Wikipedia talk:Arguments to make in deletion discussions

Linked
Is being linked really a good reason to keep an article? The way the argument is worded now runs afoul of WP:N and WP:V, as it seems to we don't need sources if there are a lot of incoming links, a claim which is contracted by WP:V's requirement that there be sources.

There's also the problem of gaming. A savvy editor can easily generate a bunch of incoming links to an article... and indeed with some of the most problematic articles you find they're linked to in a bunch of legitimate articles that have been modified to exaggerate the importance of the problematic article. Since it's perfectly possible to game links, it's hard to take them seriously as an indicator of notability.

In sum, I really doubt there's consensus that incoming links really are a good argument to make in deletion discussions. People make the argument sometimes... but it's pretty fishy. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These arguments are, after all, suggestions. As mentioned on this page, it is best, when using this argument, to list at least some of the articles that have these links so the importance can be evaluated by others. Even if not sourced in the article proposed for deletion, hopefully they would be in others. If at least several other articles had these links long before a deletion proposal, this would be indicative of the importance. On the other hand, creating needless links just to save an article would be a form of disruptive editing. Sebwite (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, the way this essay is worded right now goes against WP:V's requirement of sources. I don't think it's fair to tell people that, in its present form, this is a good argument to make... it'd never be accepted as the sole argument at a place like DRV, so you're kind of arming people with defective tools. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could the sentence under links be any longer?! Currently it reads: "Even if an article does not appear to have sources making it notable, being linked directly from a significant number of other articles in a manner that the links in those articles show that the reader of those articles would want to know more about the blue-linked subject shows that the information the article contains is valuable in defining and providing information on a subject already described in multiple articles."  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we specify that we aren't explicitly encouraging
these particular arguments to be used in all deletion discussions?

Articles for deletion/Mottainai is a NOTDIC discussion (the article appears to be a coatrack for an environmentalist campaign hiding behind a dictionary definition/etymology). But someone has shown up and made a HASREFS argument, despite this having nothing to do with the article's problems. I came here, and I noticed that this page appears to imply that HASREFS is an argument that should always be used in deletion discussions -- should we include an intro stating that these arguments are not all good for all deletion discussions?

猿丸太夫 09:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Links" argument (again)
This argument should probably be moved to this page's counterpart, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This argument is a contravention of WP:ARTN, which I'm going to quote;

For example, a music band can have around 5 links from its members' articles, and still fail WP:GNG, because no reliable sources have been published for that yet. Any thoughts? --TL22 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Links" argument, Starting BRD
I made a bold edit removing the "Links" section, that was reverted by User:Praxidicae. I removed the links section based on the concerns of other editors on the talk page that the argument was weak and should not be used in deletion discussions, making it not belong on this page. I am now starting discussion to get to the D part of WP:BRD. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)