Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 5

edit war
and thought that WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions could perhaps say a little piece on editorial disagreement in deletion discussions. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just put my views across at Articles for deletion/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica),

Proposal - Guideline?
Just a thought, but shouldn't this be a guideline? It's used in closing of deletion discussions all the time and widely referenced across the site. It's a de-facto guideline, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe we should make it an actual guideline? Steve Crossin Talk/24 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree but also see this opening a big can of worms, and think it better to leave an as essay. --M ASEM (t) 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about making it a guideline, though it would make sense. If it was though, I would suggest a rename, as most of this doesn't apply to deletion discussions other than AFD. Mr.Z-man 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in my experience, these are used all over Wikipedia. - jc37 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple may be relevant to other discussions but most are specific to AFD and some, like WP:USEFUL and WP:PRETTY could actually be valid arguments in other types of deletion debates like FFD and TFD. As an essay it doesn't really matter, but as a guideline, misinterpretation could cause problems. Mr.Z-man 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a de-facto guideline, rather a wikilawyering tool :)). And it should not be: as long as it's not a vote, as long as the closing admin takes full responsibility for his/her action - there is no need to restrict what other editors say. The admin simply ignores what he/she deems necessary. The system relies on their judgment alone. NVO (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What benefit would be gained by making this a guideline, as opposed to keeping it an essay? I myself do not exactly see the purpose. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we'd get a consensus that the "guidelines" on this page are guidelines. However, actually tagging the page as such typically brings drama, and so in reference to that, as noted above, most of us don't think having a tag here is worth said drama. Hence, essay... - jc37 05:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I flatly oppose elevating this to guideline status. It is terrible policy. Deletion is more appropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why?
 * Sure. This is a page that is primarily used to tag and shut down arguments, regardless of content. It's basically a page full of TLAs that can be linked to in order to try to have an argument dismissed without thought. "Oh, you're just saying ILIKEIT" or "you're just saying INTERESTING" is often a far more toxic argument in deletion debates than the arguments being labeled thusly. The page may compile some interesting and useful points about arguments, but on balance does more harm than good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this. The only difference between an essay and a guideline is really how accepted it is. This enjoys wide acceptance; more than even some guidelines and policies. Sceptre (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the idea per Sceptre. I don't agree with it all, but it is commonly accepted at AfD. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a good guideline, except that although it may be referenced often, it is also almost never followed in at least 50% of the cases. Too bad actually. Wikipedia would be a much better place if this were actually a polict (despite how difficult it would be to enforce). --Intentionally unsigned 05:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support making this a guideline. Per Scepter and per "Intentionally unsigned". These are referenced a lot, and are already being utilized as a guideline. I see most here agree. Feed   back   ☎ 04:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice essay, but policy/guideline? I am not sure... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While generally sensible, this essay is persistently misused. Many are the occasions I've seen someone's reasonable AfD comment dismissed as, say, WP:USEFUL because they happened to observe that the article was in fact useful and went on to describe why it belonged in an encyclopedia as a result. WP:ILIKEIT is often also used to dismiss positively-worded comments that nonetheless provide valid, policy-based reasoning. I'm not personally comfortable with elevating the status of this list when the applicability of it is so varied - some aspects of it are perfectly uncontroversial and generally are de facto guidelines, while other parts are valid enough points but are subjective and frequently misused. Equally, other parts of it are frequently ignored, whether appropriately or not. I think it's best to leave it as an essay. ~ mazca  t 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it as an essay. The essay is overquoted as it is, and many of the arguments listed are in fact quite appropriate under the appropriate circumstances. The text should be an advisory one, to help the reader make better arguments, and say what kind of arguments tend to be persuasive or unpursuasive, and that's what essays do. It should not be used as a way of bashing down the arguments of others, and making it a guideline/policy will only increase that kind of usage. (This goes both ways, accusations of "ILIKEIT" and "IDONTLIKEIT" are frequently thrown about when even a slightly subjective argument is presented.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more points: First, many of the examples list among the lines of WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL are indeed poor arguments, but it's not because they argue that the article is (not) interesting or useful. On the contrary, those arguments are poor because they don't argue for why the article is (not) interesting. The problem with "Keep This plane is very interesting" is that it is just an assertion, and has nothing to back it up. An argument along the lines of "Keep. Although only a few of these planes were produced, their service life as a research plane for NASA is an interesting and crucial part of Aeronautical research" is also an appeal to interest, but is much better, and I would not summarily dismiss it. The problem with the arguments listed under USEFUL and INTERESTING is that they're superficial.
 * The second point is that as an AFD closer (not so much now, most AFDs are closed by the time I log on), I need to evaluate consensus, and the raw opinions on what should be done with an article make up part of the consensus. To throw away all the "per nomination" votes, and the "I like it" votes, and then count up what's remaining as "valid" and make a decision based on that, all while chanting "AFD is not a vote" is not a good way to close AFDs. If there is a policy vs. consensus issue, the issue to look for is "Are there reasonable arguments being made on both sides, and if so, what level of support do they appear to have?" Sometimes, the result is "No, one side is not making any reasonable arguments", (and that is what happened when I closed Articles for deletion/Audi Allroad Quattro Concept), but more often I see at least one argument which has reasonable merit on both sides of the issue. Then, if several people are making a quick and superficial support of a particular argument (with "Per" that user votes), I take that as evidence that this argument has been persuasive to a number of good-faith users, which is one important indicator the community consensus on the issue, and I don't think it's correct to summarily dismiss that either. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as essay in agreement with M ASEM . Even as an essay it is often used to dismiss opinions, that actually may have merit. When reviewing opinions, common sense is the best tool for determining if something has merit. Making AADD a guideline could potentially create a tremendous backlog of ANI cases filed against editors who used an WP:ATA in a duscussion, as then seen as a "violation". Wiki is often battleground enough without handing out ammunition.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I Agree. This page is too much of a TLA-pointer for the acrimonious back-and-forth wikilawyering at AfD between the forces of good and evil to be able to withstand guideline status. For example, a well-expressed nomination can indeed be fully supported with a simple pernom vote, WP:PERNOM notwithstanding. And while WAX is usually a piss-poor argument, as the ongoing debate over bilateralism articles shows, it, too, can have its place. The exceptions prove the rule, negatively in this case. Eusebeus (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who used to use this abusively (example) I can see disadvantages in giving it guideline status, seems to serve its purpose perfectly well as an essay. Guest9999 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (weighing in late) Yep, I don't think this should be official. It's a great resource, but shouldn't be made more than it is.  And, to be honest, I'm not sure how well all of it reflects the reality around here anymore...for example, arguments that something "will set a precedent" seem to come up a lot in deletion discussions, and even though this essay says they should be avoided I think a lot of editors give those arguments weight. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * God no Daduzi talk  12:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Force of WP:NOTAGAIN
If an article is deleted after an AfD, then we don't let users simply re-create the article with substantially the same material. They have to take it to DRV first, because the AfD represents a decision that has considerable force.

But for some reason that totally escapes me, if an article survives an AfD, editors seem to believe it's okay to re-nominate it at AfD using substantially the same arguments.

Why is that okay?

Doesn't it represent systemic bias in favour of deletion?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. Especially since many AFD happen with just a small number of people around at the time to notice and participate.  The more people that notice an article is up for deletion, then the greater the chance of it being saved.  It is far easier to destroy, than it is to create, especially on the wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a cat and mouse game - writing new stubs faster than "they" can delete. Or concentrate on something potentially undeletable, of GA-class and above, but isn't it dull dull dull... Curious: were there any precedents of FAs or GAs deleted through AFD? NVO (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I've seen one or two nominated over the years, but the nominations are usually swiftly disposed of.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to your section title, I've previously expressed my opinion that an unsupported NOTAGAIN is a weak argument. I think that NOTAGAIN's presence in this essay supports my opinion. A statement pointing out the similarities in the nominations, explaining why external consensus hasn't changed, or repeating the strongest arguments from the last AfD would go a long way. I've seen old keep closes brought to DRV, and the typical response is "just renominate it". That is an asymmetry.
 * Recent discussion regarding renominations: WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63. From the amount of activity in the previous section, it seems like this page may be poorly watched. I suggest WT:Articles for deletion if you want more participation. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I may take this there if there's not much participation here, but at the moment I seem to be getting useful answers. :) — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it represents bias in favor of deletion., as do many other processes. The deletion-oriented people will counter that it is balanced by the fact that a new article can always be written unless salted (protected against re-creation), and if better will not be speedy deleteable. But obviously this is much harder than just afd'ing again with Twinkle, which take 2 seconds, not 2 hours.  The real question is how to change this. If the balance  swings away from the extreme deletionists a little more, it might be possible--on a scale of deletionism from 0 to 10, I think the current level is 6--but when I came here 2½ yrs ago, it was higher, at 8. Looked at another way, the best established people here are about 70% deletion oriented, because others tend to leave (for obvious reasons). But 2½ yrs ago it was 80%--this inherently changes more slowly than general sentiment. Perhaps in another 2½ yrs the level will be 4, and the proportion 60%.  Personally, I am not sure this is a good time to make major changes, because the multiple very foolishly made articles on bilateral relations will influence feelings towards deletion. The best approach is a very minor change. What i would l really think best is a requirement for 6 months after a keep, and 1 month after a non-consensus, doubling after successive keeps.  But I think it will be better to propose 3 months after keep, and advice for one month after non-consensus, and see how that works.  (I consider that the issue giving rise to this question, an AfD nomination 1 month after non-consensus, is not an abuse, but appropriate use of AfD. We want to encourage consensus, and the result after a non-consensus may well be an unambiguous keep. This was not a good time to argue NOT AGAIN. The strength of just saying NOT AGAIN after 2 or 3 keeps is much greater.  )  DGG (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, DGG, I didn't want to make this about one specific case. In fact, I've taken quite a consistent position for a strong interpretation of WP:NOTAGAIN over the years. I agree with the idea that most established people are deletion-oriented, and I'm conscious that I probably !vote 60% or 70% "delete" myself; but I think the same might be true of you, though some deletionists would find that surprising!  But it's because the majority of cases at AfD are uninteresting and uncontroversial deletes. I've also taken quite a consistent stance against WP:CREEP, but I think your suggestions there are pretty good.  I'd like to see WP:NOTAGAIN upgraded to a guideline if they were implemented. I agree with you that the bilateral relations issue means this isn't the right time to make that move.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

People using WP:NOTINHERITED in at attempt to override WP:N
I have seen people use text from the "Notability is not inherited" guideline to attempt to override Wikipedia's basic notability guidelines. Not only is this crazy and misguided (this page being an essay and not a guideline or policy), but I think it results in confusing deletion discussions with (a) a lot of conflict and (b) occasionally, deletion of notable material. The basic way this happens is:


 * Someone proposes deleting a page on a parent, child, or other related topic, of a highly notable person or topic.
 * There is plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources on the parent, child, or sub-topic, enough to solidly meet Wikipedia's General notability criterion.
 * People point to WP:NOTINHERITED, and make the absurd claim that the notability of the topic being discussed (the "sub-topic") must be established by finding sources that do not mention the "main topic", in essence, claiming that people must establish notability of the "sub-topic" not based on reality (what sources are out there) but based on the hypothetical situation that the main topic (usually a famous person) was not notable or famous.
 * People generally don't agree fully with the last argument, but because it is often so far from opposing viewpoints, if it is even given any consideration at all, it pulls the deletion discussion very far away from sanity and makes it cumbersome and filled with conflict.

I think we need to rewrite the WP:NOTINHERITED section to emphasize, in that section that (a) this is an essay, and is not backed by the same kind of consensus that WP:N is (b) this section IS NOT to be used to override or undermine WP:N: significant coverage in reliable sources is significant coverage in reliable sources and "NOTINHERITED" cannot be used to invalidate significant coverage (c) deletion discussions must be based on reality, not some hypothetical "what if the parent/child/main topic were not notable". Cazort (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For context, Cazort isn't happy about the way things are going over at Articles_for_deletion/Roger_Clinton,_Sr.. No one is claiming that he needs to find a source that does not mention Bill Clinton.  We just want a source that is about Roger Clinton, Sr, instead of just mentioning him in passing as the stepfather of a former president.


 * About your proposed changes to the essay, there's a little note at the top of each section pointing out that it is an essay.  The word essay is emphasized with italics.  I would support you changing the word "essay" to bold instead, if you'd like. That said, many of the sections here reflect a general consensus, while not official consensus, they are widely accepted, and you'd do well to study them carefully when participating in AfD discussions.  Gigs (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cazort sets up a strawman. No one has suggested that to show notability of a relative/ancestor/descendent of a notable person, the reference must not mention the notable relative at all. They will almost always mention the relative, unless it is so universally known as to be silly. What I would like to see is that the less notable relative is noted for something besides being a relative. The advantages of being a presidential child or grandchild are clear: they get the inside track in college admissions, in hard-to-get jobs, gain from political favors by those seeking to influence the leader, and the door is open wider at publishers and TV documentary makers. Alice Roosevelt Longworth (author, socialite), Elliott Roosevelt (Author), Margaret Truman(musician, author), David and Susan Eisenhower (author), Caroline Kennedy,(attorney, author, on boards, political candidate), John Kennedy, jr.(publisher), Billy Carter (beer entrepreneur, lobbyist), Ron and Mike Reagan (radio political pundits on opposite sides). Being mentioned several times in books or news stories is not enough to establish notability for persons merely involved in one newsworthyevent, per the policy WP:NOTNEWS, so WP:N is not absolute in saying that anything mentioned with several instances of substantial coverage in reliable sources deserves a standalone article. Adlai Stevenson had a hole in a shoe while campaigning for president, and the picture of the hole and discussion of it was in the news a great many times up to the present. The photo of it won a Pulitzer Prize in 1953. But I sincerely hope there is no article about the hole in the shoe. It is properly mentioned in the Adlai Stevenson article. Likewise, people such as Clinton's stepfather deserve a mention in the biography of Clinton. Any notability is too tightly linked and entirely derivative. Edison (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep the deletion discussion about Roger Clinton, Jr. on that page, and limit your replies here to things related to the general guideline. I posted here not because of that one discussion alone, but because I have seen a pattern with this sort of thing.  Example: Articles for deletion/David J. Cynamon is actually a much larger factor in me posting here, and is one reason why encountering the link to this essay in the Clinton discussion moved me to post here.  Cazort (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that the issues in these cases are congruent with the WP:GNG. The sources being mentioned appear to not be specifically about the article subject, but only to mention the subject in passing, or as an aside.  No one seems to think that just because notability is not inherited that notability is never inherited.  No one seems to think that this essay trumps the GNG.  In fact, the assertion that Notability is not Inherited is a true subset of GNG.  In other words, if the only assertion of notability in an article is a relationship to another notable topic, then it is true that there is no assertion of notability in the article through multiple independent sources providing in-depth coverage on the topic.  If however, there is such an assertion of notability in the article, your vote of keep explaining this should be enough to cancel any number of delete votes that fail to respond to the notability assertion.
 * Now, whether or not the GNG should be the ultimate touchstone for article inclusion on Wikipedia is another discussion, which is beyond the scope of this thread. -Verdatum (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the congruence of either of these cases of arguments to delete with the GNG. What I see is editors (in some cases me, in some cases others) putting forth sources, and other editors asserting that these sources aren't good enough because "notability is not inherited".  Assuming the sources are accepted as reliable (which has been the case in these discussions), the only way that the GNG can fail to be satisfied as if the coverage is not significant.  I see people using NOTINHERITED as a way to sneak around the issue of significance, categorically dismissing sources.  I.e. in the Cynamon case, categorically dismissing any mention of Cynamon in the context of representing a client, claiming that that cannot establish notability of him as an individual.  In the case of Roger Clinton Sr., claiming that sources cannot establish notability in the context of his relationship to Bill Clinton and that instead we have to look for other "life accomplishments" or things.  Cazort (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) In your cases, the sources don't establish notability. A few mentions in works primarily about some other subject is exactly what "trivial coverage" is meant to encompass. We should not keep someone who only has drawn trivial coverage only of their relationship to someone famous. That is what NOTINHERITED is all about. For example, not one work has been put forth that is primarily devoted to coverage of Roger Clinton, Sr. Gigs (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of trivial coverage is that it's when the content itself is incidental to the main topic. WP:N says that significant coverage may be "less than exclusive".  I personally believe a single sentence in a large work on another topic is not necessarily trivial--but it is often trivial, and this depends on context and on the content itself.  I.e. say there's a famous person who is injured while drunk-driving, driving a certain model of car.  That article would constitute trivial coverage of the particular model of car.  On the other hand, if the same person is injured because of an accident caused by a defect in that same model of car, then that coverage of the model of car would seem more significant and less trivial to me.  In this case, if some average Joe had the same thing happen to him, it would be much less likely that he'd attract press coverage.  So in a sense, the coverage of the car has been attracted primarily because of the association to the famous person--but I don't think that changes the fact that the coverage of the car is non-trivial.  This is the type of situation I'm concerned about--that WP:NOTINHERITED is used to "exclude" or "dismiss" as trivial, this type of coverage.  Is this making any sense?  Cazort (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Favor either rewriting or removing Notinherited altogether As currently worded this section is confusing. WP:N clearly says the overriding criteria is third party coverage.  The Notinherited phrasing strikes me as an attempt to judge the worthiness of somebody's life and override the common sense prime directive of third party coverage.  If there's a lot of coverage then it would seem there are a lot of people who think it's noteworthy.  Some might even say if your kid grows up to be President then you've defacto accomplished something quite noteworthy.  In the case of Presidents, that's why there are at least three books devoted exclusively to chronicalling the parents of Presidents.  The Fickle Finger of Fate is not fair but it is notable. Americasroof (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify it a little better. If the parent of a President lived in your town would be they be a celebrity?  You would certainly think so.  If a cousin who never did anything else lived in your community would they be a celebrity?  The answer would probably be no.  The Notinherited criteria really should be defined in that manner.Americasroof (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Notinherited
User:Rossami added the topic on March 9, 2007 in this edit. The argument about it conflicting with WP:N is scattered throughout the talk archives since then. Incredibly in the Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 3 it was argued that since it was unchallenged for a month it was a consensus!!! In reading the various discussions I never see any consensus on it. It's just been allowed to exist. This is unfortunate in that AFD are using it as a guideline (my argument is not new - this concern is scattered in the archives). Americasroof (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a guideline, it's an essay which consists of examples of poor arguments that are not based on deletion policy. --neon white talk 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors responding to an afd by simply pointing to WP:NOTINHERITED is not an issue with this essay but an issue with the editor's improper response to an afd according to afd guidelines. If an editor fails to explain their comments properly they will simply carry very little weight in the final consensus. The solution is the same as with any poor afd comment and requires no change to any essay, guidelines or policy but educating the editor on better afd contribution; ask the editor to clarify his/her comments. They may well have legitimate reason to believe that notability is in fact being inherited despite the sources such as the view that the sources are not reliable or significant enough. --neon white talk 12:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that the text under "WP:NOTINHERITED" can easily be interpreted in such a way that it is in conflict with WP:N. The most problematic text is as follows: a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative.  This text is what gets at the "hypothetical situation" I describe above as being the core source of the problem.  It's effectively saying that the sources about a person or topic "don't count" unless the sources would exist in the hypothetical situation where you had no connection to a famous person.  WP:N says notability isn't about being famous, it's about being noted, recorded.  And it doesn't say anything about why you're recorded.  I think NOTINHERITED is only valid for the cases where someone doesn't receive significant coverage.  If you have a mundane life but are related to a celebrity, and that results in reliable sources covering the mundane details of your life in detail, then you are now notable, because you have significant coverage in reliable sources.  Cazort (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that person X is the daughter of famous and notable person Y may well be enough to justify mentioning X in Y's article, but an article all of their own, which has nothing notable to say except who X's parent is? I find it astonishing to discover that anyone would seriously argue for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I added the clause to this page in 2007 but I can't take credit for the original idea. I merely wrote down what was already a widely accepted standard that had been hashed out across a number of policy pages and repeatedly validated in deletion discussions and deletion reviews. It's a standard that was in place for at least a year and probably closer to three before I added it here. By the way, if anyone thinks that it's an inappropriate standard, you should probably bring it up at WP:BIO first and see if there really is consensus for a looser inclusion standard. This essay synopsizes policy and precedent in a way that's (we hope) easy for new XfD participants to digest. It is not, itself, policy and can't really be used to change the policy. Rossami (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I also agree with the comments below that the current explanation of NOTINHERITED is bloated and obtuse. Improving the wording (without changing the intended meaning) would be an excellent and uncontroversial idea.  Be bold and do it.  Rossami (talk)

Proposal for wording change to NOT REFLECTED
The Notinherited essay is one of the longest essays here and quite frankly if you read it carefully, it's incomprehensible. I think the term "inherited" is creating considerable confusion. I think where we want to go with it, is that NOTABILITY IS NOT REFLECTED. I propose keeping the examples and nuking all the paragraphs and replacing it with:


 * Being associated with a topic that is notable does not confer notability on the associated topic or person unless the topic or person meets the Notability standard of receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This includes relatives of famous people, members of bands or other entities.

Americasroof (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTINHERITED has now been integrated into the notability guidelines NRVE. Gigs (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I really like this new wording you proposed, Americasroof. I think it hits on the core issue in a concise way, and it is very clear about not conflicting with WP:N.  I'm not sure if I like the term "reflected" though.  How about "Notability is not conferred by association?"  It seems that this is more about association, and "inheritance" is just a special case of that.  Cazort (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. As an added note since the article has written has several exceptions (e.g., music, film, etc.) those should be red flags that either the argument is deeply flawed or the exceptions are deeply flawed.  The purity of the argument is that it applies across the board.  If it doesn't then the argument should be pulled. Americasroof (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in total agreement. The complexity of the material here also strikes me as instruction creep.  Cazort (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good and succinct rewrite. Editors with long memories will recall the debates that led to the need for this proviso. Moreover, let's recall that AXA is simply an essay; if an editor links to NOTINHERITED they are simply stating, by way of shortcut, their view of how notability is expressed across related topics. But as the links to this essay are frequently misused, experienced admins closing AfDs will often ignore the positions that are reflected in such links. A disgruntled editor who seeks redress by attempting to change the language on this page is fighting the wrong battle at the wrong place. Eusebeus (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What ever happened with this? There seemed to be some support for Americasroof's proposed rewording, but then nothing happened, and the terrible explanation is still there. john k (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances
I am not sure how the phrase "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances" was allowed to creep into this section. Since all of these guideline don't actually say notability can be inherited and all of them require verifiable evidence, then how can a topic be said to inherit notability? My understanding is that unless a topic has been actually been "noted" then by defintion it can't be notable per se, and even if you assert it is closely related to another topic, that does not change this fact. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Other Stuff Exist
This is one of the most wrongly interpreted guidelines, I copied a text from main Other stuff exists#Creation of articles article for better clearance, also moved a paragraph where it is more related. Any comments or objections. Kasaalan (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

VALINFO = EFFORT?
In this edit, User:Tavix removed the VALINFO wording and moved the hook to the EFFORT clause. Reducing page-bloat is a very worthy cause. If we can consolidate redundant clauses, we should definitely do so.

Looking at the two clauses side by side, however, I'm not so sure that they are really saying the same thing. While they are both content violations, VALINFO is generally triggered by a single user writing about something that they feel very passionately for but which is not encyclopedic. EFFORT, on the other hand, tends to be triggered when lots of people have edited the page (or a few people but lots of edits).

Are the two clauses closer than they appear to me? Or if they are redundant, could they be more gracefully merged? Rossami (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion they are the same. With the merge, I probably should have added one more paragraph to bridge them nicely but essentially they are. One of them talks about "valuable information", which is the same thing as the "information" part of Do not lose the information or the effort. If people don't agree with me I really don't care, I was just trying to condense it slightly (because the entire essay seems a little overwhelming to someone reading it). Tavix |  Talk 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I created VALINFO to address the kind of argument that is really a poorly-cloaked plea to be allowed to publicize a product, cause, organization, etc. It's aimed at spammers rather than enthusiasts per se. I'd like to ask that you consider de-merging these. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggstions/examples for valid deletion discussion comments
Wow. Just stumbled upon this essay, and I'm a bit confused. There are so many permutations of what not to refer to in a deletion discussion that I am having trouble determining what would be a valid comment. Has anyone considered adding a sample valid/useful comment for others who might be confused?

I understand the points made about having a meaningful discussion, and about areas to avoid (not voting, not opinion, not pointing simply to policy, not simply agreeing with nom) but it seems there are few options left.

Of course every discussion will be different, but I would be interested to see what this essay's contributors feel would add value to a deletion discussion.

Thanks.  7   talk   22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I looked for sources and I can't find any. This fails WP:V and WP:N" is a good start.
 * "Fails WP:BAND: self-released albums don't count, and there's no assertion that they've charted or been in rotation anywhere".
 * "He doesn't meet either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Wait until there's a major starring role before recreation"
 * At any rate, there's a ton of ways to say "this is the applicable guideline, and this article doesn't and can't meet it" Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Change it to be more general
I see this essay (and it's adjuncts) as a good reference for effective Wikipedia debate in general, not limited to just delete discussions (as a matter of fact, I just cited it in a non-deletion discussion on a talk page). Can we rename this to... "Arguments to avoid in Wikipedia debates", and then edit the essay to reflect the new more general scope? — V = I * R  (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Be bold.  Rossami (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of plan on it, but based on comments on this talk page (including some in the archives) and in (for example) the old AfD nomination, such a change could easily be controversial. Making the essay more general will likely ultimately involve a rename as well. That being the case, I thought that it would be a good idea to look for consensus before making large changes. — V = I * R  (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Test
But there are thousands of hit on an ancient Estonian god. returns 4,710 results as of 2009-07-14.c 71.164.88.131 (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Counter-intuitive rule: Otherstuff exists
WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is an absurd rule which should be removed because all other aspects of Wikipedia use WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:OTHERSTUFF is actually a better indicator of consensus than rules created by the elite, otherstuff has spawned abusive personal attack rules.


 * All other aspects of Wikipedia use WP:OTHERSTUFF

The official line is that Wikipedia rules are built on consensus. This "consensus" creates a type of common law system ,except instead of our "laws" being developed through decisions of courts, decisions are developed through a small group of elite editors. Wikipedians then use these common law rules to decide how Wikipedia is run. Editors regularly use previous decisions and arbitrations as precedence to develop more rules. In addition, editors regularly use past rulings of past Articles for Deletion to support their position.


 * When otherstuff exists, it shows editor consensus

Despite every other aspect of wikipedia using otherstuff exists, in articles, editors are regularly discouraged about arguing otherstuff exists.

Consensus somehow does not matter when it comes to content. But there IS consensus. when hundreds, even thousands of editors independently create and build, for example, south park episodes pages. This is a form of consensus. In fact, the completely independent edits of users all around the world is a much better example of consensus and popular opinion than the typical strong arm tactics of the handful of elite influential editors who create many of the rules everyone else is forced to abide by.


 * Personal attacks and biting newbies with Othercrapexists

WP:OTHERSTUFF has spawned, WP:Othercrapexists. Calling another editors contributions "crap" in any other context would be considered a personal attack. And yet editors regularly call other editors edits "Othercrapexists" It is a bullying abusive personal attack, wrapped in rules.


 * Past attempts to remove otherstuff exists


 * 1) Archive 3: Deleting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
 * 2) Archive 3: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be removed

For these reasons otherstuff should be removed.

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While your analogy between Wikipedia's consensus-seeking approach and common law is quite good, OTHERSTUFF serves as the necessary balance that prevents the extension of precedent to illogical conclusions.  (Courts use other traditions and mechanisms to maintain their counterbalance - mechanisms not available to us.) OTHERSTUFF may in some cases be evidence of consensus in an analogous area but in my experience it more often it represents an inappropriate extension.  That is, the argument to allow X because we didn't delete Y highlights a problem with Y that should be fixed, not propogated. The fact that we have not fixed Y yet is acceptable to an eventualist even though he/she sees value in stopping further errors of that type.  As the old proverb goes, "If you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."  The use of incivil aliases and shortcuts is a problem but 1) it's a problem with civility, not an underlying feature of the general statement about consistency and 2) many editors consider informality and blunt speaking to be part of the "charm" of wikipedia, making it remarkably difficult to stamp out.  On the whole, I think OTHERSTUFF does more good than harm.  Rossami (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the other stuff exists is not evidence that Wikipedia-wide consensus exists, but merely the byproduct of the fact that there are an insufficient number of editors, and an even smaller number of admins, to keep the junk articles from accumulating. Many articles here (not just new ones but many existing ones) are violations of our standards: how-to guides and game manuals, fan trivia, in-universe fiction summaries, obscure porn actor biographies, consultant self-aggrandisement, memorials, original essays masquerading as scholarship, etc. The fact that we can't catch them all, doesn't justify their existence. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the "elite editors" references are completely unfounded, in my opinion. Obviously, a select group of editors are entrusted whith special "tools" in order to accomplish some tasks, but the limitated distribution of those tools is a reasonable mechanism to lessen vandalism issues rather then some sort of contrived classicism system. My impression is that there's something else driving this issue, which is only indirectly related to the OTHERSTUFF essay point. Aside from that... it seems important to point out that this is an essay, not a policy or guideline. — V = I * R  (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition: don't use existence/nonexistence of interwiki links as evidence
Example:

Keep given the six interwiki links (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. -- John Doe (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability requires coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Interwiki links are not reliable sources, and they are often not independent. If interwiki links cite any sources not in the English Wikipedia article, they can be added to it.
 * If a user is capable of creating a vanity articles in English, he is equally capable of creating vanity articles in other languages, especially given the easy availability of translation tools on the internet.
 * Since English is the biggest Wikipedia and has the largest coverage of many areas, many other Wikipedias proceed by copying and translating articles from the English Wikipedia willy-nilly.
 * Other Wikipedias may have different notability criteria from the English Wikipedia.
 * In sum, I really don't think the existence or nonexistence of interwiki articles is a valid argument for (or against) an AfD.

If others agree, perhaps this could be written up and added to the page. (Taken from Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, where another editor made just this argument.) Grover cleveland (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true (especially the third point - some of the Estonian articles about forgettable towns in Western Australia, which have semi-reasonable articles here on en, are substubs e.g. et:Baandee, yet held to be beyond deletion by admins on that project - not a decision I question or dispute given I am not part of the Estonian community, but illustrative nonetheless). Also the other articles may be low-quality stubs and may simply have evaded getting considered by those wikis' equivalent of AfD yet - all we know from en, without looking, is simply that there *is* a link in that language. I know of at least one instance, too, where a rather clever POV vandal was operating across two languages and using his edits in each as justification in the other. Orderinchaos 08:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"No valid reason" and "Nobody told me"
Pick a random day's AfD, or a recent TfD log, and you'll these somewhere. Someone will undoubtedly accuse the nominator of bad faith by claiming "no valid reason to delete". You're also odds-on to find someone accusing the nominator of bad faith by saying "nominator hasn't discussed this with WikiProject ". I'm wondering if there's mileage to these. I am certainly of the opinion that the "no valid reason" is a non-argument, which has the twin problems of mistaking our policies as bright-line laws, and frequently being wrong (Sturgeon's Law applies). If it is indeed true, the lack of a valid reason to delete does not excuse anyone from providing a reason to keep (and vice versa). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re first issue In order for something to be deleted, there has to be a valid reason given as against the reasons for which said something would be created. In effect when you are deleting something, you are saying "Either this thing should not have been created at all and exists in violation of policy, or this thing should no longer exist given a more recent event / new policy / development". In order to discuss, parameters for discussion are required. The TfD rationales to which this person is referring (not written by themselves), to be found in the 5 September and 6 September TfD logs, were rambling blocks of text that served more as generic commentary than any kind of reason and hence the discussion was fairly unguided in that people had no idea on what ground they were meant to be discussing and it was only because the call being made was so non-borderline wrong that opinion crystallised around a particular view. In a case where there would be serious questioning of the existence or otherwise on the basis of one of the four TfD criteria, people would have no way to know what issue was being raised, especially on a busy day. This aids neither transparency nor efficacy of communal decision making. Orderinchaos 08:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re second issue In addition, trying to make decisions for others by proxy without notifying them, hence trying to attain "fait accompli" by ensuring those who have an opinion on the matter are excluded from the debate, is incredibly bad manners, and in my view also bad faith. It is one of the oldest "divide and conquer" strategies used on Wikipedia, especially in the "dark corners" such as CfD and TfD which are notoriously difficult to follow from anywhere but their own pages, and most of the instructions pages warn against this by strongly suggesting the creator of the item is notified. If a WikiProject has tagged the item as being in their sphere of interest, a quick note to the WikiProject (Nothing more than "Please note X is being considered for deletion" is necessary) informs the discussion of any issues that might arise. The assumption has been, and I quote one of the participants, that such notifications lead to "one-sided" results - that is not so. I occasionally follow the Deletion Sorting queue for Australia (WP:DSA) and the number of times members of the Wikiproject have argued for their own articles to be deleted (even giving reasons over and above those of the international nominator) is legion. i.e. "It's not just crap writing, it's also completely wrong - see this link, this link, this discussion". Informed decision making is, or at least improves the probability of, good decision making. This isn't about bureaucracy, it's about common sense. Orderinchaos 08:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As regards the first, "no valid reason provided" is an irrelevant comment in any debate. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Nobody is going to win an argument by suggesting that someone hasn't followed the rules to the letter.  Arguments provided in any debate should be meaningful, regardless of the merit if any others put forward.  It's fine to say "The other person hasn't put forward a valid argument", but it's not acceptable to use that as the justification for your own recommendation (e.g. "Delete the images because no valid reason for its use has been advanced").  A far better way of doing it would be to either state why the reasoning is faulty ("X is not explicitly listed on WP:VAND" and such like are no good - we work by the spirit of our rules, not the letter), or to provide a valid counter argument.  Nobody competitor in a sporting contest ever won a match 0-0.  An argument that is put forward may very well be irrelevant, however, merely pointing out that it is so is equally irrelevant.
 * As regards the second, we must always assume good faith on the part of others. It's considered a good thing to notify certain parties, but it's by no means required.  Whether certain parties have been notified is not relevant to the underlying substance of a debate.  Particularly in deletion debates, if someone has notified the creator of a template but not a relevant WikiProject, this has no bearing on the merits of the thing actually being discussed.  In your specific case, whether WikiProject Australia has been notified has no bearing on whether the template in question is partly or completely redundant to another.  The purpose of this page is to encourage people to keep debates relevant and on-topic.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Opppose. The burden is on the nominator of an AfD to offer a valid reason for deletion. If he/she does not offer a valid reason for deletion., then that is a valid reason to keep. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a valid reason to do anything in and of itself. The burden is incumbent upon all sides of any debate to provide reasoned arguments to support their position.  There's an important difference between the validity of an argument, and its truth.  "No valid reason" is a perfect example - in a given case, it might be true, but it's not a valid argument to make.  In many cases, however, it's not even true.  First off, it's unhelpful - it doesn't speak to any part of the opposing argument, rather it dismisses it out-of-hand.  A bare "no valid reason" doesn't say anything about the argument at hand, or the subject.  Where it's stated barely, it is invariably subjective, and in the majority of cases it's simply wrong.  It's used as a convenient way of disregarding arguments one doesn't like.  Simply saying the other person doesn't have a valid argument doesn't help anyone make up their mind.  Most importantly of all, simply saying it doesn't make it true.  Arguments are rarely absolute, and most often they are conditional on something else - "This organisation is notable, assuming the references hold up", and from time to time they don't.  In summary, just because you think "no valid reason" has been put forward, doesn't make it true.  There's an important difference between "no valid reason" and "nominator's reasoning doesn't hold up".  81.111.114.131 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSED ADDITION: Just quoting or paraphrasing text from policy or guideline
This is not much better than just pointing at a policy or guideline

Shortcuts: WP:JUSTAPOLICY WP:JUSTA WP:VAGUEWAVE

Examples:


 * Keep Meets WP:NOR – Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. - Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Quoting or paraphrasing a policy or guideline does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

After you explain why it is fine to point to the policy. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that simply quoting from a policy or guideline and not relating it to the article is included in "pointing at a policy or guideline". I agree with you on the substance of the point, but I don't see the need for a change to the policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes these arguments to avoid are useful in obvious cases
In obvious AFDs that will likely be one-sided or even snow closures for deletion, arguments like "delete: not notable" or "delete per nom" are more useful than abstaining on the grounds there is nothing more to say, and they are more useful than spending a lot of time editorializing why an article like Public school 123 bike race of 2008 is not notable.

The bottom line: There closer a discussion is to being lop-sided, the safer, and in some cases, the better it is to be brief. The closer a discussion is to no consensus, the more essential it is to assume claims like "not notable" or "per nom" are not universally accepted, and elaborate accordingly. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: arguments to avoid: citing this page
As the originator (way back when) of the essay this proposal has spawned from, I'd first like to say I'm very impressed by all the hard work others have put into this in my (Wiki) absence. Having said that, I've got to admit that I'm a little disheartened by the extent to which the suggestions I made, which were originally intended to be a somewhat lighthearted poke at what I saw as flawed or dismissive reasoning in deletion debates, have been cited as though they are something other than the ramblings of a somewhat miffed regular deletion debate participant. Now, I accept that they have since transcended that original definition thanks to the contributions of others, but still my aim when writing the original essay was to prod people towards arguing about the merits of articles themselves rather than simply offering one word rebuttals or citing arcane Wikilaw. The fact that this page has itself become part of that arcane Wikilaw is, while flattering, very much in opposition to the spirit in which it was orignally conceived. I realise citing this proposal is already discouraged in WP:JUSTAPOLICY but given the rampant citing that continues I'd prefer making it more explicit. With that in mind, might I suggest an addition along the lines of the following:

Citing this page

Examples: The intention of this proposal is to encourage those participating in deletion discussions to provide comprehensive, coherent discussions. As such, citing this proposal as though it is some way conclusive is entirely contrary to the spirit of the proposal itself. To say nothing of the fact that, as a proposal (and orginally essay), this page was never intended to be absolute or all-inclusive. Sometimes valid arguments will violate the principals outlined here. The key lesson of this page should be: judge each argument on its own merits, and when responding offer as comprehensive an argument as you can. WP:ILIKEIT is intended as a reference for how to best craft your arguments to be as persuasive and, more importantly, fair as you can. It is not, nor should it ever be, a cudgel to beat other users with.
 * Delete Arguments in favour are a clear example of WP:ILIKEIT– Ilikeitlover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
 * Delete Arguments in against are a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT– Ilikeithater 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:DIDNTYOUGETIT as a shortcut, but I suspect that may be a little harsh Daduzi talk  20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to debate?
I'm not sure whose essay this is, so I tried adding a point:

Slang

 * Slang is poorly defined, but often seems to describe the speech of people whom the speaker thinks of as racially, culturally, educationally, financially, or numerically inferior to his own. Though some words and ideas really are too obscure to be notable, the denigration of a term as "slang" in an AfD should raise a warning flag, particularly if it is a word that has been used by a minority group for a long period of time.

This was prompted by Articles_for_deletion/Satos. I'm not surprised that my argument was immediately deleted, but the person who deleted it wasn't even a previous contributor to the essay. Does that mean that I can go ahead and delete any part I don't agree with too? The person who deleted it called for discussion here, but didn't start one.

Admittedly, I'm expecting this discussion probably will be deleted also... Wnt (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your post to the AfD of Satos was not deleted, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It appears you may be unfamiliar with NOT, so I'd recommend reading that and the linked policy Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Шизомби (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Another example of IDON"TLIKEIT
Delete as an obscure election in a Third-world place. – AllBrownPeopleAreTheSame Bearian (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because they say it's obscure doesn't mean they don't like it. MuZemike 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this becoming too long to be useful?
Some of the recent edits weren't very likely to be used in arguments, or if they were used, they weren't likely to be taken seriously.

This list should focus on arguments which seem plausible or which frequently show up in deletion discussions but which are in fact flawed and should not be used. I think everyone who has spent any time hanging around deletion discussions knows most arguments that start with "ZOMG" are probably not reasonable. Of course, there could be the occasional "Keep: ZOMG! Person is the leader of a sovereign nation and was a nominee for the Nobel Prize last year" but such ZOMG! arguments are rare. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no technical limit to the length of a project page or any Wikipedia page. With each of these arguments being assigned its own unique shortcuts, each one is pretty much given the standing of a page of its own. If any additions are made, provided they have their own headings and shortcuts, this enables the shortcuts to be cited when needed and does not make the remainder too distracting.Sebwite (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, as Seb says, this is pretty darned useful in its current form, with the shortcuts to the sub-essays. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the Help:Collapsing or show/hide function could help. Default display could be to show the subheaders, see also and main article links, and examples, with the option of showing the explanations of entries by individually selecting them or "show all."  Likewise, I wonder with the shortcuts if there would be a way of having e.g. JUSTAVOTE display the page with the essay introduction, "Just a vote" header, examples, and explanation, with the table of contents and other other entries completely hidden, with the option to show them.


 * Regarding ZOMG! Keep, I'd call that a variation on Adjectives in your votes (an essay that might be better retitled Adjectives in your recommendations). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY suggested change
This line, is, in my opinion, problematic: In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy. The reason it is problematic, is because we have no way of knowing whether the outcomes listed at WP:OUTCOMES are really common. We just have some editors who think/say they are common. So is "precedent" really being set? And does precedent really exist, if Wikipedia is not a system of laws, and consensus can change? There is discussion as to how WP:OUTCOMES should be altered to better serve Wikipedia on its talk page, but separately from that, I think the above quoted statement should either be altered or removed altogether. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 06:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the description of what WP:OUTCOMES supposedly is should be changed to reflect what it really is, a handful of editors' historical impressions regarding how AfDs on certain subjects go, without adequate upkeeping and more problematic: without any actual proof. Or it should just be delinked.  I do think it would be interesting and useful (WP:Interesting and WP:Useful?) to know what past trends there have been, but that would take some work to uncover.  There's also the question of what the difference between policies and guidelines and outcomes might be.  Policies and guidelines supposedly represent consensus regarding what p&g should be, and that is partly determined by how article creation and deletion are handled, so outcomes theoretically are already built into p&g, in which case what is Outcomes needed for?  Or are examples/more examples of deletion discussions needed on p&g pages?  Or is Outcomes a page that should document consensus that is changing away from p&g to help determine how p&g should be changed? Шизомби (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A fairly HUGE suggestion
I took a closer look at this page a moment ago, and I decided that (really) this page should be called Arguments to avoid in discussions, and that it should be reorganized, shortened, and have the other Arguments to avoid... pages - wp:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, wp:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions, and maybe wp:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions - merged into it as sections. I'm willing to do the heavy lifting on that (I happen to like that kind of organizational thing). would anyone have any serious objections to that on general principle? -- Ludwigs 2 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with this is that it would make this already long page way too long.


 * While many of these types of arguments do overlap, if they can fit onto multiple pages, they should just be listed separately on each. Sebwite (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I do understand that problem, and the main reason I suggested the merge portion was because I think there's a tremendous amount of redundancy (at least on this page). I could do the compacting first to show you what I mean, I suppose.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * tell you what - why don't I start the wp:Arguments to avoid in discussions page (since that page is available), copy over and rework the material here, and after that we can discuss merging/content forking the other pages. -- Ludwigs 2  06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For now, let's have the page you created in addition to the old one. From here, we can discuss what to do. If everyone agrees it's a good idea, we can go ahead. But this is best not as an overnight change, since a lot of information is at stake. Sebwite (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * agreed, that makes sense.   -- Ludwigs 2  17:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'd rather see WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions be more of a concisely annotated Wikipedia: space disambig page for these various essays. If it's practical, post some comment on all the A2A talk pages asking for input maybe, if that hasn't already been done. I had an idea above for trying to deal with the length of this page in another way, but I don't know if it would be possible to do. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested argument to avoid: Article age
Here's an argument that shouldn't be used:


 * Keep. Article has existed since 2004.  -- Age Before Beauty 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an existing category that includes this, or would it be a useful addition?

-- Powers T 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Boy, tough room. Powers T 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I can recall, this was here before. I don't know why it disappeared. Sebwite (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that nobody objected means that you should try adding it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I sometimes forget that "be bold" applies to project space as well as article space. =)  Powers T 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is indeed every bit as important in project space. You can always find someone who will vocally oppose something, but not actually hate it enough to revert it.  Boldness is our bulwark against inertia.--Father Goose (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've expanded this section to note that the young age of an article is also not grounds for keeping it: i.e., new articles are not protected from being nominated for deletion. Robofish (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"It's local"
I am thinking of adding an argument based on a subject being a local interest. Articles have gone to AfD over being local interests. Yet is has never been absolutely determined if being a local interest is a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There have been numerous points of view on the matter. Still, there are hundreds of articles for every major city about subjects likely to be known only to locals.

Here are some possible arguments:


 * Keep Is a national interest
 * Keep People from far away know what it is
 * Delete Not know to anyone outside its hometown
 * Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just [town name]
 * Delete [subject's locality] is not the center of the world

What are your thoughts on these? Sebwite (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that it is deserving of a section. Further, I would say that this would be an argument to avoid because simply "so what?" It's local.  Everything is local, becase everything that happens happens someplace.  And further, local points of interest have been readily accepted by consensus in the areas of high schools, buildings on the national register of historic places, and so forth.  Heck, if Yuma, Kansas (about as "dirt-local" as you can get) gets a page, then arguing to delete a page because "It's local" just seems pointless.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well put.--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedias in other languages

 * Delete No interwiki – NoInterwiki (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this especially funny, considering this is the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is bigger than the three next biggest Wikipedias put together. It's therefore bound to have lots of articles that only exist in English. This alone defeats the above hypothetical argument. <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P | Talk 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of others' arguments
It takes place on quite a lot of AfDs: One commentator makes a comment in favor of keeping, deleting, or whatever. Someone else comes along and (either in addition to or instead of placing their own "vote") comes and attacks that argument. An example of this is as follows:

In the above example, neither argument really explains why the article is OR, but in the rebuttal below, the commentator is just accusing the above of "throwing around the term OR." S/he is not explaining why the article is NOT OR.

I would like to see what others have to say. Sebwite (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the heading needs to be written differently. Any attempt to refute an argument is technically a criticism so the wording would need to make it clear that the critism is weak or unsupported. If not I can see some edit warriors trying to missue this critera to prevent anyone from challenging their rationals.--76.66.187.192 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"delete [...] to avoid tainting possible future jury members"
I don't know that it merits mentioning on the page, but this one surprised me enough I wanted to mention it on the talk page at least. Would that argument ever be accepted? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

response Interesting? Yes. Worth mentioning here? Yes. Suprising? Of course. Reason to delete an article on Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not going to stop in case there mght be a court case involving a subject in the future. Here are some reasons (that I see) why that argument doesn't wash:
 * 1) WP:Nothing Wikipedia is not going to stop just because there might be a court case on a subject matter.  We have to have articles about something!
 * 2) WP:OR Wikipedia does not use original research, so whatever is published here exists somewhere else anyway.
 * 3) WP:CRYSTAL No one can tell the future--and until I see a headline that says "Psychic Wins Lottery Again" I won't believe that anyone can tell the future.
 * 4) WP:BLP Just make sure you meet "Biographies of living persons" policy, notability, etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POPULARPAGE
Could the POPULARPAGE section please be expanded to explain the difference between being popular and being notable? Linking to some/any/all of WP:GNG WP:NTEMP WP:NRVE WP:NOTE and especially Help:Pageview_stats might also help. Here's an example of how one might fall into this trap:

anonReader is a great fan of wikipedia and uses it often, possibly as the primary or only source of information on topics of minor or fleeting interest. anonReader finds a deleted page through an external link, possibly from "a high volume site". anonReader doesn't understand why wikipedia has deleted the seemingly popular article which he wanted to read. anonReader is ignorant of wikipedia policy, gets upset and gets into a futile argument.

It is unfortunate that an anonymous reader has to spend multiple hours reading policy documents, in order to understand why the article he wanted to read has been deleted and why his arguments are invalid. Semi-anonymous Andrew (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)