Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 6

Just for deletion?
I have come across people and places throughout Wikipedia refering to this page and it seems this is not just the case in deletion discussions but other discussions as well. Simply south (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What discussions? Could you be more specific? Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many discussions throughout Wikipedia on voting in general and many of them point to the fact it is pointless to say support I like it or oppose i don't like it and then pointing to this page. See Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:ILIKEIT and See Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply south (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Do not move (nor merge). Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Arguments to avoid in discussions — My reasoning is above or if this is on the RM page, see Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Simply south (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem! Bearian (talk)


 * This strikes me as non-problematical. if there's no objections in a day or two I'll make the merger myself (unless you prefer to).  -- Ludwigs 2  02:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are several arguments to avoid that apply uniquely to deletion discussions, particularly since deletions are such a sensitive issue for article creators and editors. Powers T 13:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and not to mention this is actually a proposed merge, not a proposed move. Powers T 13:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too much a work horse to be merged and there some rather specif arguments that would only appear during AfD. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's very useful (and yes, I'm entitled to say that because 1) this is a merge discussion and 2) this is a project page, not an article). -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose (1) It's a bad idea because the current content on the page matches the title Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (2) The proposal is defective because the target is an article that already exists which turns out to be a one-day wonder, orphan, and fork of old copy of this article for the most part. patsw (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I merged the new section created by patsw here. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I just responded to someone attempting to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF as a policy while arguing against the WP:NNC section of the notability guideline "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content.", which goes to show just how bad of an idea it would be to rename this essay. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sure, one or two of the principles are transferrable, but this was written specifically about deletion discussions, and it's now quite long. Can't see the point of merging it (and it is a merge, not a move). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT
I should like to give thanks to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a superbly written explanation that, I think, ties to WP:NOT (or rather apposes it).

So, thankyou each and every who drafted this phrase.

It's a pity it only applies to deletion discussions, I tend to use it more widely for deletions of any fragment of an article. But then I'm a self-confessed inclusionist. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(for my sins, I have put in two AfD's this week) Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:YOUFIXIT
An argument I am getting very tired of seeing in AfD discussions is one we might call WP:YOUFIXIT, where one editor challenges or orders another to improve or fix the article. Recent examples:
 * "For goodness' sake pull out the editing tool to write without mercy instead of to call for deletion again and again!"
 * "So why don't you try some practice, such as fixing the article." "If you think it shouldn't be hard, feel free to try."
 * "If you feel that much more can be said and you have citable sources, then by all means, fill out the article." "Luckily I don't have sole responsibility for building this encyclopedia. This is a discussion to evaluate the notability of the article subject, not an edit-on-demand service."

Granted, this is not about an argument for or against deletion; it's more an interaction among editors; but IMO it is unhelpful and often poisonous to achieving consensus. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... I feel your pain! I think that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to make these comments, but you are right they are not "arguments for or against deletion" in any way.  WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind as well.  However, there are times that I participate in an AfD that I think could be brought "up to snuff" but I also don't feel particularly enthusiastic myself about editing that particular article or content.  Other comments?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an absolutely appropriate thing to say in many cases. If a nominator has admitted that an article is fixable--sourceable, editable, mergable, etc.--then they have no business bringing it to AfD, in most cases.  If a non-notable topic has been un-redirected or de-merged, it's appropriate to bring that to AfD for discussion, but editors are expected to try and exhaust all appropriate non-deletion remedies before engaging AfD.  The lack of such good-faith efforts to improve the article is entirely appropriate thing to point out politely.  Remember, WP:SOFIXIT has been around for a long time. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this could be a valid comment to a nominator who didn't bother with WP:BEFORE. If the original article could be easily fixed by sourcing or rewriting, the nominator should either fix it or leave it alone for others to fix - not nominate it for AfD. The comments I am talking about are the ones within the discussion, where somebody says "Keep, look at all these sources" or "Keep, it just needs rewriting," and someone who wants it deleted replies "so go ahead and fix the article yourself, why don't you?" Usually unhelpful, and kind of snarky. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yes, I agree that the burden of action should be on those who want an entire article deleted.  I think it makes a good complement to the normal WP:BURDEN which applies to sourcing specific statements. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, *no*. That's a presumption of a right to others' time. It amounts to whomever dumping a poor article into the project and coat-tailing on others to do their work; leaching on others to source their stuff. If people want their work kept, they need to work on it. It really helps if they work on stuff that is generally viewed as appropriate for inclusion. It's no coincidence that many of the articles that flare on the I/D schism, are ones a lot of people simply don't feel appropriate for inclusion because there really are just about no genuine sources on-offer, anywhere. The only way these are kept is by !voting en masse or relentlessly lowering the bar on quality of sourcing; i.e. any ghit will do.. Jack Merridew 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, Wikipedia itself is an expectation that other's time will improve upon one's work, no matter its initial state; it just doesn't need to be done right now. If someone identifies a notable topic for which reliable sources have been located, a poor current state is definitely NOT a reason to call for its deletion. Per WP:NOTDONE, it's much better to have some poorly written info that not at all. I agree to place WP:BURDEN on those willing to delete content that *is* backed up with reliable sources if their only argument is content quality, not notability. Diego (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am now in the habit of writing "That's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it". patsw (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable versus Already cited
I think this page would benefit from a short section on the difference between "No independent sources exist" and "No sources have been properly cited in the article (yet)". I've been seeing several AfD rationales that seem to think that "The newbie who started this article didn't cite any sources" is proof that nobody has ever published anything about this subject.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a common variant of "never heard of it", and a big time waster. Better would be "I searched X and found nothing about it."  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this is a problem with some AfDs I've encountered. Whether some extra verbiage would help the situation, I don't know.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A proposed change in wording to WP:CLN may impact this essay
FYI - A proposed wording change at Here may eventually result in an addition to this essay. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add a WHOMADEIT section?
After coming across a bit of Wiki-history about the Mzoli's AfD, I was wondering if we should include that who made the article doesn't indicate its merits. I say this as a New Page Patroller, because I focus solely on the merits of an article when tagging/patrolling as opposed to worrying about who made the article. Does that sound like a good idea? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree here. Who made the article is often key in determining whether it fits within our policies or whether it should go.  For example, articles made with malicious or promotional intent should not be welcome at all. Unless these articles are rewritten completely, the well is poisoned from the get-go. Articles with illicit origins oftentimes need to be deleted unless a good-faith editor is willing to do a top-to-bottom rewrite.  Them  From  Space  05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's not quite what I was getting at. Looking over the Mzoli's AfD, it seemed like an awful lot of people voted to keep solely because our founder wrote the article, and didn't use policy-based arguments.  Notable is notable, non-notable is non-notable (in the eye of the beholder, of course); promotional material is just about always caught by G11 and/or G12 anyways.  Or to put it another way, the person who began the Zoya Phan article is someone with a very close connection to the subject (Mfarmaner is almost certainly Mark Farmaner, who heads the organization his name redirects to).  It could have been for promotional purposes, but she clearly meets the notability guidelines for an article here, so it sat for a couple of years until I happened to read her book and made it what it is now.  I'm not seeing what's so bad about that.  If an article meets or doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion, it shouldn't matter whether some newbie or a sitting arbitrator wrote it; to guess at their motives when we don't have obvious evidence smacks of WP:PROVEBEYOND-ALLREASONABLEDOUBT-TOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERS-YOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH, which as I recall isn't the one marked a guideline. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF is only to be used when one has no way of telling a user's motives. When there is hard evidence that says a user isn't here in good faith, it no longer applies. The scenarios I refer to are only those where it has been established that a user is not here in good faith, not ones where we guess at a user's motives writing style, etc.  Them From  Space  06:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As for Jimbo's article, I can see where you're coming from, but this style of argument may also be appropriate in some cases. Suppose a famous researcher creates a verified article on a notable but obscure subject using offline sources. If this article is taken to AfD by someone who doesn't believe the sources, then I can imagine an AGF argument pointed at the article's creator to be valid.  Them  From  Space  06:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of us are anonymous, and even if we claim to use our real names there's the "Essjay factor" where we really don't know for sure. I could tell you that I'm 6'3" and have hair down to my shoulders (which is true), but there's no way you could verify that because I haven't outed myself and I use completely different handles on every website.  I see where you're coming from, but barring WMF/Wikia employees who edit here there are very few people we can 100% verify.  As an NPPer, I can spot COI better than many more experienced Wikipedians; the most egregious cases almost always meet A7/G11/G12/G10.  But you can also get what I said above; how much weight would you give an argument to delete Zoya Phan (the version before I began editing it) based on who made it? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A section of this sort already exists &mdash; WP:ATA or WP:ADHOM. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguments to the argument
Looking through the talk archive, a few people have suggested adding citation of ATA itself to the ATA. WP:ATA gives examples of ATTA, along with the statement, "There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it." But it doesn't get to the point I'm about to make. I'm not sure whether ATTA actually happen much in practice, but here goes.

An argument presented in a deletion debate may be invalid. But such invalidity doesn't constitute a reason that the page should be kept, or (in the case of Keep arguments) a reason that the page should be deleted. Arguments on whether to keep or delete an article need to be based on the article itself.

Do people here think something to this effect is worth adding? -- Smjg (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as a bit too unnecessarily complex for a relatively simple idea; your opponent being wrong doesn't imply you are right. But I think that's more of just a statement in general than something that would really fit well in here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Should this page be split?
This page has grown to be so long, it takes a long time to load even on some fast computers. It may be time to split the page. If it is split, there would have to be a main page retaining the same title, followed by links to each group of arguments. All incoming links to this page itself would have to be updated. All shortcuts would have to be modified to link to the same sample argument. And all subessays would have to be placed in the navboxes containing this one.

Who thinks this is possible, practical, or even necessary? Sebwite (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is currently about 80kb, most of which is prose, and WP:SIZE indicates that an article of this size should probably be split. However one of the main reasons for that is that it may be difficult for a reader to read the thing, which isn't as big an issue in proect space pages. Hut 8.5 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability is inherited
Notability is inherited
 * Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This example is wrong. For example, all examples of nobility are inherently notable, because they inherit a noble title.  Kings, Barons, Princesses, etc.


 * Delete All examples of faah are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this related to the notability is not inherited section? Sounds like "I don't like it" argument.


 * Keep – there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. Adrian Listmaker 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be a notable event, if a lot of famous people were part of it? Wouldn't a convention be notable if a lot of notable people in that industry showed up?  Also a scientific organization is notable if there are a lot of people notable in that field who are part of it.   D r e a m Focus  11:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It could be a mutual-benefits organization or other trivial group. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me give an example of why Notability is not inherited. If a gathering of notable people becomes notable, then when the Curie family sits down for dinner, it needs its own article. Likewise, each staff meeting at Cambridge becomes a notable event as well. It obviously gets absurd, VERY quickly.
 * Homo Logica (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumption of sources
This edit was removed on the grounds that any significant edit to the page needs to have consensus first. I disagree with removal on those grounds (whatever happened to WP:BOLD?), and agree with the contents of the edit itself. It accurately describes many fallacious arguments I've seen in AfDs, and seems to me to be appropriate for this page. I have therefore restored it. Reyk YO!  04:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And restored it again, after same user removed it a second time. Reyk  YO!  04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never seen WP:MUSTBESOURCES cited - people usually refer to WP:V which is is more familiar and stronger. Geographical places such as villages are usually retained on such grounds and so this does not seem to be an argument which fails when deployed correctly.  I reckon this section should be excised as little used and redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to keep this new section as it does not appear to add much beyond what we already have in the verifiability policy and would amount to instruction creep. Further, this gets into FUTON bias, WP:PAYWALL, and Perennial proposals. Reyk, it's also WP:BRD, as in BOLD, revert, discuss, not "BRRD" BOLD, revert, ..., revert, discuss. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And which of the two editors involved has made an attempt to start discussion on the topic? Me. In any case, telling people they need to get consensus before adding stuff to pages is totally antithetical to the principles Wikipedia is based on. If Unscintillating has a legitimate reason to oppose the addition of this material he is more than welcome to discuss it here. Reyk  YO!  09:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's an interesting one here. It looks like this applies to when editors will say "keep because this is an X, there must be sources out there somewhere." This does happen quite a lot, but essentially it's a very similar situation to "Notability is inherited." That being said, it would be nice to be able to point to this essay when the argument is used, and there's nothing really wrong with it that makes it inaccurate or wrong with this list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Keep per [source X]" [...] "[Source X] isn't available online and is hence not verifyable per WP:MUSTBESOURCES" No, I don't think this is going to work. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's totally unrelated; this contested addition has nothing about offline sources. If someone says "keep, this is the subject of these multiple books" and none of them are available online, it's still an acceptable argument. This is for arguments that are "keep, can't find anything but they're probably somewhere." You're situation is the exact opposite of a presumption of sources; it's a reference to a (hypothetical) specific one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some of the arguments put forward by the two editors who oppose this section, and replies to them:
 * 1) "I've never seen WP:MUSTBESOURCES cited" -no, because it's a newly added section.
 * 2) "It does not appear to add much beyond what we already have in the verifiability policy and would amount to instruction creep". Little if any of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions adds substance to what is said elsewhere: the raison d'etre of the page is to provide a handy reference to concepts which are in line with guidelines and policies elsewhere. Also, isn't there a contradiction between "doesn't add to what we already have" and "instruction creep"? If it doesn't add anything then it doesn't add any new instructions. Whether this section stays or not, I will continue to point out when "there must be sources" is used in deletion discussions, that it is not a useful argument, and that it is in conflict with the policy that sources must be verifiable. However, if this section stays then I can do so that little bit more concisely.
 * 3) "Further, this gets into FUTON bias, WP:PAYWALL, and Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Require or prefer free, online sources." Why? It is not about "I know of sources, but they are not online", it is about "I guess there are probably sources, but I don't know where and can't offer any confirmation of my guess", which is completely different. Exactly the same applies to "[Source X] isn't available online and is hence not verifyable per WP:MUSTBESOURCES". If anyone said that then it would seem they hadn't actually read what the section says, which is "We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable." Anyone who can read that and think it says "Any source must be online so that it can be verified" seems to me to be making a rather strange misreading of it. It is Wikipedia policy that sources must be verifiable, which is what this section says. It is not policy that sources must be online, and nothing in this section suggests that they should be. In fact nothing in the section makes any distinction at all between online and offline sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's overstating WP:V. Assertions that are challenged or likely to be challenged need direct citations.  That means something beyond "is unsourced", more along the lines of "At least one editor asserts in good faith that this statement is incorrect."  Which is a separate issue from the RS requirements of N, but those seem to get conflated in many people's minds. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Reply to JBW's number 1 point). For those who believe the "I'm sure there must be sources" non-argument doesn't come up often enough to justify including it in this page, here is a link to ten discussions where "TMBS!" is trotted out by someone, or objected to by someone:, , , , , , , , , . It took me only five or then minutes to find those; I can provide others if people need more convincing. Reyk  YO!  05:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying "if people need more convincing" acknowledges that there is material that does not have consensus and was added without consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

reverted material with edits
Examples:
 * === There must be sources ===
 * Keep – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Prejudger 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
 * Keep – There must be plenty of sources. Presumer 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
 * Keep – You should find sources, instead of deleting it. ItsUpToYou 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.


 * WP:N does not say that we keep articles because they have sources, it says, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." It also says, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."  Also, WP:GNG says that even if its criterion are met, the topic may not be "worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These examples draw upon WP:V as much as WP:N, particularly the section dealing with the burden of evidence, which lies with the editors who add or defend the contentious material (or entire article). If I believe in good faith that the sources are not out there and you think that they do exist, then the onus is on you to prove you're right. If someone thinks that an article should be deleted because no sources could be found for it, then it's not appropriate to insist that there must nevertheless be sources out there somewhere or that the nominator should go and look for them. So the two examples and explanation you've struck through are sensible and relevant. Reyk  YO!  05:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is a content policy, the discussion here is about deletion policy. See WP:N.  The issue of WP:BURDEN is a red herring.  Red herring arguments do not make the case that consensus already exists for introducing these changes.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, our content policies determine the content included on Wikipedia and therefore directly determine deletion policy. So that is an irrelevant objection. Secondly, it is not and never has been necessary to ask permission to edit a page; I could just as easily demand you get consensus to remove it. I have made a strong case above that "TMBS!" is used a lot as a non-argument and that people are not impressed by it. Unless you can provide a genuine objection to the material rather than just complaining that nobody asked permission first, the material should stay. I am not the one making irrelevant red herring arguments here. Reyk  YO!  23:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the inclusion, in that it would tend to cheapen the requirement, per WP:BEFORE, that the nominator find sources if any exist before nominating an article for deletion. If that has been done properly and documented in the AfD, any such "but there must be sources!" !vote appears silly. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not a requirement, just advice. I think stickling about WP:BEFORE tends to cheapen WP:V I've actually seen people argue that an article should be kept because the nominator hasn't explicitly stated they've looked for sources. The reason this is silly is obvious: if the sources actually exist the nominator will have egg on their face and if they don't the article should be deleted regardless of any procedural obstructionism. Placing WP:BEFORE way behind WP:V in importance accords it the weight it actually possesses; it's not a policy or guideline but just advice and people should stop trying to glorify it beyond that. Start an RfC if you want to promote it to policy. I agree that the "TMBS!" section is currently a little one-sided. Would you agree to include in the "TMBS!" section something like
 * Delete- There must not be any sources out there because nobody's found them yet. EyesClosed 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
 * Reyk YO!  02:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that you're ignoring the fact that BURDEN, like the rest of V, only applies to "material challenged or likely to be challenged". Merely noting that something is unsourced isn't challenging it's factual accuracy.  To be sure, sourcing is important and appropriate, but a simple lack of sourcing in isolation is not sufficient grounds to remove something: a good-faith assertion that the unsourced content is inaccurate must also exist. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Challenged" isn't restricted to challenging the factual accuracy of material; it is also possible to challenge it on grounds of relevance, original research, undue weight, notability, etc. That's what most AfD nominations are: a challenge that the whole article fails one or more of those requirements. Note that WP:BURDEN says "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it". It does not have qualifiers like ", but only if you think it's actually false". Any editor may challenge any unsourced material for any reason.  Reyk  YO!  04:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So if BURDEN is at odds with the overarching policy, V, which is normative? V, of course. The fact that BURDEN doesn't explicitly mention requiring a good-faith belief that a fact is incorrect doesn't mean that such isn't required by the page as a whole. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BURDEN is not at odds with WP:V at all, and I'm not sure how you could have gotten that idea from what it says, what the rest of WP:V says, or from anything I have said. Reyk  YO!  21:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD for 426806486
The title and the five elements of the addition have individual sections below for discussion. I have marked sections that should not go back onto the project page with Don't add, else Ok to add.

"There must be sources"

 * Don't add Regarding the proposed title for this section, where in Wikipedia does it say,  "There must be sources"?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:V and WP:N both clearly state that if no reliable secondary sources can be found for a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Reyk  YO!  21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the previous respondent is talking about the text found by searching for "no reliable", WP:V says, "Further information: Wikipedia:Notability". But if one looks at "no reliable" in Notability, the "further information" is a reference back to WP:V.  This is a circular reference.  A logical meaning is something non-controversial, that if verifiable content drops to zero, we cannot have an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Keep – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced."

 * Ok to add This looks like a keeper, but it is not useful as an orphan, so defaults as a "don't add".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Keep – There must be plenty of sources."

 * Don't add An example similar to this one may be valid in a deletion discussion; WP:N says, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them."

 * Don't add This sentence is an over-simplification of the notability guidelines, one of which is WP:N, where an infinite number of sources is not sufficient if the topic is not "worthy of notice"–WP:GNG says that even if its criterion are met, the topic may not be "worthy of notice".  Likewise in WP:N, there is no requirement to meet WP:GNG for a topic to be notable, WP:N says, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.

 * Don't add Not sure why this is here or how it relates to deletion policy, notability guidelines, or the proposed examples.  The rule in WP:N does not say that you have to know where the sources are, it may be sufficient that significant coverage is "likely".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

improve Effort example
The last example in the Do not lose the information or the effort section is

Keep Lots of people have worked on this.

Readers might take away that the key here is that the number of people working on a particular article is what this section is talking about. This section is focused on arguments about the amount of effort put into an article, be it one person or dozens of editors, and it's role in deletion discussions. Any comments on the following rewording?:

Keep Lots of effort went into this.

--RadioFan (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok to change I agree that whether one person or many put effort into an article, the effort doesn't change policy or the guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

suggested addition to Lots of sources
I often see editors making vague claims in AFDs about sources. Lots of sources addresses this but I'd like to add the following example to illustrate the idea better:

Keep - There must be lots of sources available

I'd also like to update the 3rd sentence from:

So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them.

to:

Be specific. Provide links to actual sources rather than searches for sources or vague opinions that sources must exist somewhere.

--RadioFan (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and there were some additions to this effect made recently. See the "presumption of sources" section of this talk page. Unfortunately, a few editors seem anxious to suppress this point of view. Reyk  YO!  12:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that battle. I think this point can be made more succinctly in this section wh{{ich already covers existence of sources. I wrote it this way because this is an essay and intended as guidance and the tone should reflect that. I dont think any editor will have a problem guidance to be specific.--RadioFan (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't add Regarding "Keep - There must be lots of sources available", see the related proposal here.  The difference is one word, the new proposal changes the word "plenty" to "lots".  The only position previously listed was{{blockquote|text=An example similar to this one may be valid in a deletion discussion; WP:N says, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."}}I don't see that changing the one word or locating it in a different section significantly changes the proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that if one editor doubts the existence of sources and another can only respond with a belief that there must be sources out there somewhere without actually being able to show them, that it's unlikely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found. The proposed addition is therefore entirely consistent with WP:N. Reyk  YO!  23:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) "Doubt the existence of sources" without documenting the research is a common invalid argument at an AfD. (2) WP:N states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  (3) Faulty generalization states, "Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena."  The point is that "entirely consistent" is a faulty generalization, as an example of an editor misapplying the guideline does not mean that all editors always will misapply the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, it is a common misargument at AfD but it can only be rebutted by providing the sources, not by merely claiming there must be some somewhere. (2) We can only determine whether something is "worthy of notice" by showing evidence that someone has noted it i.e. by providing the sources. (3) Irrelevant and inapplicable to the point that I doubt you've actually understood what I'm saying. I am not "examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case", I am being as general as possible. Nor am I in any way implying "that all editors always will misapply the guideline", I'm just explaining why it's fallacious when one of the does. (4) This is all academic anyway; I'm no longer arguing to include this material in this essay, because it now exists as an essay in its own right. Reyk  YO!  01:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Invalid arguments are invalid. (2) The sentence I quoted has no such specifications, it reads, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  See WP:CONSENSUS.  (3) WP:N says, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."  The point is that the proposed addition is not consistent with WP:N, since the proposed addition might be part of an argument stating that significant coverage in independent sources is likely to exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The previous discussion on this topic was around a separate section on "presumption of sources", which is unnecessary. We already have a section covering sources, the recomendation on the table here is improving that with guidance to be specific in their arguments around sources rather than vague.   Can those who oppose this change clarify why they appose this?  Keep in mind that this is an essay, not a guideline and certainly not policy.  Would specific references in an AFD not help reach consensus?  --RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said, an argument like the proposal may be acceptable in a deletion discussion. On the other side, if the argument at the AfD is invalid, it doesn't take a new entry on this page to refute it.  What about adding:
 * Delete -- no sources. – In_a_Hurry WP:NoSources
 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an essay, not a guideline and certainly not policy. This isn't here to identify what is "acceptable" or not.  It's here to make AFDs better, more focused and consensus easier to achieve.  The proposal says nothing about whether the argument is acceptable, only that the argument is better made with more specifics.--RadioFan (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can give a diff with an example of a problem you want to solve. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Picking a AFD category at random and a few random discussions brought up this gem:
 * Articles for deletion/Border jack: Keep - Run a regular Google search and you'll see instantly that there IS such a thing as a "Border Jack."
 * I gave ten examples in the earlier discussion. This is a textbook case of "I didn't hear that!". Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
 * Lots of sources is not an argument to avoid. Suggesting that editors should not list lots sources for inspection is the opposite of good advice and so this section should be deleted.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is not listing sources. What it is, is dumping a big pile of red herrings on other editors and saying "Here's confirmation that the words in the article title appear in some order on a lot of web pages. Sort it out for me!" Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's stay focused on the proposal here which is to recommend to editors that they provide specific sources rather than vague ideas about sources that may or may not exist.--RadioFan (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the comments above has a point that it is not a good idea to discourage editors from giving leads, as other editors may choose to follow up on those leads.
 * The example is flawed firstly because it has a concrete lead, and secondly because it is a selective quote. The diff for the example goes on directly into the category explicitly mentioned in WP:N, that it may be enough for notability, to establish that sources are likely.
 * I researched the origin of this section, it is here.
 * Please take a look at the small print at the start of the section, is this already saying something close to what you are wanting to add? Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * do you support the proposed changes above or not? If not, can you suggest a rewording that you would support?--RadioFan (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the proposed change, but I might phrase it more like this:
 * "Be specific. Provide citations to individual sources, rather than mere handwaving or bald assertions that sources ought to exist somewhere. A list of carefully chosen reliable sources is very valuable, but indiscriminate results from your favorite web search engine, even if they contain the same words as the article's title, may contain only blogs, chat rooms, or copies of Wikipedia articles rather than proper reliable sources."
 * (Note that I changed "links" to "citations", because WP:Offline sources are acceptable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it, how about this slight simplification: "Be specific. Provide citations to individual sources, rather than mere handwaving or assurances that sources must exist somewhere. A list of carefully chosen reliable sources is very valuable, indiscriminate results from your favorite web search engine are not, even if they contain the same words as the article's title, may contain items that do meet criteria for reliable sources."

--RadioFan (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't much care for "rather than mere handwaving or assurances that sources must exist somewhere." as I've witnessed this wording used as a personal attack quite a number of times. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you have another suggestion?--RadioFan (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment The definition of notability in WP:N is "worthy of notice" with the sentence ending in a period–there is no requirement in the definition to have sources. WP:GNG notes that even if you have sources, editors must still decide that the topic satisfies the definition of notability, i.e., that the topic be "worthy of notice". Here is another relevant sentence from WP:N{{blockquote|text=Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.}}Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're just picking and choosing the bits of WP:N that you like, and ignoring the rest. Did you notice that WP:N explicitly states that sources are necessary and that claiming they must be out there somewhere is not very convincing? Here are the relevant bits: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A "theme" is not a "requirement", "seldom persuasive" is not the same as "never allowed". Even the definition of notability in WP:N that a topic be "worthy of notice" is subject to the statement that, "occasional exceptions may apply".  If editors don't think this is what they want in WP:N, the place for that discussion is at WT:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoda and Mace Windu

 * "It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same."

I have to completely disagree with this example. Yoda isn't kept because other characters have an article, it's because he's practically a cultural icon, and Mace Windu has been kept because no one's gotten round to deleting him yet (granted there's probably reception for him out there, but currently his article does not show it). I don't think any characters can be kept for such a reason. If Han Solo wasn't "obviously notable" in the eyes of so many people people, he would not just get an article because he was a Star Wars character, his article would be deleted. If we're going to have an example for this kind of thing, which is a debatable point in it's own, I'd suggest either a Family Guy or Simpsons episode. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of Nominations?
I am active at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and in that subject area, AfD <U>nominators</U> are especially prone to violating many of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Recently there have been a pile of AfD's in which the nominator said nothing but "non-notable album" (which violates the just not notable guideline or the pointing at a policy guideline), and there are often AfDs in which the nominator mentions nothing more than poor article quality (which can violate any number of the surmountable problems guidelines).

Lately I have been calling for these nominators to add detail to their rationales, only for admins to tell me that I should be addressing the merits of the article in question. Here's an example. If <U>voters</U> make these errors in a deletion discussion, their votes are likely to be discounted by the admin. So I propose the same should be done for <U>nominators</U>, because they are supposed to do the work required by WP:BEFORE and set up a workable discussion. In short, perhaps an admin should require a nominator to beef up the deletion rationale, and if that doesn't doesn't work perhaps the AfD should be closed due to insufficient reasoning. If anyone agrees with this proposal for admin action, please advise on whether such a thing should be added to this essay or addressed elsewhere. Thanks, -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If the sum total of all contributions to the discussion constitute a consensus for deletion then the conclusion will be "delete", otherwise it won't. How much or how little of the argument for deletion is included in the nomination and how much is added later is irrelevant: all contributions should be treated alike. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBW and I'm worried that your suggestion would lead to defenders of articles to attack the nominator rather than discuss the merits of the article. There's way too much of that as it is. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but why not tell a nominator to follow procedures correctly, as you would for a voter? It wouldn't be an "attack" if done in good faith, and you would in fact be treating all contributions alike (as said by JBW) if the nomination is considered to be a "contribution." -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 13:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but invalidating an entire nomination isn't treating that vote the same as any other. We don't close AfDs early if someone shows up on day 3 and says "Delete- I hate it". I don't think it's necessary to have an admin audit AfD nominations at the start; that can be done at the end of the seven days when everyone's had their say. Besides, it is established that even very poor nominations from banned editors can end in a delete result if good-faith editors form a consensus that way (AfD here, result upheld at DRV here). I am still concerned that invalidating AfDs because the nominator hasn't crossed their t's and dotted their i's will result in a lot of hostile scrutiny and abuse of nominators. There will always be people who will see the suppression of AfD nominations and subsequent !votes as easier ways of defending certain articles than defending them on their actual merits; I can think of one partisan voting bloc that does this all the time already. If people think they will be subjected to attacks if they bring their concerns to AfD, they will be less likely to do so and the quality of the encyclopedia will suffer. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with that. If a nominator makes a poor nomination, but others then give good contributions to the discussion, why should that useful discussion be thrown out? If, on the other hand, a poor nomination is not followed by useful contributions, then the deletion attempt will fail anyway, so why do we need a special rule saying that it is to fail because of the poor nomination? In neither case is there anything to be gained by the proposed change,and in one case there is something to be lost. However, this discussion is taking place in the wrong place: this is supposed to be a page for discussing changes to the essay, not for discussing changes to deletion policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)