Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:01, 19 April 2011 editPaul Erik (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators76,578 edits revert personal opinion / idiosyncratic analysis← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:38, 22 April 2011 edit undoJBW (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators195,655 edits →Arguments without arguments: Adding subsection for presumption of sourcesNext edit →
Line 88:		Line 88:

	<span id="Just a policy or guideline" /><span id="Pointing at policy" /><span id="Per policy" />		<span id="Just a policy or guideline" /><span id="Pointing at policy" /><span id="Per policy" />

			===There must be sources===
			{{shortcut\|WP:MUST}}
			{{ATA shortcut notice}}

			''Examples:''
			* '''Keep''' – This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. <span style="color:red">Prejudger</span> 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
			* '''Keep''' – There must be plenty of sources. <span style="color:red">Presumer</span> 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
			* '''Keep''' – You should find sources, instead of deleting it. <span style="color:red">ItsUpToYou</span> 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 ], and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.

			<span id="There must be sources" />

	=== Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===		=== Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===

Revision as of 18:38, 22 April 2011

"WP:ATA" redirects here. For Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, see Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay on Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell:

Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions
Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)
Explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments. The reason they should be avoided is because they are not based upon the issues listed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, but are rather arguments based from side issues that are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Misplaced Pages should be deleted. When taking part in deletion discussions, then, it is best to base arguments on the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Misplaced Pages is not, or on Misplaced Pages guidelines; however, just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid.

Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.

As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below).

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

Common decisions and arguments
Deletion (XfD)
Arguments to avoid Common outcomes (AfD) Common outcomes (RfD) Common outcomes (TfD) Overcategorisation Perennial deletion review
Adminship (RfA) and Bureaucratship (RfB)
Arguments to avoid
Arbitration (Arbcom)
Guide to arbitration Principles
Proposals and policy
Perennial proposals
v t e

Arguments without arguments

Just a vote

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep – ThoughtlessMcKeep 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Delete – DeleteyMcSheep 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons.

Per nominator

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete per nom. – Trustfull 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep as per I'vanIdea 's statement. – Suckup 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions.

If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".

Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position.

Per majority

Shortcut

WP:MAJORITY

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep per everyone else. – EveryoneElse 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete since most others here think this should be deleted. Copycat 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Most people are saying it should be deleted, and it looks like that is what will happen. – Self-fulfilling prophecy 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.

Consensus can change, and it is not uncommon for attitudes to shift during a deletion discussion. When it seems after just a few days that it'll surely go one way, often one single statement can turn the tide. Also, articles can be improved over the course of a discussion, leading others to change their minds. It can be the statement or the salvaging work of one person who is at first in the minority that makes all the difference.

Just unencyclopedic

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete as unencyclopedic. – Cyclops 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT – NotSpecific – 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep This definitely belongs in an encyclopedia. – TrustMeItFits – 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" is very general in a deletion discussion. It can be used to describe, "anything not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia" -- and may not be understood to mean much more than, "it should not be included." So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it can be a circular argument: "Delete it from the encyclopedia because it does not belong in the encyclopedia." This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. Simply explain what policies it breaks and how it breaks them, or why you believe it is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This argument may sometimes come across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Just not notable

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:
Delete as non-notable. –NotableGuru 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete – NN. – NNDeclarer 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is clearly notable. –NotabilityDiviner 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep Topic is notable. –OracleOfNote 09:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline".

Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability; this is often seen when trying to assert notability under a sub-guideline (like music or internet content). Additionally, the subject may possibly pass WP:N, but fails a more stringent set of standards: for example, articles about notable living people may be deleted if they are marginally notable, and must be deleted if they are defamatory. The standards of inclusion don't mandate inclusion; they merely suggest it.

There must be sources

Shortcut

WP:MUST

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

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.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep Meets WP:NOR – Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. 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.

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Misplaced Pages:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Misplaced Pages:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.

Begging for mercy

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Keep I worked so hard on this article – WorkedSoHard 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Keep You would be doing me a big favor if you changed your "deletes" to "keeps" – BigFavor 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Keep I need more time to work on it – NeedMoreTime 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Keep I placed this template on top of the page so it wouldn't get deleted – PlacedThisTemplate 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Keep I placed hidden text at the top of this page telling others they were not supposed to delete it – PlacedHiddenText 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.

You should also make yourself familiar with Misplaced Pages's canvassing guidelines before you solicit "votes" one way or the other in a discussion.

If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Misplaced Pages's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space.

Over the years, several templates have been created to be placed on top of pages indicating that they are new and may take time to complete to Misplaced Pages's standards. These include {{newpage}}, {{new unreviewed article}}, {{construction}}, and {{newlist}}. If such a template is found on a newly created page, as a common courtesy, new page patrollers and others should not rush to delete the page unless it is obvious that it can never meet inclusion guidelines. If one is uncertain of this, or if it appears no progress has been made in a reasonable amount of time, the creator should be contacted regarding his/her intentions, and given a reasonable amount of time to reply. It is recommended for one who is considering putting it up for deletion to consider userfication as an alternative.

Personal point of view

I like it

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example:

Keep The Angry Young Popes are the best rock band in the world right now. – Superbestfan 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

As stated at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages already has 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 is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient.

I don't like it

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete – The Great White Dopes are the worst rock band ever. SuperCritic 02:03, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
Delete – It's annoying. – IAmReallyAnnoyed 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
Delete as cruft. – Cruftbane 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
Delete as trivia. – NoTriviaHere 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an election in a Third-world place. – AllBrownPeopleAreTheSame 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete it's offensive for my religion – MyGodIsBetterThanYours 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I'm so ashamed this article is on Misplaced Pages. Mortified_Molly 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And on the converse (see I like it, directly above), while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.) In fact, by the Law of Chance, everything will have likes and dislikes.

This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. For example, while the "cruft" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential for verifiable inclusion.

It's interesting

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep Interesting. – Fascinated 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not interesting. – Notinterested 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway? – Indifferent 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Stuff and nonsense anyhow. – StuffyDecisionMaker 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be of interest to some editor somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may be apathetic, or not care, about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

See also I like it and I don't like it, above.

It's useful

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example:

Keep Useful. – Usefulisgood 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete – we don't need this here. – Judgmental 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded; yet everything in it should be useful in some context. But just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Misplaced Pages's policies.

A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Misplaced Pages is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful but is not included because Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide (there is a Wikitravel for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument.

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Misplaced Pages which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.

It doesn't do any harm

"WP:NOHARM" redirects here. For You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm, see WP:NOHARM (disambiguation). Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep Why delete this, it is not harming anyone. – Hippocrates2 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)

But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable.

The "it does not do any harm" claim, and its rebuttal, is at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.

Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

It's funny

Shortcut

WP:ITSFUNNY

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep This article is hilarious. – ComedyExpert 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
KeepZOMG...this article is SOOOO friggin' funny!!!!ha ha ha . – Stand-upGal 4:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete This article is hilarious. Obviously unencyclopedic!!!!Meta-Parliamentarian 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a repository of humor. Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor can they be kept because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective value of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Misplaced Pages: The Office (US TV series), Red vs. Blue, and even unintentionally funny articles such as Exploding whale all have a place on Misplaced Pages. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are more appropriate places, even on Misplaced Pages, than in the article space.

It looks good

Shortcut

WP:PRETTY

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Keep Article is well laid out with good graphics – Styleoversubstance
Keep Very nice format and design, esp. the use of multicolour layout – Bauhaus11:0
Keep Has been written by a professional Wikipedian; is complete with an infobox, pictures, and a navbox. – CompleteWellwrittenPage
Delete This article has such an ugly format – FormatCritic

While it is certainly a good thing for Misplaced Pages articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Misplaced Pages.

It contains valuable information

Shortcut

WP:VALINFO

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Keep – This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our groundbreaking product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Misplaced Pages! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin
Keep – This article is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – SaveTheKids!Please!
Delete - The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. SaveTheTroops!Please!

Misplaced Pages is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Misplaced Pages's requirements of neutrality and verifiability. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE.

Surmountable problems

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

A common maxim is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Misplaced Pages has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.)

Note: The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism.

Poorly written article

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete The article is rubbish. – TrashTalker 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article is messy and poorly laid out. – LostWillToFix
Delete It's not referenced properly – Lazy1 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Keep We'll find some sources later – NotRightNow 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Misplaced Pages. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.

With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible.

Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

Shortcut

WP:NOEFFORT

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete Article has been here for 2 years and is still a stub! – TheyDidntWork 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.

A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process.

In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that needs to be added to it at the present time.

Exception: When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field, deleting or redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article is often a much better choice than having hundreds of articles and only a handful of editors.

Notability fallacies

Existence

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep It exists. ItExists 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep It is not a hoax. It is truly real. NotAHoax 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep There is no doubt that the band exist...there are 3 local newspaper articles about their show dates, plus they have a MySpace page. LoveGarageBandz 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Existence is important. The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information contained within sourced (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion. There are various other guidelines that must be met, mostly found in WP:N. As for the lack of existence, there are rare cases when this can be notable.

Google test

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Zero Google hits, must be a hoax. MustBeAHoax 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Zero Google hits, so even if she is a tenured professor at Harvard, she must be non-notable. GoogleHits=measureOfworth 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep She's the first Google result for her name, so obviously she's important. – FirstIsBest 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.

Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Search engine test.

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.

Article age

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Keep. Article has existed since 2004. -- Age Before Beauty 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Article was only created yesterday, I'm still working on it! -- Think of the New Articles 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Having survived a long time on Misplaced Pages does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age either because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently, or because the collective interpretation of our inclusion criteria has evolved. Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Misplaced Pages's guidelines or just by defacto practice could be put up for deletion.

However, note that the fact that an article has not been edited in a long time is also not grounds for deletion, as explained above.

Conversely, being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Misplaced Pages it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is. Remember that all articles are works in progress, and this is not by itself reason to keep an article. It is recommended to work on a new article in the Article Incubator or in userspace before moving it into mainspace, to avoid it being nominated for deletion in an obviously unfinished state.

However, note also that the current low quality of an article is also not a reason to delete it, as explained above. Articles should be judged on their potential, not just current state.

Pageview stats

Shortcuts

Amount of information

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Keep Article has lots of information on the subject – LotsOfInformation 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article provides too little information on the subject – TooLittleInformation 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article provides so little information, you can easily recreate it should more information be available – EasyToRecreate 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong, and if none of it belongs, neither does the article.

On the other hand, even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be a stub waiting for expansion. Being "short" is not grounds for deletion.

As in a paper encyclopedia, some articles will be several pages long, others just a line or two. There is no minimum or maximum length that qualifies an article, just the reliable sourcing of the information. Since nothing is in stone, articles can grow, shrink, merge, split, and change in all different ways over time. But once the subject becomes clearly notable, they do not disappear.

Unreliable sources

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep I found all this information in another Misplaced Pages article – ReadAboutOnWikipedia 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep The subject's site goes into great detail about it – OwnSite 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is a whole web site devoted to this subject – ReadAboutOnWikipedia 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep People are talking about it all over the blogs – SourcedByBlogs 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep This MySpace page tells all about it – SourcedByMySpace 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Look what I found about it on Twitter – SourcedByTwitter 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is an entry in urban dictionary on the subject – FoundInUrbanDictionary 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the reliable sources page. A subject's own site can be used to verify some information, but surely not to establish notability. Sites that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Misplaced Pages article.

It's in the news

Shortcuts

Geographic scope

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep It's of interest around the entire globe – WholePlanet 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep People from 3000 miles away know what this is – KnownFromFarAway 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete No one from outside this establishment's hometown has ever heard of it or ever will – LocalEstablishment 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just Woodsville – EncyclopediaOfTheWorld 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Cumbertown is not the center of the world – CenterOfTheWorld 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not about assigning an elite status to a select group of subjects. It is about having the ability to write neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic-style information about them.

Misplaced Pages's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage. Having sources that under all circumstances meet this guideline means that it is notable, and therefore, worthy of an article. On the contrary, being spread out around a greater region, such as a country or the whole world, without satisfying notability requirements does not make a subject notable.

Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the I've never heard of it argument. Many subjects are esoteric, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. For example, few people are aware or interested in some obscure forms of living things, space bodies, or scientific concepts, and few people will ever know about them in the first place in order to even desire to read about them. Yet there is sourced information about them, so they qualify to be included.

The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Misplaced Pages is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own.

Another question is where to draw the line on a subject as being "local." Local could mean limited to a city or town. But others may view a state, province, or other similar region as being local. And such divisions vary in size throughout the world. And though the boundaries of a jurisdiction are legally defined, determining a distance from that location in which coverage would be non-local is not possible.

One may ask: does it not make sense that one part of the world has more articles on its local interests than another with a greater population? If so, this is not because Misplaced Pages is ever intended to be this way. Numbers of articles are not written in direct proportion with the population distribution of the world. Each article is written because just one person living wherever chooses to write that article. And some areas just happen to have more dedicated writers. Anyone, including you, can be devoted to writing about your hometown. (See Misplaced Pages:Geographic imbalance.)

Arbitrary quantity

Subjective importance

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. – Iknownothing 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete People in my city have not heard of her, so she cannot be notable. -– Provincial 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? – Notknownhere 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep I know it well. It's on my way to school. – Myneighborhood 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep John is the tallest person in my home town so he should have an article about him. – Smalltownboy 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. – OnlySchool 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. As is mentioned in one of the official Misplaced Pages policies, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Everything in Misplaced Pages needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. Misplaced Pages is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community; if the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community that's good evidence that the subject is not important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia.

Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. To avoid this systemic bias, Misplaced Pages should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.

Crystal ball

Shortcut

WP:ATA#CRYSTAL

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep This movement may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. – Youwillsee 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Of course this unreleased single is notable. It's by The Scrotums. – Mycrystalballisinforservice 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. – Shortattentionspan 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Notability is inherited

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep She once worked with someone famous – Keeper 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete All examples of faah are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. – Wheredoesitend 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep his brother is a notable athlete. – Family Tree 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep – there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. Adrian Listmaker 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.

In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.

Family members of celebrities also must meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, 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. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child.

Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."

Lots of sources

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep – there are many, many, many sources available. IFoundLotsofSources 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep – Did you even look for sources? SourceSearcher 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Search aggregators are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites.

Wikipedias in other languages

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Keep given the six interwiki links (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo , pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. Interwikis=Notability 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete No interwiki NoInterwiki 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A notable topic will often be covered by Misplaced Pages articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable.

Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Misplaced Pages. Notability requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. Other versions of Misplaced Pages are not reliable sources. Many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Misplaced Pages articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. Of course, if the other Misplaced Pages articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Misplaced Pages article, they can be added to it.

On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted.

Individual merit

What about article x?

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – EmperorOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep Look, if we have an article on Pokémon characters, we should be able to have an article on this band . – PokePerson:O 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. – Blay Tant Marqueter 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete You guys forced me to delete the article on a President, so you have to allow me to delete the article on this activist. – NoFair 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.

Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. 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.

Though a lot of Misplaced Pages's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.

The generic form of this argument, that "there are lots of other bad articles" is also common. However, Misplaced Pages recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Misplaced Pages) – note that this argument differs from Fooian this vs. Fooian that or Fooian this vs. XYZian that.

All or nothing

Shortcut

WP:ALLORNOTHING

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Misplaced Pages articles about X. – AllOrNothing 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete We've deleted other articles in Category:Misplaced Pages articles about X, so this needs to go too. – NothingOrAll 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Misplaced Pages category or similarity to other articles. Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. That said, there are precedents that may have an impact on a deletion discussion.

Meta-reasoning

Misplaced Pages should be about everything

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep I thought Misplaced Pages's purpose was to provide information on everything. – AllInclusive 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep You are trying to remove true information! – AllTruthful 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This thing exists, so it should be included. – JohnPaulSartre&Ringo 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything". Misplaced Pages is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Misplaced Pages. This is to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming unmaintainable. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

see also WP:NOTHING

Do not lose the information or the effort

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep because we would lose the information otherwise. – Essential Essential 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because the information is available elsewhere. – Redundant Redundant 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lots of people have worked on this. – TheyWorked 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines.

In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. Note that an argument from WP:PRESERVE does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion when material has been merged, as all contribution information may be lost, invalidating the licensing for the article.

Deleted work can be restored to your personal page or to the Article Incubator on request to an administrator. It is also usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a deletion review, provided that the deletion archive has not been cleared.

Better here than there

Shortcut

WP:BHTT

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example

Keep If this article is deleted then the stuff in it will end up back in the main article – Keepitherenotthere

Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called "trivia" or "in popular culture" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Misplaced Pages is not a trivia repository. Foo in popular culture articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as "use in fiction" or "cultural influences", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Misplaced Pages. Either incorporate the material in the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

That's only a guideline or essay

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Main page: Misplaced Pages:The value of essays

Examples:

Keep WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy. – DissentingView 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:XYZ is only a guideline. – GuidelinesNoGood 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep because we should ignore all rules! – Anarwikist 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. 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. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

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.

Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines do explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it is fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you should try to make a reasonable argument for why this particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for breaking it.

Arguments to the person

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep Creator has a history of writing some really good articles, therefore this one must be good and should be kept. – GoodCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Creator has made only 27 edits so far. – FewEdits 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of articles that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. – BadNom 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Creator has previously created many articles that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. – BadCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, nominator is a banned user trying to destroy Misplaced Pages. – Tenacious Defender 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Misplaced Pages is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions.

Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

Repeated nominations

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep Didn't we argue all this yesterday? – DejaVu 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. – Yawner 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's already had a bunch of AFDs, obviously people want it deleted. – Trytryagain 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.

If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.

Denying the antecedent

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Keep It does not matter if it is original research, or non verifiable. It's notable. – Original scientist 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep It is verifiable, therefore it is not original research. – VerifiableOR 00:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy. It basically consists in confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition. All Misplaced Pages policies are necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficient. If the article meets one condition, it does not mean that it does not violate other policies: original research may be verifiable; articles which seem to be notable may be original research; notable biographies may be a violation of WP:BLP. The policies should be interpreted together not alone.

Other arguments to avoid

The following links are to articles which describe various relevance fallacies, which should also be avoided in discussions.