar language is included, it should paralel the language used in WP:NOT. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The recently added text appears to be more an opinion piece on the nature of "encyclopedias" and does not add anything useful to this page. It appears to be a back-door attempt to gut the clear clauses in WP:NOT that remind us in no uncertain terms that we are writing an encyclopedia and that things which are not encyclopedia-like content may be very useful but still don't belong on this project.  Rossami (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that the added text simply made the case "delete as unencyclopedic" would not be a valid AfD argument on its own merit. Obviously more justification would be required, as it's not even an appropriate use of the word based on how our particular scope of content. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing we must keep in mind, per our first pillar, is that we are not just writing an encyclopedia, but a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. Thus, by our standards, "encyclopedic" means anything that appears in a published enycclopedia or almanac is technically fair game for inclusion in our project, which is a good thing and is tremendously broad and comprehensive and which is what makes us unique and a genuine contribution to humanity.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See also discussion at VPP. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
Is there a specific policy indicating a time-frame that is considered acceptable between AFD nominations? I routinely opposed re-nominations that occur less than 2 months after a previous nomination, but it would be handy if a specific time-frame were indicated through policy. For example, I am presently opposing an AFD for an article that survived an AFD challenge (albeit with "no consensus") only 5 weeks ago. One would think common sense would prevail when it comes to renominations within a few days of an AFD closure, but as you move away it becomes a little bit muddier. This should be something indicated on the "this article has been nominated previously" banner, perhaps indicating that "it may not be nominated again until such-and-such a date". 23skidoo (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong but I think this is one of our wp:perennial proposals. I'd be for something along these lines too though.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * "Is there a specific policy indicating a time-frame that is considered acceptable between AFD nominations?" is something beyond the scope of "Arguments to Avoid", but I think the current text already kind of addresses that issue:
 * "This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion" (time frame between deletion discussions is irrelevant in this instance)
 * "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. ... especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." (emph added)
 * "If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." (emp added)
 * Each circumstance is different and common sense should be applied and I don't know that adding specific time frames would do anything but give WikiLawyers another tool in their arsenal. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about the common sense, but it would be nice if there was a range, e.g. like "a few weeks" or something. Obviously WP:IAR and common sense apply here, e.g. if a cruft-y article got kept because only fanboys showed up to the AfD, or if an article got deleted for lack of notability and then the next day the subject was on the cover of Newsweek, or whatever, we wouldn't have a hard and fast limit.  But I've seen articles where it was like six weeks, and some people said too soon, and others said plenty of time.  It would be really nice to at least say the kind of range we are talking about here.  Is it a week?  3-4 weeks?  four to six months?  (and as always, there'd be exceptions for stuff that was obvious) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That still sounds like it is something that should be discussed elsewhere. This article is just saying that the argument "We just went through AfD" is not in and of itself a valid argument in deletion debates. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As RedPen says, common sense must prevail. We have often considered and always rejected specific timelines.  There are just too many different situations requiring different answers.  For example, if new evidence comes to light, immediate reconsideration may be appropriate.  On the other hand, if the consensus was "give [XYZ] the benefit of doubt for now", a reasonable time for improvement is usually held to be months.  (In my personal experience, the most commonly accepted range is 3-6 months but that depends in part on the reputation of the authors offering to undertake the improvements.)  Any hard-and-fast rule will create more headaches than it's worth.  Premature renominations already get shouted down pretty quickly and very effectively.  Rossami (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair comments and thanks for the response. I do feel, though, that by having a firm timeline established, it would also serve to provide editors with a deadline for improving the articles. I've seen lots of cases where articles survive AFD, but are renominated 6 months later with no improvements made. I consider 6 months to be a reasonable interval, though I would probably favor something closer to 3 months if a policy were established. Obviously I'm not talking about things such as recreated deleted articles, or articles where some WP:BLP issue exists (though in those cases one would assume the speedy delete protocols would kick in, anyway). A policy would also have to take good faith into account as sometimes articles are renominated by editors who were unaware that it had already been nominated recently. 23skidoo (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, I checked out WP:PEREN and it's worth noting that the limitation policy proposal was last discussed back in 2005. Given the often-stated claim that consensus continues to change on Wikipedia, I do think it's high time a policy idea be revisited. The policy that was rejected, incidentally, would have placed a one year moratorium on renominating articles, which I think was a bit extreme and if I had to guess was probably a major reason why it died. Suggesting a 90-120 day moratorium instead I think would be more reasonable. 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question comes up rather more often than that. It just usually gets quickly answered on a talk page and dropped.  You could certainly reformulate a policy proposal if you think it would be helpful now.  The one-year standard was absurd but even the lower standards were generally opposed the last time it was discussed. I'll admit up front, though, that I would oppose any simple blanket moratorium as insufficiently nuanced and too prone to gamesmanship.  And if you added in all the qualifiers and nuance to avoid the potential gamesmanship, I'd have serious concerns about instruction creep.  Do you have evidence that the situation is significantly worse than it's been in the past or that the current processes (shouting down premature nominations and appealling bad decisions through WP:DRV) are broken badly enough that we should pay those costs?  Rossami (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying to this. No, I don't have any stats, however the recently added provision on AFD for indicating articles that have been nominated before have made it easier to spot articles with multiple nominations and those that have been nominated recently. (This also makes it easier to spot articles that are recreated from deletion or for which no consensus was reached at the prior AFD. I would see "No consensus" and "Deletion recreation" would be two exceptions to any sort of time limit between nominations. I think a relatively simply worded policy could be drafted and while I understand those who feel the fewer rules the better (less creep) the fact is we're far beyond that point now anyway with all the micromanagement going on about article notability, what sources are kosher, etc etc. Placing a minimum time between unambiguous AFD nominations wouldn't make matters any worse, IMO and might reduce examples of people gaming the system to get a desired outcome on an AFD, or good faith errors. 23skidoo (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be listed as a "behavior to avoid" rather than an "argument to avoid". I'm concerned that listing it here will be deliberately misinterpreted in defense of said behavior: Previous AFD was unsuccessful, ergo consensus must be flawed. Trying again. Delete. --VexatiousNominator (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) — CharlotteWebb 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to keep listing it until it gets deleted? Speedy close FFS. --BullshitDetector (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregard this when closing as it is not a valid "keep" argument per WP:ATU. --TrollEnabler (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Section to add: WP:USELESS
I propose that the following section be added:

It's useless
Examples:
 * Delete. Doesn't help us to build an encyclopedia. ItsUseless 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

This is an argument commonly seen at miscellany for deletion with regard to pages in userspace and projectspace. (It is sometimes also phrased as a Wikipedia-is-not-ism, e.g. "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" or "Wikipedia is not a blog".) Although very popular, it is a weak argument because it ignores the fact that policy expressly tells us not to worry about server space, and deleted material stays in the archives anyway; therefore, there is no inherent reason to "clean out" projectspace or userspace pages which do not appear to be useful. Furthermore, while server space is not a resource we need to worry about, recruitment and retention of contributors is much more of a concern. Deleting userspace or projectspace pages because "they're useless" may cause good contributors to become disillusioned and leave Wikipedia, therefore reducing the project's most important resource (editors); and, as already noted, such deletion does not benefit the project, since it does not free up any further space. Therefore, pages in userspace or projectspace should only be deleted if they are actively harming the encyclopedia, not just because they are "useless".

Please note that this does not apply to legitimate criticism of a policy, guideline or process on the grounds that it is useless. Since needless bureaucracy should be avoided, compulsory Wikipedia processes should be kept as simple as possible; reams of unnecessary instructions can be harmful to the encyclopedia, and it is therefore legitimate to argue for the abolition of a policy or process on the grounds that it is useless.

Obviously, none of the above should be construed to apply to deletion discussions regarding any encyclopedic content (such as articles, templates or images), for which questions of utility are not relevant.

If there is consensus, I will add the above section to the essay. WaltonOne 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm uncomfortable with your proposal. The userspace and the project space are granted to us for the sole purpose of helping to build a better encyclopedia.  We tolerate a small amount of side chatter but always with that ultimate goal.  Things which are a significant distraction ought to be removed.  Even if they don't consume significant server space, they dilute our sense of mission and purpose.  If you look at the research on social software, one of the most compelling findings is that wikis who lose their sense of mission invariably fail.  The case studies demonstrating this are remarkable in their consistency.  Wikipedia has been successful largely because we all share a single vision - to write an encyclopedia.  Anything that is not an encyclopedia may well be important or fun but it's not to be done here.  I think there are too many scenarios where your proposed "actively harmful" standard would be too low.  Rossami (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cant really support it either. The purpose of the essay is to give direction to people about how to provide useful input at AfD. I don't see that server space discussion has much to do with the fact that a simple "it's useless" !vote is not a constructive way to add to an AfD.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support adding this section. What one person thinks is "useless" does not automatically make it so to others.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing much on the web
'Nothing much on the web' or similar. Seems to occur a few times, might be able to add it to the only 10 ghits part. Should make it clear that printed material is fine(even preferred if quality). Just because there is little or nothing on the web doesn't mean it should be deleted. SunCreator (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is already at least partially covered under "Google Test" - see if that section addresses your concerns. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I know what SunCreator is getting at. More than a few times I've seen a few AFDs where the notability is being questioned simply based upon the fact you can't find information about it on the Internet. This, of course, is discriminatory against, well, pretty much anything that's old that for one reason or another hasn't been picked up on any Internet sources or -- under Wikipedia's critiera -- web sources considered reliable. I personally feel that Wikipedia needs to move into the 21st Century and accept the fact that, for some topics, a blog is going to be the authority because you simply won't find a scholarly article on the subject. You'd think that would apply mostly to pop-culture topics (which themselves are often unfairly discriminated against by some in the Wikipedia community), but I've seen it happen with non-pop culture topics, too. As for the wording here, I'd actually like to see a sub-section of the Ghit section that basically says what SunCreator implies -- that a newspaper from 1912, properly sourced and cited, is every bit as viable a source as cnn.com, depending on the topic. If that means a keener who wants to verify the source has to go to a library, boo-hoo. (Of course the Achilles heel in this argument is that it's easy to just make up such a source; but one could just as easily create a bogus URL and claim the site no longer exists, but, hey, I accessed it on April 10, 2008 - and you only have the assumption of good faith to go by. 23skidoo (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the college football project, we have found historic offline sources and personal blogs to be extraordinarily helpful. Because these are more "non-traditional-Wiki" sources, we've begun outlining reasons and guidelines for use at WikiProject College football/Reliable Sources.  If another article uses non-traditional sources and falls under a Wikipedia project, I'd suggest that the project follow suit and create an essay on reliable sources that would be considered helpful for selected articles.  Yes, a blog is a blog--but if the blog is written by Chris Berman then that is a good reliable source.  Offline sources are required for historical college footbal data like Harold Grant, and regional/local newspapers are sometimes used for NAIA sports/teams.  Discretion, of course, must be used--but a project can certainly put forth an essay on reliable sources.  We've found it helpful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM
Time to get a discussion rolling on this section since it is being abused. I propose a rewrite to changes its focus, since it is currently not being applied properly with reference to ATAs. To wit: a per nom !vote is entirely appropriate in instances where: The consideration that a pernom is an idontlikeit by other means is, if one thinks about it, absurd in any context where the nomination is itself well-formulated. I hereby propose a complete rewrite that makes this clearer. We should, in fact, not be particularly discouraging toward pernoms, insofar as they lead to stronger nominating arguments at AfD. Ironically, when I bring forward articles to AfD, I am usually too lazy to include a lengthy nomination - thus, I am well-aware of instances where a pernom !vote should continue to be discouraged. But editors who hold themselves to a higher standard than myself at AfD deserve to be better served than our current pernom wording would allow. Eusebeus (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the nomination is well-presented and
 * 2) the article has not undergone important changes during the AfD process.


 * If AfD is a discussion and not a vote, then there is no need for pile on "per nom" votes. They do not add anything new to a discussion.  A discussion is an exchange of new ideas and arguments expressed during the progression of the discussion and not just a list of "I agree" or "I disagree" votes.  Even when I argue to delete, I usually try to bring something new to the discussion (see Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, and Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy as examples).  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like all of the arguments to avoid, though, I think this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If the nominator succinctly yet comprehensively sums up all of the arguments for deletion, and ten yahoos show up with lousy and/or inaccurate reasons to keep an article, I don't see anything wrong with a few constructive editors echoing the sentiments of the nominator.  After all, even though in theory the closing admin would overrule of the quacks and only pay attention to the original valid nomination, in practice it doesn't really work that way.
 * WP:PERNOM, to me, means that if an AfD already has plenty of participation, there is no need to just tack on your per-nom "vote." But that doesn't mean that it isn't helpful in a low-visibility AfD for a few good faith editors to say, "Yes, I concur." --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as !votes are still counted, when someone has already said what I wanted to say, I would still like to know that my voice is heard, without resorting to inventing new arguments. And !votes are still counted.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works (theoretically) by consensus. One way of measuring where the center of community opinion lies is by knowing how many people feel the nominator has identified sufficient reasons. per nom !votes could (theoretically) help the administrator guage this. I don't really know where I come down on this at all. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict twice) Well said, Citrouilles. When I close discussions, I weight "per nom" comments so low that the user may as well have not bothered editing the page. It's a waste of your time typing and mine reading (and more than that, my time verifying that you're not a sockpuppet). Those comments add nothing to the discussion. Even if all I say is "I too came up empty on a google search", a commenter should still provide some smidgen of new evidence to the discussion. "I concur" comments can provide some minimal validation but given how badly "per nom" comments are misused if you don't take the time to actually say what you concur with, the comment is highly suspect. Rossami (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaysweet hits it on the head for me - pernom is useful when it's experienced editors on a page with a good nomination and little/sock/meatpuppet input only. If it's a good editor who understands WP:N, then it's a corroboration, but it's useless when it's a long or messy AFD.  I also agree with RPOD that it's something very difficult to work into this page.  One thing that might help is pointing out the usefulness of a 'per nom' !vote that provides a slightly more detailed or useful rational, or something that indicates the per nom editor has reviewed the page to a certain extent.  WLU (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If WP works by consensus, then pernom !!votes should be counted. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia works by consensus and AfD is a discussion, then "votes" should not be counted, only arguments. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, but that is an entirely different view of consensus than my understanding. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is democracy, not consensus. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Valuing only the argument and not taking into account how widespread agreement with the argument is - does not equal consensus either. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were/is the case, then a lot of AfDs that closed as "delete" even though a majority of editors argued to keep should be reconsidered, for example, see Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel). More argued to keep than delete, but it closed as delete.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you then, Rossami; that is a gross and dismaying generalisation, given the diversity of nominations at AfD. If a nomination is well-formulated, you are suggesting I need to extend beyond the reasoning therein simply so that you can feel somehow satisfied. Nuh-uh. User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - an editor currently wantonly misusing this part of our ATA guideline - holds views which are unconventional. The implication of his suggestion seems to be that a well-formulated nomination is in itself sufficient to get material deleted and that no-one need further participate if the nomination itself is complete. The fact is that AfD is indeed a vote of sorts, and the spirit of VfD still persists in participation levels. Moreover - another point missed by the above and again Rossami, I am very disappointed that such a well-established, strong and highly seasoned editor who should know better would fall victim to this kind of feel-good apparatchik repetition of high-minded but vacuous rhetorical stylings - this reiteration is a very important mechanism for determining ongoing consensus. We can all remember, in this instance the old roads debate for example. At any event, I would reiterate my point: we need to rewrite the PERNOM to indicate that endorsements of the nomination are entirely reasonable - indeed salutary - given the 2 conditions I note above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eusebeus. Rossami, if you take that approach, you shouldn't be closing discussions. &mdash;Ashley Y 19:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict up the wazoo here!)
 * WLU said it better than me: Pernom is useless for a long AfD, but often handy for a small AfD.  There needs to be a way to indicate, "I, as a good faith editor, have read this nomination and see no problem with it."  Heh, to take it to the reductio ad absurdum, if nobody ever used a pernom or pernom-like comment, then in theory a complete and well-stated nomination would just get perrenially listed, because nobody would ever comment on it!  ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That said though, I don't think the WP:PERNOM section should be removed from this essay, nor do I see a pressing need to rewrite it. I don't think anybody disagrees that per-nom !votes are frequently abused, and in any case it's always better if you can come up with an additional argument. I mean, do we really think that people are reading WP:PERNOM and saying, "Oh gee, well, the nominator did such a good job, I better just not participate in this AfD!" Me personally, I take this entire essay with a hefty grain of salt, because for most of them there are times when it applies anyway. (e.g. while WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is often not a valid argument, demonstrating precedent can be useful in certain cases); WP:JUSTAPOLICY !votes are sometimes useful to get the snowball rolling in uncontroversial AfDs; etc.) This is just an essay, after all.  The sentiments in this essay are very, very accurate, and they outline real problems in AfD discussions.  That the wording is a little imprecise and that it doesn't spell out all the possible exceptions... meh, who cares?  It's just an essay... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The need to rewrite it is triggered by its current abuse at the hands of various editors who are meretriciously bandying about the link as if every instance of a pernom is automatically discounted via ATA. Which, if Rossami is closing an AfD, is apparently the case, but then I think his position is completely indefensible. Eusebeus (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe what we need to do then is encourage a culture of reminding people that WP:ATA is just an essay? I agree that people throw it around like policy.  While most of the advice in this essay is sound, it is not policy and shouldn't be treated as such. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then Rossami's comment above makes it even clearer that we need to thresh this out, because it is blindingly obvious to me that in certain instances - indeed many instances at AFD, probably the majority - a pernom vote is entirely reasonable and even useful for helping create ongoing consensus about matters, insofar as many nominations are well-expressed and comprehensive. It would be useful to solicit the views of admins who regularly close AfDs, because it may be that Rossami's views have more currency than I am willing to concede and that I am simply very misguided in my thinking here. Eusebeus (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with "per nom" votes is that they typically frequently come from single-purpose deletion only accounts whose "contributions" consist of just running down AfDs trying to vote as quickly as possible to delete (many of these accounts have even turned up as socks): see for example, , , , , , etc. It if far easier to take seriously a delete stance from someone who demonstrates that they did indeed check for themselves if sources exist for any given article and if they have enough experience building respectable articles that we know they understand what a good article is.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, but who said the life of a closing admin would (should) be easy? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A well-formulated nomination that provides a clear argument and properly marshals the evidence for deletion should enable efficacious review and support. Any nomination that provides strong & comprehensive grounds for deletion should be sufficient for other editors to reference in the discussion. Our ATA should make that point much more clearly. I thus propose that we change to more favourable wording that welcomes endorsements of well-formulated nominations. Eusebeus (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an issue with a single word in something Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said: The problem with "per nom" votes is that they typically come from single-purpose deletion only accounts... I don't buy the word "typically" there.  In my experience, "per nom" votes typically come from experienced good faith editors who are just being a bit lazy.  If you replace the word "typically" with "sometimes," then I can buy into your problem statement.  (Of course, neither of us have any hard data here, but that's been my impression)
 * Once again it all comes down to context. In a controversial AfD, "per nom" is not very useful, because, as Le Grand says, there is a high probability of socks, meatpuppets, pov SPAs, and other types of tomfoolery.  For the majority of AfDs, though, there's only one person saying the article is notable (the author, heh) and in those cases a few experienced editors coming in and endorsing the original nomination is useful to expedite the process.  In non-controversial AfDs, the odds of bad faith "per nom" chicanery is much smaller.  --Jaysweet (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, uh, I clicked on a couple of the Contrib histories that Le Grand pointed too, and I would not consider those malicious accounts... Strong deletionists, for sure, and I wish they would have some contributions other than AfDs.  But I don't think the accounts are malicious.  Also, I don't see that most of their contribs are of the "per nom" variety anyway!
 * I think the problem you are illuminating with those links is not a problem with "per nom" !votes, but rather the problem of editors who are exclusive deletionists, with no non-AfD contributions. Cleaning up the crap articles is a job that needs to be done, but doing only one job on Wikipedia tends to make people overzealous (it's a well-known problem with accounts that are exclusive Recent Change patrollers, for instance, that they start seeing vandals everywhere).
 * This is a real problem, but I think you are characterizing it a little inaccurately by implying that if we just ignored "per nom" !votes, this would go away... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in the contrib histories you cited, I see quite a few Keeps mixed in with the Deletes! I am not sure if you meant to be disingenuous, but this is sort of leaving a bad taste in my mouth.  All of the contrib histories you cited are just people who are moderate to strong deletionists, and all are good faith contributors.  They are not socks, meat puppets, and calling them SPAs is misleading because SPA usually implies an interest in only one topic, while these editors seem to have participated in AfDs on a range of topics.
 * Just because you are an inclusionist, you cannot go around saying that deletionists are sockpuppets! :( I am not sure what to think now. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can in all of the above instances, because ALL of the accounts I linked to above have been confirmed by multiple checkusers to belong to various sock farms (i.e. they have been confimed as the same person on the same IPs and with double "votes" or other disruptive edits) and have all been blocked idefinitely or banned accordingly:
 * 1. User:AnteaterZot's confirmed sock accounts: User:Aipzith, User:PatrickStar LaserPants, User:Noble Sponge, User:Lord Uniscorn, and User:Only Zuul.
 * 2. User:Davenbelle's confirmed sock accounts: User:Thomas Jerome Newton, User:Moby Dick, User:D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, User:Note to Cool Cat, User:Diyarbakir, User:Senang Hati, and User:Jack Merridew.
 * 3. User:Eyrian's confimed sock accounts: User:JohnEMcClure, User:THX1337, User:Varlak, and the checkuser also said numerous IP edits, too.
 * 4. User:Insearchofintelligentlife's confirmed sock account: User:Divinediscourse.
 * 5. User:JB196's confirmed sock accounts: User:Burntsauce, User:Dannycali, User:75.5.225.151, and a whole category of additional socks.
 * 6. User:Willirennen's confirmed sock accounts: User:Garth Bader, User:Dr Tobias Funke, User:Homo Saffien, User:Metallicash, User:Knock-Off Nigel, User: Lara Dalle, User:Moosato Cowabata, User:Lauren Norton, User:Jamest54, and User:AnnaLogge.
 * Thus, all of the above "moderate to strong deletionists" are indeed socks, meat puppets, or single purpose accounts as confirmed by administrators and checkusers. It is NOT just my opinion.  Anyway, though, I struck out typically and instead will say frequently.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of people have taken issue with my wording above. For the record, I stand by it.  Anyone who thinks that closing deletion discussions has the slightest thing to do with counting noses needs to carefully reread the Deletion policy.  Consensus is not determined by an arbitrary threshold of votes.  More than that, closing admins are explicitly expected to weight the comments when determining if rough consensus has been achieved.  Weighting is based on strength of argument and policy.  A single well-reasoned, fact-based "keep" argument outweighs ten unsupported "delete" votes (and vice versa).  (And before anyone else starts screaming about whether or not I should be closing debates, I'd appreciate it if you'd actually read some of the discussions I've closed rather than making unsupported assumptions.  You might also look into the record of those closures at Deletion Review.) But I don't think any of us in this discussion disagree with the theory of weighting.  The real question here is the proper weighting of "per nom" opinions.  In my experience, there may be a few rare souls who fully investigate an issue and can find nothing new to say beyond what's in the nomination but in far too many cases, "per nom" is a cheat - a way of adding an unsupported opinion while trying to give the impression of actual thought.  (By the way, "per above", the corrollary for me-too keep opinions, is equally unhelpful.)  Am I failing to assume good faith in making that generalization?  Perhaps.  The practical application always requires investigation into the specific commentor's contribution history and the nature of the discussion at the time the comment was made.  Highly experienced editors who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the relevant policies and standards can sometimes get a little leeway and be excused a bad day.  But the general rule holds regardless of experience - the more you show your work and explain why you think a page ought to be deleted or kept, the more weight your opinion will be given. My concern with this proposal is that by weakening the prohibition against "me too" opinions like "per nom", we'll get even more of them than we already do and the quality of the discussions will decay.  By actively discouraging such unsupported opinions and setting an expectation that participants should show their work, we encourage everyone to put more thought and research into their decisions.  Not only does that make the closer's job easier, it increases the likelihood that we will make the right decision for Wikipedia.  Rossami (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that is a spirited defense of your position and admirably presented. In fact, you may not disagree that if we can improve the quality of nominations, we would all be ahead, even with prenom endorsements: a potentially felicitous and salutary outcome of a reworking of WP:PERNOM sice it would give closing admins greater latitude to adjudge based on the initial nomination. Are you opposing my proposed rewrite? Eusebeus (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've said this at WT:AFD already, so it might be redundant. There is a structural issue with AfD's that creates this situation. An AfD is a nomination by one user of an article for community discussion. In order to list that article (presumably), the user has to exhaust other options and decide against sterner options (PROD, CSD). Once he has done that, he needs to make a case to the community. The burden lies on him to present an argument as to why the article merits deletion. Once that argument has been made, a structural imbalance exists. An affirmative case has been made for the deletion of the article and it must be refuted (or found wanting) in order for the article to survive. Thus each following "keep" argument requires some refutation of the stated nomination. There isn't any way around it. the keep argument either has to pick at the deletion nomination or provide a competing affirmative reason for retention. A "delete" argument on the other hand need only note that they are swayed by the nomination. In other words, they do not individually bear the burden of advancing an affirmative case to delete the article. Once a "keep" comment is introduced that makes a clear argument to retain the article, followon "keep" arguments are spared this burden. They may say "per User:X". Before User:X made that argument, it would have been nonsensical to state "per user:whatever" because no case to keep the article had been made. This is simply a function of order in argumentation. If we had a hypothetical "Articles for Recreation", "recreate (keep)" arguments would start the discussion and "leave deleted" arguments would be forced to make an affirmative case against the nomination. Whether or not this order in argumentation presents a problem is up for debate, but it must be an intelligent and nuanced debate. The question at hand would be: "Does the burden of nomination present a sufficient counterbalance against the advantage of speaking first in the debate. If not, what solution could be devised to eliminate the advantage without providing a larger disadvantage?" Simply talking back and forth about "its a vote" and "its not a vote" don't help. In the real world there are not very often as many arguments as there are participants to the debate. Some people are going to recognize a cogent and clear argument and note their assent to it. This is not a problem (IMO). It only appears to be a problem because only "delete" votes can say so at the beginning. This does not necessarily mean that delete votes are not thought through as much as keep votes. It does not mean that there is a "problem" with people noting PERNOM. Even (and this is quoted above), WP:AADD notes that PERNOM is a perfectly acceptable statement when the nominator presents a compelling rationale. When it is a problem is when the nominator simply marks an article for deletion without providing a rationale. then it is only a problem because it is meaningless. If the nominator makes no argument, PERNOM refers to nothing. End wall of text.Wall of text hits you for 10000. You die. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new Wording for WP:PERNOM
Here is my proposed rewrite. Eusebeus (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that articles listed for deletion are designed to solicit discussion. As a result, participants are generally encouraged to provide arguments or evidence that are grounded in policy and practice to support their position. It frequently happens that the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion. In such instances, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument is often sufficient, indicating an editors general agreement with both the nominator's arguments and the policies or guidelines being referenced. Typically, this is indicated with the simple phrase per nom.

In certain instances, however, a "per nominator' endorsement may be insufficient. It can happen that, in the course of, or as a result of, being listed at AfD, an article has undergone substantive change which directly addresses the concerns raised in the nomination. At this point, endorsement of the nomination is unlikely to be as compelling an argument as one that specifically addresses such changes. Indeed, nominators themselves will frequently amplify their nomination through discussion when such changes occur.

Additionally, in the course of the discussion, the nomination may have been effectively addressed by counter-arguments, alternative interpretations of policy, or the introducton of contradictory evidence. In such instances, it may be more useful to explain how you justify your position in a way that responds to those counter-arguments and, where possible, to marshal your own evidence rather than provide a simple 'per nomination' endorsement. On the other hand, the existence of contrary-positions does not necessarily invalidate the strength or arguments of a well-formed nomination and the existence of votes in favour of retention should not hinder you from endorsing the nomination if you feel it raises the salient points to consider in the discussion.


 * The above proposal is inferior to the current wording. It is too wordy and reduces the impact of the essential point which is that we are wanting reasoned debate at AFD not me-too votes.  Per-nom is bad because it encourages cliques and claques such as we see at RFA. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * agreed on that. nobody has ever said that independent arguments for keep or delete are unconstructive. DGG (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia
Would Jc37 care to give an explanation for this reversion? My thought is that it is helpful to let editors who may be frenetic about the loss of information ("ZOMG! All that work, including my reverted edits from a month ago that I'm still arguing about, is about to be lost!") some confidence that it will indeed be accessible somewhere. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Jc37 but if he/she hadn't reverted the change, I would have. I consider Deletionpedia to be an incredibly bad idea and legally suspect.  The vast majority of pages deleted from Wikipedia are removed for a very good reason.  This bot-enabled preservation of vandalism and personal attacks discredits the project.  I hope that the Foundation's lawyers are already looking into it but even if they aren't, we should absolutely not be advertising that site.  Rossami (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does tend to help refute the argument against information being lost as a result of AFDs, though, does it not? I believe that the right to fork under GFDL would include the right to create something like Deletionpedia, by the way. And Deletionpedia already takes measures to rid itself of copyvios and other "dangerous pages"; see . Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like an interesting idea, but it has yet to load on my computer! Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, we must have slashdotted wikipedia'd it! Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it's back up! Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because this page is: "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". It's not: list some non-foundation wikis that commenters might also enjoy. to be honest, posting that link there is, at least rather close to, violating WP:SPAM. (Same goes for "Uncyclopedia", or any other external websites.)

I hope this clarifies. - jc37 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"I heard it somewhere" argument
Shouldn't there be an extra section about "I heard it somewhere" argument? This argument is used fairly frequently as a keep argument in AfD discussions to justify notability ("I heard it frequently used" or "I read about it on some website" etc). One can say that it is a variation of WP:ILIKEIT argument but it seems sufficiently different to me to merit a separate section. There is a good passage from WP:V that is relevant here, namely Jimbo's quote featured there: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever I see an "I heard it somewhere" I follow up with, "okay--where" -- either I get a response or I don't. But I also agree that "I heard it somewhere" should never be used as an argument to delete or keep anything--it's a sign of desparation and hints of "I Don't Like It"--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominems
In this edit, User:WaltCip added a section on ad hominems. It was reverted by User:Catchpole (and then I accidentally edit-conflicted but I think that's now cleaned up).

My own opinion was that the proposed section seemed uncontroversial but maybe unnecessary. This is already an overly-long page and I had mild concerns that the value of the proposed section might be less than the costs of additional instruction creep. I also would have objected fairly strongly to the inclusion of sockpuppets in the list. Sockpuppetry and other attempts to bias our decision-making process are very serious and and must be addressed if the project is to succeed.

Any other discussion on the relative merits or downsides of the proposed new section? Rossami (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that an otherwise valid deletion should not be stonewalled by the editing or moral status of the nominator.--WaltCip (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RUBBISH issue
I have a problem with the example "Keep We'll find some sources later –NotRightNow" listed as an example of an "Argument to avoid in deletion discussion". From reading the section, and in my own opinion, it seems that this can often be a valid argument. I think I understand why the example is included, but I think it should be adjusted to something a bit more obvious. Or perhaps the proceeding example can be expanded upon, saying, "It's currently nothing but spam and lies, but we can rewrite it." Perhaps I'm just a hardcore eventualist, but in AfD participation I've come to the opinion that an article on a notable topic should only be deleted if it has never been in a salvagable state; such that delete&recreate as stub hides all the trash that merely stubbifying leaves behind. I'm not sure how best to edit this, so I'd like to see some input. -Verdatum (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that we shouldn't delete just because the page is "currently nothing but spam and lies" but once was useful (or at least, did not then include the spam and lies)?  If so, that's already the case and always has been.  Just revert the page to whatever salvagable state existed.  Note that fact in the deletion discussion and the participants (and the closer) will consider the changes appropriately. The point of this section is that the deletion participants should always consider the potential for the topic, not merely the current state of the article - but that their assessment of potential must be balanced and have some basis in fact.  The blind assertion that "we'll find some sources later" ignores the question of whether those assumed sources really exist.  Sometimes, a clean start can be the fastest way to get to the quality article we all want.  Rossami (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I don't consider "we'll find some sources later" an "argument to avoid", and the body of the section does not explain why it is an argument to avoid. It's merely an incomplete argument.  The full argument is along the lines of "Sources exist for this content, we'll add them later".  The section merely explains that making such an argument is less good than just finding and add the sources, or at least link to some in the argument.
 * Further, the line, "Things which cause concerns over core policies like verifiability need to be addressed, and simply saying that major concerns of that nature could be solved eventually, is not going to solve the problem." While true, has nothing to do with deletion, and suggesting that it does conflicts with the above section (NOTCLEANUP) which states, "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." -Verdatum (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand better. I think there may be two separate (though related) issues.
 * The problem with users who typically say "Keep, we'll find some sources later" is that they are skipping the critical first part of your statement that sources do in fact exist for this content. Far too often, that phrase is used in the hope that sources exist rather than based upon any evidence of existence.  Such wishful thinking adds nothing to the discussion.  (If, on the other hand, someone said "I remember reading about x in the Wall Street Journal back in the 80s", I would consider that a valid argument even though the person does not actually provide the source.)  That's why the wording is that "simply saying that major concerns... could be solved" is not sufficient and why it's not inconsistent with the NOTCLEANUP section.  You have to offer some evidence or rationale why your belief is justified if you want your argument to carry any weight.  Of course, the best way to do that is to demonstrate it but that's not necessary.  The section only requires that you offer something beyond an unsupported assertion of faith.
 * The other point is one of interpretation and depends on whether you believe that the current version (or some prior version) has at least some useful basis from which to start a quality article. If every line of text would have to be scrapped and any future editor would have to start over from scratch, then where is the value to keeping the current text around?  NOTCLEANUP starts with the assumption that there is some good content somewhere on the page or history.  The question here is whether it is more intimidating to a new editor to start a brand new page after having followed a redlink or more off-putting for the new editor to see such low-quality junk after following a bluelink?  Experienced editors who have the necessary content knowledge will fix the page either way.  New editors, though, tend to assume that the existing content has some kind of blessing and in my experience are reluctant to overwrite it with their good content.  In those cases, there is a credible argument that a redlink increases our chances of getting a quality article or speeds that process along.  I consider myself more eventualist than most but eventualist or immediatist, we all agree that getting to a good article faster is better.  Rossami (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The usual reason is that subjects of this sort normally do have sources, but that nobody has properly looked so far for this one. I think that's so much the usual reason that' it's actually implied in the statement. We all agree that it's better to be more specific & best to actually find them & say what they are.
 * 2. Many editors--including myself--find it much easier working with even the lowest quality pages. If nothing else, this at least indicates the problems, and I often work by reworking or replacing in turn each of the paragraphs. There are lots of ways to improvbe articles. someone who prefers to improve by removing the contents and replacing can always do that. DGG (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I think I see now. I'd like to see the section edited then to better explain why "We'll find sources later" on it's own is an argument to avoid.  A quick sentence or two should be sufficient.
 * 2. I just hate when page deletions hide article histories from me (even if it only happens rarely and page history undelete requests don't often appear to be met with resistence for legitimately recreated pages). Again, I feel that section does not relate to deletion discussion; I'd like to either remove it, or figure out some way to edit it so it doesn't appear to be so blatently in conflict with notcleanup. -Verdatum (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've got an idea that would make the point clearer for our readers, be bold and make the change. (I tried it but my change made the section far too wordy and I took it back out without saving it.)  Rossami (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Has there ever been a good use of any of these shortcuts?
People tend to either make good arguments, or link to this essay. I appreciate the essay, but the shortcuts... Merzul (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've appredciated the shortcuts not only for the discussions, but also for writing project essays of notability (such as WikiProject College football/Notability). I don't think they should be used as the complete argument--examples of an artist deletion article (no detail vs detail):


 * Keep WP:RUBBISH and WP:CREATIVE
 * Keep WP:RUBBISH One person (or many) "not liking" the style or works of art by the artist is not a reason to delete the article about the artist--further, the subject meets WP:CREATIVE guidelines by being known for "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" of the art form.


 * See the difference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

#1 argument to avoid is in fact citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT
I find it entirely ironic that this entry has itself spawned one of the worst and most annoying non-arguments available to editors in deletion discussions. Citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, more often than not is short hand for "uhm, I'm too lazy to read the entire discussion", "I don't understand the substance of your argument" or perhaps for the most part "I actually have no real counter-argument to make so I'll accuse you of not having an argument". This guideline is one of the least useful and overly abused guidelines I've ever encountered in AfD discussions. I know it was developed in good faith, and in theory there is nothing wrong with it, but in use it entirely infuriating. Someone should give it the axe to save us all from its abuse.PelleSmith (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote a new essay about this: see Grandmothering. The other essays in response were too long. Merzul (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I would gladly cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT if they didn't provide any substantial argument and just said "This article is bad. " or something like that. mike4ty4 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Eusebeus claims in this edit that the grammar and spacing fixes as well as correct elaboration lacks consensus and therefore suggests discussing it here. So, obviously I propose these changes and encourage someone to restore them.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus I am referring to involves the addition of this text in IDONTLIKEIT. I apologise for mistakenly thinking you had added it in. Nonetheless, the text should not be reinserted w/out first generating consensus. Although "cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not necessarily be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information, the word should be avoided as it is "needlessly agressive and needlessly insults the contributors....It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes WP:Civil discussion." Thus, editors should instead of declaring something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed. See also Cruftcruft.

Whoever added this in, misspellings and all, offers more details about me this link to User:Verdatum's user page as a "reference" and also references via CRUFTCRUFT controversial essay penned by User:Alansohn as a direct result of a dispute involving articles about Australian Schools. Alansohn's record of incivility has recently resulted in arbcom sanctions and his non-standard views should not be showcased in a neutral page that is for the benefit of readers and editors of all predispositions. Whoever added this text is clearly pushing a POV, for which consensus agreement should first be solicited and received. Eusebeus (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The most important thing is that we do what we can to decrease tensions and animosity in deletion discussions. I agree with Verdatum that "cruft" is just not a helpful word to use per his comments.  Therefore, I believe it is important that we show respect for our fellow editors by not dismissing their work in such a fashion as "Delete as cruft, lol", but that we make respectful and constructive arguments, i.e. "Delete as excessive details that make the content difficult to read and manage" or something that comes off as more serious and polite and that is something others can respond to in a civil fashion, i.e. "Okay, but could we perhaps make it more concise?" rather than seeing "cruft," and feeling compelled to respond with a shortcut linking them to this essay.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the sweep of your views above and think the existing wording is fine and need not be changed. There's an enormous amount of cruft clogging up Wikipedia and I think the term is, in certain instances, fine. Eusebeus (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing wording is unclear and contradictory and if anything overuse of that term clogs up and derails many a discussion, which is why we need to purge it from our vocabularies in favor of more cooperative and conciliatory language. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your point but I simply don't agree with it. I don't believe using the term cruft "derails" discussions and I don't believe we need to purge our vocabularies in favour of some kind of AfD NewSpeak. More to the point, since that is merely my own view, I don't believe consensus exists for the promotion of your views. Eusebeus (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually my concern here; a minority "consensus" having a subjective view of what they deem to be "cruft" thinking that their view should somehow rule the community when we have AfDs with a half dozen odd editors saying "delete as cruft", "delete per nom", etc. concerning articles that may have been around for years, that in some cases hundreds of editors worked on, and that thousands of people look at each month. There's something illogical if simply not right about that.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pumpkin, at the risk of triggering feelings of stalking you (I'm not, I stumbled upon this when I checked whether you had decided to undo your revert of my reply to another editor on your talk page), I'd like to chime in here and state that this overcited essay (it's not even a guideline) and every shortcut to sections of it is the first thing that should be purged from AfD vocabulary once and for all. It can be used in one-on-one conversation, but in AfDs real arguments are considered and invalid ones are dismissed. While I go so far as to agree that cruft is a rather strong term, to cite another essay: Cruft is cruft. It exists, and in spades, so to speak, which is not a deletionist viewpoint, so please do avoid creating the impression that you're trying to create the notion that it is. Even a considerate inclusionist would readily admit that there is a lot of cruft even within articles that are otherwise suitable for inclusion. If you perceive it as aggressive / uncivil, that's a different story, so please do feel free to tell that to other users using your own words and speaking in the first person. But please don't try, as I'm getting the impression you're doing here, to illegitimately validate or overproduce your own personal opinion by including it in an essay which should basically never be linked to from AfDs in the first place for reasons of politeness and also validity of one's own rationale. In short: Grandmothering. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You recently changed your username as a tactic to avoid being placed upon civility parole or other sanction. This is because you like to use such language as "shithead", "asshole" or "so many idiots asking to be slapped in their stupid faces". It is thus natural that you should ask for relaxation of our standards but this should be ignored because it would be blatant violation of WP:CIVIL which is a core policy, forming one of our Five pillars. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? How does any of your assumption of bad faith relate to what I said above? Asking for relaxation of standards ?? Also, the question is whether or not people prove me right or wrong with classifications such as 'shithead'. All too often, I'm right. Q.e.d. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Cruft" is a word with a very easily-understood meaning (in the English language) - it's material that is not needed in the final product. It is not a derogatory, negative, harmful, or otherwise bad term, because it is accurate to more than just WP; when you move from house to house, you usually get rid of your own "cruft" (aka junk) when you do so.  However, it is a comparative word, as you need some basis to say what is and what is not cruft.  The issue that I agree with in LGRdC's argument is that by saying "It's cruft" and leaving it only at that, you give no basis as to why it is cruft.  What you see as cruft may be seen as necessary by another, and thus without saying why, determining where your baseline sits is impossible to do; thus the argument "it's cruft" alone with no other comment does not help AFD debate, and with the number of topics WP covers far and wide, it's impossible to set a universal guideline for what is and isn't cruft.  Now, I will point out some projects have defined a consensus-agreed level of what is cruft in the context of their topic (eg WP:GAMECRUFT), which is an appropriate argument because the consensus-defined level is there and there's no guesswork on what you, the commenter, means.  However, as a general argument when such case don't apply, "it's cruft" should always be accompanied by something more so we know what you, the commenter, feel the line for cruft for this topic should be drawn out. --M ASEM  02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We get many new editors and I believe when they have an article nominated for deletion it discourages them to go the AfD and see pile on "it's cruft" comments. I think we would accomplish more by engaging them using other terminology.  Also, you hit at the key point here: "it's impossible to set a universal guideline for what is and isn't cruft," i.e. it is in effect subjective and thus really a matter of what some believe valuable and some do not.  I would much rather err on the side of what has value to some than what others could simply ignore and move along to improving what material they do care about.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about those people who should be discouraged because they only add cruft and/or trivia? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The word cruft is prima facie uncivil as it is equivalent to other hostile, intemperate and derogatory terms which one sees at AFD as such garbage or crap. Moreover it is a neologism which is little seen or understood outside of these pages.  Its vague meaning obscures the policy or guideline point which is being made and so a neutral usage of standard English such as not notable or excessive detail is always to be preferred.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cruft has a distinct meaning and per MASEM, where the (admittedly rather strong) opinion that something is indeed cruft can be backed up, it's of course very much in order to call it what it is. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this response. Warden has apparently been so persuaded by his own rhetorical heights that he made another content change that conveniently brings this essay into line with his own personal views. (It must be nice to be right all the time!). I have reverted these changes and would ask again that consensus be formed for moving away from the neutral wording that currently exists. Even though this page is a mere essay (although frequently referenced by editors with all the pomp of declaring dogma), it needs to reflect a balanced POV, not the individual arch-inclusionist views of a Colonel or a Pumpkin. In my experience, IDONTLIKEIT arguments are NOT the same as Delete as cruft arguments, which usually describe content that aspires to stuff covered at WP:NOT (like gaming guides). In my view, then, cruft should be stripped from Idontlikeit and referenced wrt WP:NOT; further the suggestion that it is uncivil be removed altogether, or at least very heavily qualified. It is a useful term. Eusebeus (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The useless term "cruft" needs to be removed from Wikipedia altogether. What is and is not "cruft" is subjective, i.e. "I don't like it," and we should not be basing arguments on subjectivity.  We need and should discuss material in an objective and respectful fashion.  That includes not dismissing others' volunteer contributions as "cruft" or referring to editors as "arch-inclusionist views of a Colonel or a Pumpkin".  There is no need for such hostility in these discussions, as that is not how editors will be convinced or persuaded of another's stance.  Also, keep in mind that I have argued and even nominated to delete dozens of unverifiable, pedophilic, unfixable, nonsense, disturbing, original research, hoaxes, how tos, unconstructive, and disruptive and pointed articles.  There are constructive ways to argue to delete articles without calling content "cruft" or other editors names.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:OSTRICH Pumpkin: you are arch-inclusionist. I was not trying to be hostile, merely descriptive and using the term cruft in my view is not necessarily uncivil. I appreciate you differ but I am confused how you conflate your individual, motivated view as reflecting the consensus of a community which is in the aggregate far less inclusionist than you. That strikes me as intellectually insincere, as are your attempts to tell us what we all "should" be doing. Oh, the Hubris! Eusebeus (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus, please call me LGRdC or Le Roi, rather than "Pumpkin" (please note that I do not and would not use a nickname for you or anybody else for that matter). Also, would you be okay with being labelled an "arch-deletionist"?  I ask because I believe I have argued to delete more articles than you have argued to keep.  I do not think that my view represents the view of every member of the community, but certainly nor does the views of those who label content as "cruft", because that cannot possibly be a shared view with the thousands of editors who add such subjectively labelled content and the millions who come here to read it.  Thus, a handful of editors in an AfD should not be telling the multitudes what they should or should not be doing.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop the ad hominem attacks. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do consider the work essentially equivalent to saying "crap", or "nonsense" or "junk" as an argument and letting it go at that. Perhaps we can agree that simple denigrations of content are things to avoid.DGG (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly they are... but the motivation not to do that should come from the fact that such comments ("Delete as cruft" or such) will be disregarded by the closing admin, not because it hurts the feelings of indivual editors. I could agree with the strong advice never to treat XfD as a vote and to that end, not just talk disparigingly of the content. But what is wrong with it when someone provides a valid rationale for why the content isn't possibly encyclopedic, and feels the need to qualify / clarify his opinion with something along the lines of 'Sorry, but I really get the impression of cruft rather than an encyclopedic article when I look at that page' ? Should that someone then be bashed for saying a dirty word? Seriously? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence to be more neutral, while still getting the point across. I agree that "cruft" is unhelpful and is equivalent to calling good-faith contributions "garbage", but it seems we'll never get a consensus that it is uncivil. DHowell (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, like it or not, but some people -all in good faith, I'm sure- improve Wikipedia for the worse. There must definitely be some way to address such issues and it's obvious that nobody likes to hear that what they consider improvements are not seen as such by others. I once proposed the term "inadvandalism" for that, but that's clearly even less civil than strictly talking about the content and calling it 'cruft' or similar. The issue remains that suboptimal contributions done in good faith need to be addressed somehow. AfD is just one forum where this problem frequently surfaces, but it's even more prevalent imho in otherwise good or potentially good articles. Those who argue against the usage of term 'cruft' should consider providing an alternative way of addressing the same undoubtedly existing problem. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale and agreement/disagreement
I believe that similar as with RfA, placing a simple comment of agreement with the nominator's rationale is a valid way of participating in XfD. I.e. that someone who wishes to keep the material, much like those who oppose an RfA, should definitely provide rationales for why they disagree with the deletion, while everyone who agrees can either provide a supporting rationale for the deletion nomination or simply mark their agreement. Bringing this up here because some advice to that effect should imo be included here. Too many inclusionism-leaning editors place comments such as 'Keep, sources might be found', which should be decidedly discouraged. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, but I think my opinion on this is so good that I'm glad to repeat it. :-) My view is that in a "nothing" debate, "nothing" arguments are fine. If the AFD reason is that the article is a hoax, and everybody agrees, there is no problem with people simply endorsing the nomination reason. Such participation shows that other people have seen it, and is a good thing. The situation changes entirely on a "real" debate, where there is real disagreement. Throwing around a "Delete per nom" or even "Delete" is not harmful, it shows that the argument has some backing which might be the basis of consensus, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion either, and your voice will not carry much wight in a close decision. If the reason given in the nomination has been addressed, then "per nom" can become utterly useless, and make people wonder if you actually bothered reading the article or debate before condemning it; for example, if the nominator cites "no sources" as the reason to delete, and someone responds by adding some good sources, then "Delete, per nom" will be really silly. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:EVERYTHING
Yes, I certainly agree with the WP:EVERYTHING argument, but I think it needs more clarification. I often read an editor posting
 * Delete WP:EVERYTHING--Wikipedia is not about everything

and I just want to respond


 * Keep Wikipedia is not about nothing, either!

Maybe it's just the rebel in me... does anyone else ever think that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first comment is clearly a non-argument. I have seen people linking up this essay without even waiting to see the other arguments, which is a bit silly. Kind of like the retort, though it is really a non-argument that too. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:


 * Keep bad faith nomination. - AssumesBadFaith 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Biased hates this article, so it was a bad faith nomination. - AlwaysNPOV 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a user will nominate an article for reasons that he or she feels makes the article not worthy of Wikipedia. Other editors will see no merit in the argument, and thus assume (or at least state) that the nominator was acting in bad faith. A long history of XFD's has shown that this type of argument is often thrown around by someone who already has engaged in disagreements with the nominator, and thus is fueled by a disagreeable mood.

Aside from completely violating a core policy of Wikipedia's behavior, the argument is in fact no argument at all. If there is reason to keep the article, then these reasons should be stated outright, along with why the nominator's reasoning is incorrect. It is much more rare for someone to nominate an article in bad faith than for someone to accuse the nominator of such. Only in special circumstances such reasoning can be valid (e.g., a sockpuppet returning to nominate certain articles, someone nominating 20 articles in a row to prove a point, or a person seeking revenge after their own article was deleted).

Discussion
While I fully understand what the essayists are getting at here, this would seem to be better under an umbrella of: Or (in this venue) discuss the content of the page in question, not the editors who contributed the content, nor the editor nominating here, nor any of the commenters here. (This includes exhortations about "deletionists" or "inclusionists".)
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor.

I think most of the text above could be reformulated to be inclusive in that way. And I think quite a few more examples and links to guidelines/policy may be found.

More thoughts welcome. - jc37 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen people nominate articles like Israel for deletion, and that is so obviously ridiculous, that saying "bad faith nomination" is perfectly in order. (Technically, I think calling a nomination "bad faith" is discussing the edit, not the editor. Also, AGF does not mean that you need to assume good faith on edits which clearly are not.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the act of nominating Israel could be called many things, including WP:POV. (There are well-meaning editors out there who may nominate articles due to their POV or WP:OR.)
 * The point I was making above is that this is merely one way in which editors are directly scrutinised in an XfD. We should be more complete than this, and shouldn't isolate this. - jc37 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote this essay, and as a caveat (you can see it above) state that there are cases (e.g., WP:CSK cases) where this is valid. It is my observation, however, it is far more common for people to throw around the accusation of bad faith nomination than for it to occur. This is certainly an invalid criterion for deletion, and as such should have remained on the page. As I don't see a lot of consensus for its removal, I am restoring it. I would really prefer working on the wording rather than just removing the whole section. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but that's how WP:BRD works.
 * This is the "discuss" part of the cycle.
 * As for the section, to reiterate above, this is just a small part of "discuss the content, not the editor". And rather than just boldly transform this section (which I suppose I or someone else could do), I was hoping for some further discussion. - jc37 00:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, then could we add a note under "discuss the content" about how invoking the "nomination was made in bad faith" statement is inappropriate in most cases? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (obviously).
 * Any other suggestions for examples of "discuss the content, not the editor"? - jc37 01:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussing venue or process
Along with the suggestion directly above, we should also have:
 * Discuss the edit, not the venue or process.

"That this would be deleted shows how flawed XfD truly is."

"MfD doesn't have the authority to delete my user sub-pages"

And other "fun" comments.

This should probably be listed here as well.

Again, thoughts/comments/concerns are welcome : ) - jc37 07:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's situation dependent. If the context of the situation makes discussing the process reasonable, then that's fine. For example, if an AFD was closed as "keep" yesterday, and is renominated today, then it is fair to call out that it is "too soon for renomination." I remember when people started to call for Lotto (Norsk Tipping AS) to be merged, and I really feel that AFD would be showing serious flaws if this were the to be the outcome, considering that this lottery has a separate article inat least one Norwegian paper encyclopedia. A big problem with codifying "arguments to avoid" as this essay does, is that it is used to sledge-hammer such arguments in cases where those arguments are in fact reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (about the sledge-hammer usage), and think that (most) examples of that should not be on this page. The main exception being "useful", since that's so vague that it really should be explained here. - jc37 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearer wording
Since many editors are linked to subsections here, I would like to amend the boilerplate wording at the top of each section to make it even clearer that this is just an essay, since I fear some editors are confusing this with policy. Thus:

Please read also the introduction of this essay on suggestions for making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection. Note this is not an official policy or consensus guideline. Whether you follow this advice or not is entirely at your discretion.

Suggestions for better or clearer wording welcomed. Eusebeus (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether it's this page or another one, we need a guideline of this sort to improve the quality of AFD discussions. The biggest offense is WP:VAGUEWAVE whereby editors cite one or more policy/guidelines without providing any evidence or reasoning as to why the article fails them.  My impression is that they are copying the behaviour of speedy deletion in which an abbreviated code is often used.  But, as this is not speedy deletion, a better case is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you should start that conversation somewhere, but in the meantime we need to stress that this is just an essay and that these various "injunctions" against certain arguments are discretionary. As it is, this page is unlikely ever to become a guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is certainly difficult to establish consensus for many things here. But why do you see this article as especially troublesome.  My impression is that the shorthand points it makes are often referred to and seem to command some respect.  It is therefore already seems to be more than just an arbitrary essay. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it is especially troublesome. I'm saying, since many editors are linked to subsections here, I would like to amend the boilerplate wording at the top of each section to make it even clearer that this is just an essay, since I fear some editors are confusing this with policy. Eusebeus (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I vaguely agree with Colonel Warden's sentiment about improving AFD discussion quality. However, I think that is the responsibility of WP:AFD.  I also question the benefit of creating a guideline for this.  I think the whole point of refering to it as mere Wikietiquette is that we don't want to get bogged down into enforcing an official manner of responding in AFD as it makes it needlessly difficult for unaccustomed users to voice their position.  I generally have faith in closing admin's ability to spot a well supported argument over a baseless argument....Going off on a tangent, perhaps it would be a good idea to create a user-warning template that points users to the AFD wikietiquette and possibly encourages them to revise/improve their argument...or would that just be used overzealous participants as a tool to bite the newbies who don't respond "the right way"?... -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning Eusebeus' proposal, perhaps it would be sufficient to change the boilerplate line so that the word "essay" links to WP:ESSAYS. If a user can't figure out what an essay is from that, I have little interest in coddling them.  I only occasionally interpret these links being obviously interpreted as more than a shorthand notation to provide a commonly voiced argument, and those infractions are usually by the person making the link, not the person reading the link for the first time, and when it happens, the mistaken party almost always has it pointed out to them by other users. -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Colonel Warden's issue is interesting but deserves its own thread; it is not germane to my point. As the subsections are linked to with great frequency, clearer boilerplate wording would be salutary, particularly for newer editors. This essay is not a binding enforcement of how not to argue at AfD; when editors post links to WP:PERNOM, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:VAGUEWAVE and so on, I think this should be made clearer. I appreciate we don't need to coddle, but we should not be giving the false impression that this is anything other than (at best) suggested practice and is entirely discretionary. We should err on the side of caution, right? Eusebeus (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the main article about the AFD process, WP:AFD, does not seem to describe itself as an essay, policy or whatever. It doesn't seem to make much difference whether an article has one of these classifying words on it.  I have also been noting for some time that WP:DICTIONARY is described as a policy and yet it is routinely flouted at AFD - most recently for nucular.  The de facto status of these articles seems more important than their formal status and this is consistent with our general policies against formal rules such as WP:BURO.  We can't clarify something that is inherently unclear. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well AfD is a process. Anyway, I wish you well in all that but you need to start that conversation elsewhere. I am suggesting an amendment of form, whereby the template wording at the top of the page (making clear the discretionary nature of essays like ATA) be replicated in brief but clearer form in the subsections. No-one wants anyone to be misled, surely. I am not suggesting an extensive philological enquiry as to the platonic nature of essays themselves, with an excursus on the relative merits of bureaucratic procedure. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall speak directly to your issue then. Having considered the general context above, I oppose the specific suggestion as being negative and unnecessarily prolix.  The point of these pages is not their formal status in a quasi-legal system but the force of the points that they make.  We should not obscure these points with redundant formalisms. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how making it clear that an essay is an essay is being negative; this isn't Magritte you know. But at any event, thank you for your comment. Hopefully other editors will weigh in on this question as well. Eusebeus (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of faux usernames in examples
We really shouldn't do this. I just had to change one because a user actually registered under one of the formerly-fake usernames used in the examples here. The section either needs to be policed regularly for any redlinks turning blue, or the examples should be modified so that the usernames given are not actually rendered as wikilinks. 23skidoo (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I regularly patrol the usernames for blue links (thanks for catching and fixing the last one). I think each example is more "real" with the faux usernames, and so they should stay. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion we could use just one "linked" fake user name that we could even possibly get protected, but "label" that fake link something else that matches the description.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Regarding the bluelink I changed, it's worth noting that it was created a couple weeks ago (I only just noticied it) and it looks like it was created solely to put the phrase "Wikipedia annoys me" on the User page. It's reasonable to suggest someone might have created the account after seeing it used here, so it might be a good idea to do some sort of protection so that no one through accident or intentionally creates an account by one of these names. 23skidoo (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the protected account User:Example behind the piped names would turn the links blue... and that might actually make the examples better in some cases. For those cases where the example is more compelling as a red user (that is to say, a comment stereotypically associated with a very new or anonymous user), we could override the color with wikicode like  this .  Rossami (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions
Regarding Sebwite's recent additions, I don't mean to imply that any of these arguments are good in all cases, merely that I don't think they should be mentioned in a list of "Arguments to Avoid". For an essay such as this, perhaps you should propose new entries in the talkpage before adding them. That way it can be argued or improved without altering the article followed by a quick revert or edit war. -Verdatum (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with section titled "Ranking", as in many cases, being the best is evidence of Notability, which seems to be the default inclusion criteria on WP, and suggests that Reliable Sources can be found to support the claim. Obviously, finding RS is a better solution, but sometimes that takes time, which can be constrained when an article is nominated for AfD.
 * "Creator's articles" seems like WP:BEANS. You shouldn't need to explain why those are silly arguments, and in the six months I've been monitoring Deletion Today, I haven't seen it in any memorable fashion.
 * "Instant Verdict" is ambiguous. Occasionally, an AfD can be closed without the resolution being taken out.  In those cases, I think instant verdict is appropriate.

Oh, and as discussed in An above section, I think "Nominator's Nominations" is redundant to No personal attacks and Assume good faith. I don't believe we need to cover every policy here just to translate it into the context of an XfD. -Verdatum (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All these additions are based on various issues that have come in up various AfDs I have participated in or otherwise read. The "ranks" one is one I especially have seen. For example, there was one article created on a building that stated it was the "25th tallest building in Denver." Sure, all the information about the building provided in the article was referenced, but besides that, there was nothing in the article that seemed to make it stand out enough to deserve an article. I supported deletion, but the result was to keep.


 * Anyway, as with all these "arguments to avoid," this is not a fixed guideline, but rather an essay. These are only general recommendations. I felt that in terms of rank, I was demonstrating how anyone can twist figures in order to call something "notable." You can say that your car was the 2500th Toyota Prius ever manufactured, or your racquetball club is one of seven racquetball clubs in the world that meets on the third Tuesday of the month at 7:00 PM. Get the point? When such a silly figure is used as the sole basis in asserting notability, there's some trouble.


 * As for the others, once again, I would not have added them had I not seen them as a serious issue in some real AfDs. Sebwite (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ranking" was a duplicate of part of "Fame in x". I've retitled the section (to hopefully better clarify), and merged the two. Feel free to pare down the examples. - jc37 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed 3 more sections which were essentially varieties of "per nom" or "justa vote", which at the same time (amazingly) were seeming to violate Consensus can change. - jc37 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated arguments
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:
 * Delete Not Notable. Daffy 04:01:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Bugs 4:01:05, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Notable. Daffy 04:01:06, 4 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Bugs 4:01:07, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Notable. Daffy 04:01:08, 4 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete Not Notable. Bugs 4:01:09, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable! Fire! Daffy 04:01:10, 4 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Bang! Huh-huh-huh! Elmer 04:01:11, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

As stated above, the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion. Arguing back and forth on positions without providing reasons for the position can become weary to all involved in the discussion. Repeating the same arguments back and forth can become even more weary and less helpful. Additionally, emotions of editors can begin to heighten during such argumentative states and can sever cooperation among editors. In extreme cases, emotions can lead editors into name-calling, retaliation edits, and other undesirable actions.

While this method can be amusing in cartoons, that amusement does not come to the surface in AfD discussions.

Discussion
So this is a suggestion to not repeat yourself? or just to not say "NN" over and over?

If the former, then that would seem to stand in the way to "further clarification". If the latter, then this would seem to merely be a followup on "avoid the arguement": "Avoid the arguement again". Doesn't sound like it's an "arguement to avoid", but rather a "behavior to avoid". - jc37 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I've encountered it several times in AfDs, when users just go back and forth like Bugs and Daffy--it really becomes annoying (even when I do it!).  The big difference I see is that this section uses a widely-known example (Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck) to rapidly explain a point that should most definitely be covered.  Would love to hear more comments on this section, though!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we have this section put in again please? It's a good example of what sometimes happens in AfDs. Why was it moved out? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mxss I've made 01:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I like this section. It uniquely covers the Ferrous Cranus type use of all sorts of arguments, whatever they may be, and is a versatile category that can cover "notable", "not notable", "source X is reliable", "source X is not reliable", "this number is bog", "this number is not big enough" and many of the other arguments given, with a repetition all to its own. Wiwaxia (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that this whole section could be boiled down to: Don't repeat "justa vote". And to be honest, the current presentation, though cute, is confusing. Which is clear if only by looking at how each of you has defined this section. - jc37 03:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does it strike anyone as funny that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT are being used for a reason not to include a section in the essay that defines them?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved to Avoid Repeated Arguments--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to massive changes by one user
First and foremost, congratulations to User:Jc37 for being WP:BOLD and making changes that the user saw fit. That's the way to do it in Wikipedia!

Second, I'm against those changes! The file size decreased from 61,858 bytes to 56,779 bytes and many arguments were removed--arguments that I found helpful on many occasions and have referenced throughout AfD discussions--each having their own shortcut.

This essay is used and referenced in well over 500 articles on Wikipedia. Removing sections can cause serious issues. It's one thing to edit a section, it's another thing to add a new section, but to remove multiple sections without first obtaining consensus (or at least collaboration) might not have been the best way to go in this case.

Third, I propose that we undo the deleted sections at this time and address each section as a group. Maybe they should go! But let's make sure that we agree to WHY they should go.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the threads above as to why they were removed.
 * That said, I, of course, welcome discussion : ) - jc37 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections that Jc37 boldly removed or merged were all added with equal boldness and lack of discussion by one user yesterday. Jc37 clearly explained his/her reasoning which primarily had to do with unnecessary duplication of content that already existed on the page.  This page is already far longer than is ideal.  Instruction creep is a constant danger, especially to anything related to deletion.  If Jc37 hadn't done the consolidation, I would have.  Sebwite had some good thoughts and those principles should be (and largely have been) incorporated into existing sections of the page.  Rossami (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of them. The WP:WABBITSEASON section was added a while back by myself with collaboration of other users.  I've encountered several AfDs that have become a "wabbit season/duck season" argument, and it's nice to have a topic to reference for those discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And that one (as you know, since you've commented there) is the section directly above this one. I moved it here to the talk page for more discussion. - jc37 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Solution: I'll set up Wabbitseason as a separate essay... a short one.  Fair enough?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of shortcuts
Jc37, please do not remove the new shortcuts from the page Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. They are there for a good reason. We can merge these ideas if need be, but the shortcuts should remain. Sebwite (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While my first knee-jerk reaction would be to say: "Why?", it's probably easier to explain why they were removed.
 * We simply don't need to have so many shortcuts to a single section of a single page. And you are adding 2 more, themselves not indicating a "need".
 * That said, I (and others) would welcome discussion concerning this. First question: How is "RANK" and "ONLY" any different than "LOCALFAME"? And further why do there need to be shortcuts for whatever that distinction might be? - jc37 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also remind everyone that the redirects will still work whether or not we choose to advertise them on this page. We recently went through a lengthy exercise at WT:NOT to prune the visible redirects to just those that were most common.  Rossami (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason why I initially added the "rank" section is because I actually saw these types of silly arguments in a lot of AfDs. The examples I gave had very much to do with place, but they can really apply to a lot of situations. Basically, there have been people who have created articles on things that are very run-of-the-mill, and then asserted notability on the basis that they are the "best" or the "32st largest" of something, or the "only" one of something that is this and that and that and so on. Using this type of logic, they actually claim that whatever they wish is notable. Sure, the Sears Tower is the tallest building in the United States, but that is a well-sourced fact in numerous reliable sources that make it stand out to society that way. Meanwhile, there are articles in which people assert notability over lesser important facts about them. Sure, there is documentation of them, but these are not the things that would make them stand out in the crowd. Sebwite (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words a notability fallacy based upon a subjective importance. The key here is that you haven't demonstrated how this is different than any other subjective importance. (And further why we should have shortcuts for every type of subjective importance someone can come up with...) - jc37 16:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kooky
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:
 * Delete. Only tin-foil hats believe in that stuff. IPreferASombrero (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It will make Wikipedia look bad if we have an article on Wilhelm Reich's orgone theory. OrgoneBeGone (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This topic is pseudoscience. WhatWillTheyThink (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for topics that are notable and verifiable. Whether a particular Wikipedian believes that a topic is real should not determine whether it is deleted. If a topic has been written about to the extent that it meets Wikipedia's notability policy, it is not fair to delete it just because it might not exist. Articles on pathological science, pseudoscience and other claims that have not been proven have a place if the topics have been covered as extensivelt by the press as, for example, the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Wikipedia even has articles on topics (such as Beavis and Butt-head or manticore) that are outright eiction, and articles on proven hoaxes (such as the U.S. Presidential IQ hoax), so the subject of the article being real is no prerequisite for the article belonging in Wikipedia. This is not to say that any subject should not be written about in a neutral manner. Arguments both for and against astral projection, or the existence of the chupacabra, can be fairly represented in Wikipedia's articles, so even skeptics get a chance to make their case on Wikipedia. You may think it will make Wikipedia look bad if we cover David Icke's theory that George W. Bush is a reptilian humanoid, but if Wikipedia were around in medieval times and deleted an article on meteorites, or were around when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift in the 1910's and refused to cover that, think of how bad Wikipedia would look for excluding the article after meteorites or continental drift were confirmed. And besides, Wikipedia is in such depth with over a million articles to date, that it would raise more concern if a topic as notable as George Adamski were missing than if it was included.

Discussion
This merely looks like an expansion of IDONTLIKEIT. In addition, does this general view have consensus? I ask because I seem to recall there being several discussions regarding this, including an arbcomm case. Further references/clarification would be welcome. - jc37 03:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is no more similar to IDONTLIKEIT than "It's not interesting" is similar to IDONTLIKEIT, or than "It's funny" is similar to ILIKELIT. A person can conceivably, for instance, find Bigfoot mythology interesting but want to delete the Bigfoot article because according to his cold, hard beliefs, Bigfoot does not exist and it would harm Wikipedia's reputation to have an article on it.
 * As for the issue of community consensus on paranormal or pseudoscientific topics, I'll refrain from commenting on this until people come up with more information on this. Wiwaxia (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "It's kooky" is a substantively different argument from "I don't like it". If you want to combine the two, why not combine "It's interesting", "It's funny" and "It looks good" under "I like it" and "I don't care about it", "It's not interesting" and "It's ugly" under "I don't like it"? (I'm not saying we should do this...) Some cool guy (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems similar to "it's cruft", which (AFAICT) would fall both under IDONTLIKEIT and IDONTCAREABOUTIT.
 * Could the text be refactored to include both concepts?
 * Also, "kooky" is simply unacceptable as a section header. It implies that whoever supports that which is subjectively deemed "kooky" is a "kook". It would be similar to having a header that said "It's troll-fodder". - jc37 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, "kooky" is simply unacceptable as a section header. It implies that whoever supports that which is subjectively deemed "kooky" is a "kook". It would be similar to having a header that said "It's troll-fodder". - jc37 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We already have WP:FRINGE that discusses the appropriateness of articles on such topics. -Verdatum (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Justa merge
I've reverted a merge of several sections for clarity reasons. Though a few of them could probably be merged, one of the goals here (I think) is clarity. And I think in the merging some of that clarity has been lost. That said, I'd be happy to discuss here (as noted in my edit summary. - jc37 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of them are the same fallacy, and this essay is up over 50K already. By listing every possible flawed conclusion that is flawed only because it is not properly supported, we place undue emphasis on the conclusion instead of the lack of reasoning behind that conclusion. As long as you explain why, it's fine to say an article isn't notable, or isn't encyclopedic, or that we should ignore all rules; these are not conclusions to avoid. We simply need to highlight that conclusions are non-arguments without support. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. But let's not over-merge either.
 * How about starting with merging:
 * Just unencyclopedic
 * Just not notable
 * to
 * Just a policy or guideline
 * Since I would agree that both of those duplicate the latter. - jc37 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you're drawing a distinction between unsupported appeals to common practice ("It's cruft/useless/unencyclopedic") and unsupported appeals to policy/guidelines ("It's OR/non-notable/BLP violation"). There's no difference between the two; they're both valid if supported, and both invalid if not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a difference, as you just noted. And I think that it's a distinction worth making since these (besides the personal preference ones) are the most common "votes" on xfD. And not everyone may immediately see the philosophical concepts as you or I might. Let's start with the smaller merge for now? - jc37 03:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We could just as easily make this 120K of not citing each policy that has a concrete reason for deletion without a good argument, then not to cite general sweeping statements of policy as reasons for deletion without a good argument, then not to cite the MOS as a reason for deletion without a good argument, then not to cite general practice as a reason for deletion without a good argument, etc. The common factor, and only problem, is "Without a good argument."
 * How best can we place greatest emphasis on the problem (unsupported conclusions) and not incidentals (appeals to reasonable things to appeal to)? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The unsupported word/abbreviation/phrase" is what that whole section is. And really, what quite a few sections on the page are.
 * I think the goal is to list the absolute most common ones ("NN" for example, has been, in my experience, one of the most common "votes" at AfD.)
 * I don't think we're listing "every policy example". And indeed, there is a distinct differeencebetween "justa policy comment", and "that's only a guidelines/essay".
 * Also, I'd like to avoid too much "disruption" at one time. Especially since these sections are and have been directly linked to for some time in XfD discussions. Let's not break the links if there is no over-reaching need, and further let's not break the links if they indeed are helpful, clear and concise.
 * That said, I'm not adverse to modification/change/merging, as I think you well know : )
 * Anyway, I have to go for a bit (timing), but I'll bbl to further discuss some ideas/options for your idea for a section regarding "unsupported conclusions". - jc37 03:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the only one you're separating from the others is "That's just a guideline/policy"? I guess "Failure to address arguments" is a separate mistake to avoid.


 * Lemme fiddle with the article and see what you think. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Several of those made a fair amount of sense.
 * That said, I still think too much was removed.
 * I did a merge of the three, which (hopefully) retained much of the original text/intent. This, at least, is a "slower step".
 * While in the process of merging, I almost left "unencyclopedic" as its own section. the only reason I didn't was that I was able to pare it down to a few sentences, and so I believe that the "sense" of it was retained.
 * I was also wondering as to what your thoughts are concerning "useless" and "cruft" (per your edits). Both would seem to be more about personal opinion, than policy. - jc37 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Things which are unencyclopedic, useless, or cruft are not suited to the encyclopedia. (I REALLY don't like adding "It's useless" to the "It's useful" section; while there are many useful things that do not belong on WP, there's not a single genuinely useless thing that belongs on WP.) You can't just blindly assert that something is useless/unencyclopedic/crufty, though, any more than you can blindly assert anything. These are arguments to avoid if and only if you aren't making any case to defend your conclusion.

By adding lots of different conclusions that people mistakenly make without defending them, you imply that the conclusions, and not the lack of reasoning behind them, are the problem. You end up with nonsense like Le Grand Roi constantly linking WP:ITSCRUFT when anyone uses the word cruft in any context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I think I see the confusion. You see the sections as arguements, while AFAIK these sections are arguments to avoid. And useful and useless are both arguements to avoid. (In other words, just because someone says something is "useless", it doesn't mean it is, just that that person feels it is, hence: personal opinion.)
 * As for cruft, I can't think of any discussion where use of that word is helpful. That said, I think you may be right that it's better placed in the new merged section which also has "unencylopedic". - jc37 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Useless" isn't an argument to avoid. An argument to avoid is "This is useless." An argument to use is "[Reason that the article is useless] renders this article useless," as in "The criteria of this list are so idiosyncratic as to render this list useless." If an article is useless, either in the sense of useless-to-an-encyclopedia and in the sense as completely-useless-nonsense, it should be deleted. The former is just a synonym of unencyclopedic, the latter is a much more major case that happens to include unencyclopedic. (And I've seen articles deleted for being genuinely useless to everyone; generally, they're really idiosyncratic lists or really bizarre redirects.)
 * Personal opinion stated as fact as an argument to avoid (and I'd combine most of the awful "Personal opinion" section if I had my druthers). Conclusion stated as fact is an argument to avoid. A reasonable conclusion backed by reasoning is the argument we want.
 * Thus, we need to list conclusions that aren't helpful ("It's useful" in a project that does not include all useful things, "It's offensive" in a project that is not censored, etc.), unhelful reasons for those conclusions (current condition, amount of effort put into the article, the people involved making in the article or the AFD), and errors of omission (generally just forgetting to assert your case). By mixing unhelpful conclusions randomly with reasonable conclusions to make as long as you can defend them, you associate those reasonable conclusions with unreasonability.
 * We need to focus on the bad behavior, not the things often associated with that bad behavior. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "and I'd combine most of the awful "Personal opinion" section if I had my druthers"
 * I think that this sentence is illustrative of the difference in view of this page.
 * It's starting to sound as if what you'd like to see is an essay which coveres just the three types you note below:
 * No discussion at all (pernom, empty votes)
 * Assertion without support ("It's unencyclopedic" and all variations) <- This is Proof by assertion
 * Irrelevant assertion (I don't like it, it's useful, ad hominem comments)
 * Assertion with bad support, using irrelevant or idiosyncratic standards (Google test, most important foo, inherited notability, all X are Y)
 * The thing is, that's not the intent of this page. This page isn't for the regulars (or presumably shouldn't be, at least), it's for those who might be un-used to being in such discussions.
 * So this page lists the most common "arguements to avoid". These should be concrete examples. Not philosophical/abstract treatises. Hence why I'll strongly oppose the removal of the "NN" example (for example). These are things that have been commonly seen. It is far clearer to indicate the specific example (such as saying "it's unencyclopedic"), than to abstractly explain the why of "something" which the reader may or may not understand. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't have examples on the page in the first place.
 * That said, I think you have some great ideas as to how some of this could be presented. Instead of changing the focus of this page (which, I believe, works for the most part as it is), why not write up this essay you describe, especially the part concerning "assertion without proof". I think it would be quite valid and "useful". - jc37 01:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to move to abstracts, simply direct the emphasis where it belongs.
 * Consider the difference between "I like it" and "It's unencyclopedic."
 * Keep. I like it [for a series of reasons that are convincing that the subject is well-liked.]
 * Delete. This is unencyclopedic [for a series of reasons that are convincing that the subject is unencyclopedic.]
 * The ILIKEIT keep is useless whether or not it is well-articulated, because it is arguing for a conclusion that is completely irrelevant. The UNENCYCLOPEDIC delete, however, is only useless if it omits the explanation. The ILIKEITs, conclusions which don't matter, are useful to list because they're always wrong no matter how well-argued they are. The UNENCYCLOPEDICs are not useful to list, because they're most of the deletion reasons from WP:DP. (The only exception I can think of is patent nonsense, because isn't patent nonsense if you can explain it.)
 * I'm here trying to fix this because it's so commonly cited, and correcting people who misuse it because it's written badly is going to constantly disrupt AFD after AFD. I'd rather not have that happen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'm not trying to move to abstracts, simply direct the emphasis where it belongs."
 * So you are out to re-define the page : )
 * And yes, ILIKEIT is different than "unencylopedic". Though, at times, it's quite possible that IDONTLIKEIT may be the actual reason for such claims. The thing is, this page can be about more than one idea. And indeed it is. These are examples which illustrate and indicate POV. Not just "ILIKEIT". But consider "But Wikipedia is supposed to include everything". It's a POV, it's an assertion, but it still should be seprately said, because without it, it would continually be said, and people would have to continually have to repeat why it's a "fallacious arguement". That's the whole point of having this essay, else we could just point to the actual encyclopedic articles on ad hominem, and so on. If I go back hrough this page's entire history, it's always been a list of examples of actual arguements. Not a treatise on "types of fallacious arguements". So I still strongly oppose the removal of examples in the text in your proposed merger. Again, if you want such a treatise, please write it. Essays are created every day. But please don't destroy what actually works here. - jc37 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is kind of a sidetrack. I've already conceded, repeatedly, that a list of bad conclusions is useful in a way a list of misused-but-reasonable-when-used-correctly is not.
 * I'm seeking to rectify what I am constantly seeing misused at AFD; arguments which aren't bad for AFD, they just aren't in and of themselves arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved cruft per above, but then realised that "it's not policy", so it wasn't appropriate in that section. - jc37 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Crufty" is a particular kind of unencyclopedic quality: specifically, the unencyclopedic quality of excess. It's reasonable to call something cruft, but you're going to have to explain why it's unencyclopedic excess for the same reason as if you call something unencyclopedic. It's exactly the same thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that, unlike "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" which leads to the generic (and useless) comment of "unencyclopedic"; "crufty" dsoesn't have policy backing it up, rather a consistantly contested interpretation of policy, and some guidelines which essentially guide how to not go to extremes. And further, as this is something that has been consistantly argued, it would be a fallacy for this page to suggest that "cruft" has support in common practice, or that it has no support in common practice. This page obviously isn't the place for debating whether people agree or disagree with something. It's a guide of examples for commenters how to avoid the common pitfalls of consensual discussion. - jc37 01:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cruft means "unencyclopedic excess" reflexively. That which is excessive in an unencyclopedic way is cruft, and cruft is that which is unencyclopedic excess.
 * "Cruft," like "useless" and "non-notable" and the like, is simply a subset of "unencyclopedic." and is just restating your conclusion in a different form.
 * A good use of the word cruft:
 * Delete. When all of the crufty plot summary is stripped away, this article is nothing but questionable speculation and unsourced factual claims.
 * Or...
 * Delete. This cruft is so hyperspecific and so detailed that there's no hope for finding reliable sources that have seen fit to comment on it.
 * There's no policy against cruft because WP:NOT and WP:DP are the policies against cruft. It's the excess that doesn't belong. You just need to explain how the cruft is excessive in such a way that it is unencyclopedic, per policies/guidelines. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really starting to look like pushing a deletionist's opinion : )
 * (And for anyone else watching, I've interacted with AMIB off and on for a long time, at least back to 2006 and Darth Vader. So, AFAIK, there's no "hard feelings" here between either of us.) - jc37 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it, I think I'd probably rename that combined section "Proof by assertion." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a header, "assertion" would seem to be inclusive of nearly this whole page, rather than just that single section. (And "assertion without proof" would cover a fair amount of the page as well.) - jc37 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof by assertion or argument by assertion means something very specific: an argument that is nothing but a statement of your conclusion. I'm starting to worry that you aren't clear on what that means. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Argument by assertion is a particular kind of fallacy.

Bad AFD arguments have one or more of three problems:
 * No discussion at all (pernom, empty votes)
 * Assertion without support ("It's unencyclopedic" and all variations) <- This is Proof by assertion
 * Irrelevant assertion (I don't like it, it's useful, ad hominem comments)
 * Assertion with bad support, using irrelevant or idiosyncratic standards (Google test, most important foo, inherited notability, all X are Y)

Lists of bad assertions or bad arguments to back your assertion are helpful. For the cases when the problem is not the assertion but instead the lack of support for that assertion, then we need to teach people to actually argue, not to stop making the assertions.

Many of the irrelevant assertions are also arguments by assertion, but that's moot because no amount of proof that an article is well-written or poorly-written or useful or well-liked or much-hated is going to matter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded directly above. - jc37 01:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Something to consider; have you accidentally conflated "opinion about the subject" with "opinion about the subject's encyclopedic quality"? The former isn't useful; it leads to ILIKEITS/UGHS. The latter is very useful, as long as you've articulated the reasoning behind your opinion about the subject's encyclopedic quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not concerned with either. Both are philosophical questions. This page is about concrete examples, and then explaining why those examples are a "bad idea". - jc37 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD is a forum for discussion of opinions of subjects' encyclopedic quality. Things which are not opinions of subjects' encyclopedic quality are the arguments to avoid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. And that is something that may be presented in more than one way. My concern is that you wish to change the presentation "style" of the page. The mode and method in which this page "works". I understand that you don't like that others merely use the shortcuts to this page without further explanation (which is contrary even to what is noted on this page), but to remove them because of that would be contrary to the intent of this page, and then this essay loses the value it has: denotative examples.
 * It's not a matter of whether I understand whether something is descriptive, prescriptive, postscriptive, or even ascriptive. It's not a matter of whether either of us understands the fallacies behind these examples. It's a matter of whether this page can teach others. Especially when those "others" are often enthusiastic editors who may not take the time to understand the deeper meanings or "long vision" of the "why".
 * That's why I have suggested that you do write the essay you want. I think that having it in conjunction with this page would be remarkably useful for everyone. But to replace this essay with taht one would not be a good idea, in my opinion.
 * All of that said, perhaps I am truly missing something in your intent, despite your words above and your edits to the page. If so, I do welcome clarification. Or is it that you merely disgaree with the past presentation/usage of this page and wish to "do away with it" through editing/replacement? - jc37 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to separate reasonable conclusions stated in an unreasonable way from unreasonable conclusions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Separate" as in remove one or the other from the page? Or "De-merge", and have each type under spearate headers? Or what? - jc37 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither. Group the one mistake "forgot to argue" as one mistake, then treat each "arguing for something irrelevant" as a separate case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Then it seems to be a question of presentation.
 * "Group the one mistake "forgot to argue" as one mistake..."
 * The way that the page has worked thus far is to have several example sections under an "over-header". It would appear that you're attempting to merge all such sections into a single "section". Which (as I think you can tell by now) I would oppose, based on my comments above.
 * Why are you opposed to having these as separate, clear sections? Or am I missing something? - jc37 04:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they are the same problem and splitting them puts undue emphasis on the otherwise acceptable conclusions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Undo emphasis? It's not like this is an issue of "this one's worse (or better) than that one".
 * And which conclusions are you saying are "otherwise acceptable"? - jc37 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it, it's interesting, it's offensive = not acceptable even if reasoned
 * Notable, unencyclopedic, cruft = acceptable only if reasoned
 * That's it, basically. Bearing in mind that these are examples. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is the difference between the POV headed section (with its subsections), and the section(s) that precede it. So again, is this just about presentation? - jc37 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We had, and still have, a bunch of reasonable conclusions oft incorrectly used unsupported mixed in all over the place with unreasonable ones useless even when supported. It's about organization and emphasis. By mixing conclusions that are useful and actionable when supported with conclusions that are not useful or actionable whether or not they are supported you associate the former with the latter. By listing every conclusion that needs support in its own header with "SUPPORT IT AND YOU'RE FINE" in the last paragraph as an aside (in the same way that exceptions are mentioned below for the useless conclusions), you create the impression that the reasonable conclusions are unreasonable whether or not they are supported.

What is the difference between the POV headed section and the sections that precede it? Non-arguments are acceptable when you fill them out with arguments, irrelevant POVs on the subject matter are not acceptable ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the latter, you misunderstood the question. I wasn't asking the difference between the two (three) sections, I was asking what the difference between the current sections as they stand, and what you propose. From what I am reading, they already make the same division that you describe. Or am I misunderstanding you?
 * Also, give me a moment, I think there's a way to merge the text you want. - jc37 06:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want a bunch of "Don't use this conclusion!  Unless you properly support it.   "
 * There's one common error for all valid conclusions: you forgot to argue in support of it. The problem is the same, the solution is the same, so we don't need 1794345 sections and 20K of repeated text to say "Don't say notable without support," "Don't say non-notable without support," "Don't say cruft without support," "Don't say encyclopedic without support," etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need to list every policy or guideline as an example. That said, I think it would be fair to say that WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NOT are likely the most common comments at XfD. As such there should be specific examples for those, to make it clear in no uncertain terms that this section includes those (as I mentioned above: enthusiastic editors, etc.).
 * And Unencyclopedic just seems to be "bigger" than even policy. And it can be just as much of a big straw horse that people who don't wish to support their assertions like to hide behind. (The reverse of "Wikipedia should include everything.)
 * Anyway, I merged in much of your text, except where duplicate. Also, I tried to minimise the usage of "you", for stylistic reasons among other things. - jc37 06:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "That's only..." is still a reasonable conclusion when supported. (Variations include, "That's not applicable here because," "I don't think this was considered when that was written because," or "We should make an exception here because".)
 * UNENCYC is still exactly the same as pointing to policy without explanation; they're both appeals to common practice without explanation why that appeal is relevant. There isn't a difference between policy and common pratice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In thinking about this, no, I think it's a little different. It's an appeal to an authority, to be true, but I just think it's different than "just" policy. Being an encyclopedia is more a state of being, than a "rule".
 * "That's only..." is still a reasonable conclusion when supported.
 * I agree that it can be. - jc37 07:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just not notable
I feel this specific section needs to be retained and not be replaced by "just pointing to policy". It's very common for people to say "not notable" without necessarily linking to WP:N (nor even necessarily bothering to read it), so a section dealing exclusively with this is still very much needed.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is typing "NN" not pointing at policy? And also, as long as WP:JNN links to the section, does the header matter? Or is there something textually that you feel was lost in the merge? - jc37 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because someone can say "Not Notable" (which doesn't "point to a policy") instead of "Fails to meet WP:N" (which does "point to a policy").--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can "point" at (indicate) a policy without linking to it. And stating "notable/notability" implies that policy. So for you it's just a question of the name of the header? - jc37 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A vote of "not notable" tends to have more in relation with "unencyclopedic" than "justa" cases. People use "not notable" to mean "unimportant" or other subjective things having no relation to what is specified at WP:N.  Occasionally it's an actual vaguewave, as in "Fails WP:N", in which case you can engage the voter on the specifics of the policy, but in most cases a vote of "not notable" means "I don't care what WP:N says, this is not notable."
 * Frankly, if a person really intends to argue "fails WP:N", what they should say is "no sources available to support the topic". "Notability" is a power word at AfDs, not really an invocation of policy.  In fact, it's the most abused power word in all of AfD, so in my view it definitely warrants its own entry.--Father Goose (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it definitely deserves its own entry, since notability is hard to evaluate, so English Wikipedia does not allow a user to request a speedy deletion of a particular article for its lack of notability. However, many users votes for deletion because of "not notable" (also occurs common in Chinese Wikipedia).


 * Besides that, "constitutes original research" deserves an entry as well, since whether an article is a mere original research article or not is not easy to judge, so English Wikipedia prohibits a user to request a speedy deletion of a particular article for the article constitutes original research. If a user considers an article is full of original research, then he should point out why it violates WP:NOR and the reason it can not be kept without violating WP:NOR. If he can not point out the reason, then he should not use the "OR" argument. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Deserves an entry"? Nothing on this page is necessary or required, and definitely has nothing to do with being "deserving". This page is merely a convenience. A place to point (and hopefully clarify why) for those who wish to not have to constantly fully explain something at XfD.
 * That aside, the post above exactly illustrates the problem. Where do we draw the line? Do we create a separate section for every policy and guideline?
 * Is this only for the ones we "like"? What about what someone else likes?
 * Man in Black had some valid points above, I mostly opposed his suggested merges due to the history of this page, and I think several individual examples are more helpful than one lengthy treatise of prose.
 * That said, we should merge where possible. And Notability, being a guideline, would seem to be an easy merge.
 * So as long as the explanation of the concept is there, and it's clear, what's the problem? Or is this a case of IWANTMINE (to have it's "own" section)?
 * Note that if the section stays, it needs cleanup (which was happening anyway) and will (and does) largely duplicate the pointing at policy section anyway, just substituting a "notability" as the policy/guideline example. - jc37 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "notability", when spoken at AfDs, is typically not an invocation of the guideline. It is not (usually) a subcase of JUSTA, despite the word "notability" and the guideline WP:N sharing a name.  I welcome cleanup, though not if it loses effectiveness in the process.
 * Separately, what's the harm in redundancy? People read this page one section at a time.  Although I appreciate that you're trying to move toward being a coherent whole, it's still a list of individual prefab counterarguments.  Each should work well independently.--Father Goose (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and I agree with AMIB. (Does that make me crazy? : ) - I think this works best as basic individual "points", while merging similar sections where possible. (And with that in mind, I'm only weakly opposing the de-merge of notability.)
 * As for "notability" being different than the policy, it would seem to me that the claim of "notability", whether as a direct reference to the concept, or as a direct reference to the policy which refers to the concept, is a fine line, which we really don't divide upon much at Wikipedia. It's hard enough for editors to understand that policy is (mostly) merely a reflection of de facto common practice, and not de jure regulations. Now you want them to understand what that common practice refers to, is enshrouded in? Do you want editor's heads exploding? (grin) - jc37 07:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Orwell, it's a sign of insanity, according to Fitzgerald, it's a sign of intelligence. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Muh, you are not going to change the deletionist/inclusionist debate so why bother? But this is - WP:NOTPOLICY - just an essay and carries 0 weight in AfD debates. I'd say go ahead if you care that much. Also, on a side note, I agree with everything AMiB has stated above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a mere essay, however as Jc37 said, it is useful to Wikipedians who are lazy to write arguments to counter the bad arguments in it. So, I suppose two new entries about notability and original research to counter the "It's not notable.", "It is unimportant.", "It lookes like original research." pro-deletion arguments which claim a certain article is non-notable, unimportant or original research and do not explain why the artucle violates WP:NOR, WP:N or one of its sub-guidelines, since this kind of arguments cause mere disruption and provokes anti-deletion Wikipedians (especially the article's lovers). If one Wikipedian want to use WP:NOR, WP:N or one of its sub-guidelines, he or she should clearly explain why the article vioaltes one of them, so that other Wikipedians can understand (for instance, most sharewares and freewares are obscure to many computer engineers, but quite familiar to download-lovers). --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have an existing entry about notability. I did add some specifics about WP:NOR arguments to the "just pointing at policy" section while reducing the redundancy between that section and the "just not notable" one.--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment should say not notable because .... at the very least. Otherwise the same phrase might be used for 99% of the material at afd, because if one doesn't say why, it might be because of not meeting a guideline, or a personal opinion that it doesn't count regardless of guidelines. DGG (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have fully read the "essay" and comment later. By the way, maybe WP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:JNN should be merged to avoide duplication ("Just notable" argument can be fully adressed in WP:JUSTAPOLICY). --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Annnnnd we come full circle. Read my postings earlier in this thread.--Father Goose (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A circle? I dunno, if we add in the earlier discussion, it's almost like a figure eight, or even a Möbius strip : ) - jc37 07:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... can we say WP:WABBITSEASON? or WP:DUCKSEASON?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Expand scope?
Many of these counter-arguments have merit beyond deletion debates, e.g. "useful" and "doesn't do any harm" often come up in content discussions, someone points here to rebuff on the basis that the arguments here are usually flawed no matter where you raise them, and the response from those looking for an excuse to ignore it is "that only applies to deletion discussions". Since the arguments presented here should probably be avoided in most circumstances, should the "in deletion discussions" part be dropped, and this page retrofitted to encompass wider discussion? 217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen WP:ILIKEIT invoked all over the encyclopedia. Although it specifies deletion discussions, if the point made in the section applies to an argument made anywhere else, it's still got potency.--Father Goose (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability
Here's one that might go on the list:

There may be room to include the Jimbo quote from the mailing list. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an argument to avoid in all cases. In the case of a nomination on the order of "There is no way this content can be verified." responding with yes it is verifiable, or asserting that sources of verification are already provided is a perfectly good response.  And I don't know that it is concensus to be against the claim "there must be sources for this somewhere." as often it is entirely accurate and obvious; so much so that me taking the time to track these sources down just to rescue from AfD is just silly.  This is particularly true for verifiable claims on facts established long before the Internet age.  I shouldn't have to run to the library to rescue an obviously verifiable article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've seen some AFDs where users have tried to push for deletion based on the fact that online sources aren't available for a particular topic, even though the topic itself is well sourced with, say, old newspapers, magazines and books. The fact some nominations try to ignore this comes off as Net-bias, WP:OSTRICH and even a case of not assuming good faith. Wikipedia's not alone - one reason I stopped contributing to the IMDb was that they stopped taking submissions for new listings for films and TV shows if they didn't have webpages devoted to them, which made it impossible to get a listing for a film referenced only in a reference book or old magazine. Obviously, in the case of AFD, if the article has no sources and the response to the AFD is "there are sources" then there should be an effort made to add the sources. But if sources are already present, I agree this is a perfectly reasonable response. I think the point of the suggestion addition is more along the lines of that - article has no sources, someone says there are sources, but makes no effort to add them. I do think, however, that such a response might warrant a nomination being temporarily withdrawn, a "rescue" tag added to the article, and time given for sources to be added (assuming the article doesn't have major POV or BLP issues, of course) 23skidoo (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Methinks the point was missed. "Keep, verifiable" is an argument to avoid, because it does not tell us why given content should be kept.  The rule is "all content must be verifiable", and does not imply "all verifiable content must be kept".  That is, it does not speak to whether or not the content at hand merits inclusion, or whether it is relevant to the encyclopaedia.  I could probably provide a reliable source for the length of my street, but this isn't a justification for an article on Length of my street or for including that fact in an article on the city in which I live.  To say "keep, there is probably a source somewhere" is a handwave.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Often the argument for deletion is that it is not verifiable, without any further comment, in which case the argument that it is is every bit as good a response--obviously, neither of these mean very much without evidence presented. Bu the usual sequence is d: no references supplied.  k: they could easily be. This is very much to the point as a defense of the article, though not quite sufficient. The first part, no references supplied, or Not verified, is not an arguement for deletion, good or bad, it's a request for improvement. We do not delete articles for not being verified. We do delete them if they are imopssible to verify, which is a much different thing, and very much harder to show.   Among the good, though not definitive, arguments for deletion are; This is something that ought to be covered in google, and the following search [ ] shows that it is not, or, I have checked the following specialist publications [  ] and it is not mentioned. Among the good, though not definitive arguments for keeping, is "this ought to be covered in printed sources, and have you actually checked?"DGG (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V is official policy, so any article without reliable sourcing is liable to deletion, and "unsourced" is a perfectly legitimate argument for such. Simply saying "this ought to be covered in printed sources" and nothing more is in itself a handwave.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the person hasn't actually checked, it's more than a handwave; it's a counterargument against WP:IDONTKNOWIT. If the person has checked, then, yes, it's a handwave.--Father Goose (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's a relevant condition, since it's a handwave either way. If the person who puts forward that comment knows of sources, they should provide details, rather than simply saying "have you looked?".  Remember, the burden of evidence lies with whoever wants to include the content.  Like "it's (not) interesting" and "it's (not) useful", there are no circumstances where a bare "keep - verifiable" is a good argument by itself.  Note that in this case, the converse is not true, since "not verifiable" is a criterion for deletion, and the default assumption should always be "not verifiable" because of the two positions it is the one that can be proved wrong.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I also believe that a person nominating an article for deletion is obliged to perform due diligence and do at least some minimal check for sources. Otherwise he or she is wasting everyone's time and treating AfD as cleanup.  If an article needs sources, the recourse is WP:SOFIXIT, not WP:SODELETEIT; deletion is a recourse when when an article cannot be sourced, and at least a trivial amount of effort should be expended to support such an assertion.  The burden for proving information is on the includer, but if you want to delete an entire article, you should be willing to take on a minimal amount of burden yourself.  That's how I see it.  Improving the encyclopedia, through deletion or otherwise, should be a partnership.--Father Goose (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I still don't see how this makes "Keep because this is verifiable" a useful argument. We include content that is verifiable, but we don't include information purely because it is verifiable.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... I still think I'd rather let WP:NOT and WP:N handle this issue. "Verifiable isn't enough" is true, but what you've written here is, I feel, dangerously open-ended compared to the specificity of "here are the cases where verifiability isn't enough" detailed in WP:NOT and WP:N.  Outside of those specific cases, verifiable is enough.--Father Goose (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (indent drop) Verifiable is never enough, and it's certainly not a valid point to put forward by itself at XfD.  In any case, there is not a single set of circumstances other than perhaps some extremely-contrived corner cases where "keep - verifiable" would be a good argument, and ultimately that's what this page is here to document.  If you're not happy with the wording, sofixit.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiable is as appropriate answer to "not verifiable" when unaccompanied by any evidence of searching or an attempt to find information. It's well established by hundreds of afds that the WP policy is verifiable, not verified--but also that challenged articles do eventually have to be verified. ts not a matter of contrived cases--there are dozens of afds a week which are proposed on the basis of not verified for 6 months or the like, and are promptly verified and kept sometimes with hints to the nominated that they should have checked. I have in fact proposed that nominations for deletion as not notable unaccompanied by even a simple attempt at a search be immediately rejected--I doubt it will be come automatic, but there's considerable sympathy, increasing each time I propose it.  DGG (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood again. "Keep - verifiable" is not the same as "Keep - I found this source ".  The argument of "verifiable, not verified" is something completely different, you may be thinking of Wikipedia not being a reliable source.  "Verifiable" does not simply mean that outside sources exist to back up the article, it means that at the very least we know what those sources are and that they are reliable.  "Verifiable, not verified" is not an excuse for not providing sources.  I believe it is generally accepted that WP:V alone is not a sufficient standard for article inclusion.  I repeat once more, hopefully this is about as unambiguous as it gets, there is not a single situation where "this is verifiable", with no qualification, no supporting sources, and no other reasoning, is a good argument.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP is making some sense here. Maybe we should add his example? Deamon138 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not want to see "it's verifiable" codified as an "argument to avoid", because verifiability is not an argument to avoid. I could consider accepting it as "Verifiability is enough" -- that is more plausibly an argument to avoid.--Father Goose (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to get tired of people that can't read. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and assume good faith. I expect father goose did read the caveats in this proposed ATA, but I believe he feels the way I do, that this list should not turn into "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, plus arguments to sometimes avoid under certain circumstances."  I would be more inclined to accept a rewrite along the lines of "verifiability is enough", as it makes the fallacy more understandable and allows some of the special case wording and explanations in the body of that essay to go away.  But even so, it becomes redundant to WP:EVERYTHING.  Perhaps as a compromise, we could add another example just after the argument of AllTruthful like,


 * -Verdatum (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no set of circumstances where "keep - verifiable", without further justification and without supporting evidence, is a good argument. Supporting evidence may be a citation in the debate, on the article, on the talk page, whatever - the important part is that there is support and it is visible.  There can surely be no way that this point could be in dispute.  Someone writes an article on the ramp outside their apartment block, and adds some links to the planning application with the local authority.  That article would be verifiable, but it would not be worthy of inclusion.  At content discussions, we discuss whether something should be included and why.  Since all content must be verifiable, it is not a suitable argument to why something should be included.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Verifiability is enough": yes that is exactly what the IP is suggesting is a fallacious argument. If you mean that it should be rewritten as "Verifiability is enough", well not necessarily, because if you look at all the other examples in this essay, they all do what the IP is saying. For instance, WP:PRETTY is just "It looks good" not "It looks good as the sole comment" or "Aesthetics is enough". The entire article is set out on the assumption that each argument criticized is the sole comment, i.e. that's all they've offered, thus they see that as "enough". Deamon138 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The arguments mentioned by 217.36.107.9 are not necessarily bad arguments, since sometimes AfD nominators claim an article is unverifiable or full of original research for the lack of reliable sources, but in fact the article meets the three core content policies (occasionally occurs in Japanese Wikipedia). So in this situation the "bad" arguments are O.K.. Of course this does not mean an article can be kept just because it has verifiability; for instance, articles about local news events generally should be deleted due to the nature they are not mentioned in national or international scope (but sometime they can be mentioned in the history section in articles about a particular administrative region). --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * this does not mean an article can be kept just because it has verifiability - this is the specific point being made here. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the IP's proposal again. It has nothing to do with saying something is "unverifiable". Only it's opposite, i.e. someone saying "It's verifiable." Something being unverifiable is an adequate deletion reason, but something being verifiable, on its own, is not reason enough to keep. Deamon138 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, an unreferenced article can sometimes have verifiability since users can use World Widw Web or libraries to search for reliable information about the article's topic. Though WP:V has "Burden of evidence" section, it DOES NOT mean that an unreferenced article should be deleted due to having no sources. But if Wikipedians consult many reliable publications, websites, etc. and find no information about the topic, the article should be deleted due to having no verifiability. Having verifiability generally means the article should not be deleted, except when the article's subject is too obscure (such as a minor character in Prison Break) and does not deserve an article, incorrect article name or local news events. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have misunderstood this proposal. The proposal is basically saying that in a deletion discussion, saying solely that the "information is verifiable" is not enough. The fact that information in an article is verifiable is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. There are other criteria (e.g. NPOV, FRINGE, INDISCRIMINATE etc etc). So making the point that we shouldn't delete something because it is verifiable is not enough.


 * I also think that Verdatum's compromise is a good idea. Deamon138 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories generally should not have their own articles since they are not accepted by the mainstream academic community. So I do agree that an article has verifiability does not necessarily mean it can be kept. However, I think "this article is unreferenced, so it's original research (or is not verifiable)" is a bad argument in deletion discussions since some editors do not have the habit of citing sources, and the knowmation contained in the article is probabaly verifiable and does not violate WP:SYN (some editors think if an article is highly-referenced, it does not contain original research, which is totally wrong). And some Wikipedians nominate a particular article (e.g. Wikinfo) for deletion, claiming it fails notability for "reliable 3rd sources do mention them, but trivially", but the information is verifiable and has some notability (such as mentioned in Alternative outlets), and though generally having no "reliable 3rd sources" shows that an article can not be kept (see WP:NOR), there're some exceptions such as the fictional work article (e.g. Reborn!) and list of ..... characters (e.g. List of Reborn! characters) are so full that main characters and groups (e.g. Tsunayoshi Sawada, Hayato Gokudera, Takeshi Yamamoto, Ryohei Sasagawa, Kyoya Hibari, Lambo, Mukuro Rokudo, Vongola Famiglia and Millefiore Famiglia) should deserve their own articles due to the structural problem. So again I think even if an article fails the letters of WP:N, it sometimes can has its own article. Wikipedians should use the spirit of the notability guidelines instead of the letters of them to support or oppose the deletion of a particular article when it comes to the situation that the nominator uses notability guidelines to AfD an article. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ... all of which is utterly relevant to the discussion at hand. I object to the title "Verifiable is enough", since this page is about arguments which are used, and by themselves should be avoided.  From the introduction: "Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it."  Since the title should be a reflection of the argument being used, I suggest "Just verifiable", to go with "Just notable" and "Just unencyclopedic", since I'm specifically referring to the bare argument, without support and without evidence.  User:Verdatum's suggested addition is a useful illustration, since that particular line tends to come up quite a bit on article talk pages too.  I don't believe it is a compromise at all, but rather a clarification.  It may just be that those that have misunderstood the proposal somewhat perceive it to be a compromise.  Certainly, the explanatory section could do with some work.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Essay?
Any particular reason(s) why this is an essay, and not something, you know, higher? Deamon138 (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire page is a wikilawyer's cribsheet... and you want to turn it into a law?--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily want to turn it into anything at all, I was just wondering why it wasn't something different. Besides, I wouldn't be so harsh on this page to call it a "wikilawyer's cribsheet", it does come up a lot in deletion discussions and all manner of other places, and was surprised it wasn't a guideline when I looked at the top of it. Deamon138 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the essays, you'll find that through citation, they are either just common sense advise on techniques of debate, or rehashes of pre-existing policies and guidelines. "This argument is no good according to the following policies".  If that's all it states, there is no need to redundantly make it a guideline.  It might be harsh to call it a cribsheet, but the concensus I percieve is this article is intended as a shorthand to explain the fallacies and flaws present in commonly expressed arguments.  It keeps me from having to type out the full logical progression every time I attempt to influence an editor's position. -Verdatum (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm I guess a fair chunk of this is based on current policies and guidelines, with a dash of common sense, and a lot of info based on logical fallacies. So I guess it would be a bit redundant as a policy or guideline, so thanks for answering my question! Deamon138 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Highway Code carried a summary for a long time saying it was a definitive guide to traffic law, though failing to observe it was not in itself an offence. This list seems rather like that to me - it doesn't add anything new, it merely restates existing policy, and provides common formulations based upon it.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED issue
There is a common argument used in AfD debates along the lines of "X is a major character in TV series Y. Y is notable therefore it is normal to have pages for all major characters". I think this argument needs to be stamped out somehow. McWomble (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Looks like it's already covered by WP:NOTINHERITED and other policies/guidelines such as WP:FICT. There are also some good arguments at Notability/Historical/Arguments that in my mind suggest that the application of what is notable and what isn't seems to be shying away from the original intention. To borrow from the article, an article on some neighbor's dog isn't notable unless the dog has some sort of widespread interest or recognition; in contrast, a character in a television series or film is seen and recognized by millions of people. In fact W:N/H/A, although it's an essay, could almost be used as an argument point in favor of keeping such articles. 23skidoo (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I too have frequently challenged this interpretation, anbd I am glad another edior thinks it at least worth mentioning. The significance/notability/whatever one wants to call it of a fiction is based on or constituted of the notability of its plot & characters and similar major elements. Fiction is not notable with a plot, and the major notability of it comes from the plot--that's the essential characteristic of fiction. Major authors are major because they have written major works; major works are major because people have written about them--and the part they write about is primarily their plot. Thus, in general, if a novel is notable, it will be because the plot is notable, sometimes additionally because the characters are notable.  (there can be works notable for other reasons, such as the language or the general reputation or controversy). This is a mistaken use of the concept. Though I think i would need some support before direct challenging the inclusion and wording of not inherited, I certainly will start by objecting to its extension into other policies.DGG (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
I'd like to propose that the section 'It looks good' should be be renamed something like 'it's a well constructed article' and includes not only arguements about how an article looks but also how well the article is written. -- neon white talk 15:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming Comments
I posted an essay at Nothing as a response to WP:EVERYTHING. I would welcome comments on the talk page for the essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My Username
Since when is it alright to use contributers usernames in policies and essays? KingOtherstuff (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the problem: please accept our apologies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about me? This is rather sexist, you know? EmpressOtherstuff (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can come up with alternate, redlinked names to put into the essay just as easily as I can. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename
I propose getting rid of the "deletion" aspect of the title, as these points can be used in any discussion - not just that of a page deletion. "Arguments to avoid in discussions" would be a better alternative. mɪn&#39;dʒi:klə (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are all the rules selectively enforced?
Something else exists, is not a valid argument they say. Odd. Because it makes no sense that something that is exactly the same, is allowed to remain, when someone else isn't, simply because there are more editors around to defend it. If AFD is not a vote, and administrators can ignore everyone, even if the overwhelming majority wish to keep something, and just make a decision based on the rules alone, then why is it that so many articles which don't meet the requirements for inclusion, are still allowed to exists? Are they afraid to go against the will of the populace, if the numbers are large enough? It also depends upon the closing administrator, some just following the majority, or voting no consensus, while others delete on their own whims.  D r e a m Focus  04:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)