Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Crystal Ballism

I know we have the above rule regarding future events, but recently I've seen arguments to the effect of "not notable now but might become notable, therefore keep for now" which I think is a risky wedge into AfD argumentation. Also I've seen "not notable now but information is coming in so therefore let's leave it in because some of the information might make it notable". Should we list this as an argument to avoid? Pablosecca 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• My reaction to that would be "come back after you've become notable". >Radiant< 08:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

I'm not sure if this should be added fully to the article, but I do think at least mentioning the policy against personal attacks would be beneficial to this article. I'm going to add it to the other links at the bottom, but I'm not sure that's enough. FrozenPurpleCube 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, most definitely. That came up quite often back when I was an AFD regular. "Keep because the nominator is a jerk". And so forth. >Radiant< 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, personal attacks would already fit into the "per nominator" section. The criteria would be the opposite, but the reason why it isn't a good argument is the same. Perón 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How about...

Adding a section referring to the massively overused "Keep and/but clean-up" vote? Totally pointless in the scope of AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is, it's often not intended as an argument. For instance, when I say that, I don't mean "clean this up or delete it", I mean "This article should be kept, but I agree that it also has issues with content that should be dealt with." -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But see, it is often intended as an argument. I could come up with a bunch of diffs with editors that literally voted "Keep and clean up. ~~~~", when it is obviously inappropriate. It would be nice to be able to point them to a subsection of this article rather than continuing to point out flaws with that logic in each separate AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But can you tell whether that opinion is "Keep and cleanup because I think that further work would make notability more evident", or "Keep and cleanup because I irrationally think that any subject is notable if it has a long article"? I'd be fine with a section saying that worthiness of a subject to be included is completely unaffected by the current state of an article on it, but that isn't really the right title for it. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what the argument is. I think that the idea of keeping specifically to cleanup is inappropriate in all ways. That's why AfDs last five days -- if further information about the subject cannot be provided within the five days asserting the notability, the article should be deleted. Keeping an article just to clean it up, whether it's keeping because notability *might* surface or whether it's just a long article, is inappropriate. You have five days to establish notability. Think about the slippery slope application if we did keep articles just to clean them up... every artice in an AfD could theoretically be kept. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm making myself clear. The fact that an article needs to be cleaned up does not mean it should be deleted. As such, some people may express the opinion that it needs to be cleaned up, without that being relevant at all to whether or not it should be kept. And that is where some of the "keep but cleanup" arguments come from. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I was referring to an article up for deletion that is not inherently notable, and where cleaning up won't help assert the notability. But I see the issue... it still would be nice to have some sort of mention... but I don't know. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's quite valid in some cases to ask that a person saying clean-up be specific as to what should be done to address the issues the nominator has raised. The question is knowing when some specific comment is desirable and when it's not. FrozenPurpleCube 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that with our cleanup backlogs, an article that is suggested to be kept and cleaned on AFD is unlikely to be cleaned up. >Radiant< 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I found this the case with some of the Browser based MMOs. They had narrowly squeaked through an AfD thanks mainly to votes along the lines of 'Keep and clean-up, subject is notable'. A year later (when I came to be checking the articles) no sources were in the article, so they went to AfD again and were promptly deleted. A couple of the articles again tried the 'sources are available' argument, but I demanded they show proof this time and in every case they were unable to. It's not just a question of is Keep & Clean up a valid argument, but how long should an article that survived an AfD thanks to those votes be allowed to go on when no cleaning up is being done? Do you give it 5 more days after AfD, a month? a year? DarkSaber2k 12:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on the definition of "cleaning up". If it's a "clean up so that notability can be understood" then yes, do that or delete. But if it's a "clean up because the format, spelling, presentation and etc. of this article is a disaster" then no. Rather than complain about it being a disaster, one should be bold and clean up the mess by himself, as everyone is allowed to do. It's just common courtesy Perón 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

non-notable albums by notable bands?

This seems like an extremely rare phenomenon, and we don't even have notability guidelines for albums. When was the last time an album by a notable band was ruled non-notable? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't happen. Upon review, this essay made a serious of improper, inappropriate, or incorrect conclusions, and I have made a series of edits to rectify the problem. My hope is that this essay isn't becoming a repository for, uh, any arguments they don't care for.... --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert

Even though this page is "just an essay," I believe that it is so useful to so many WP editors (click on "What links here" to see how many times it is referred to in AfD discussions) that, unlike run-of the mill essays, major changes should be discussed on the talk page, with the goal of getting consensus over them (and I think how big the talk page is indicates that other editors feel the same way). This is particularly true when those changes are deletions of content or changes in meaning. Accordingly, I am reverting the last four changes, which were completely undiscussed, so consensus can be built. UnitedStatesian 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you feel, fine, but I'd like you to explain how each of those changes I made fails to reflect reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's proving a negative. How about if you, to get consensus for the changes, explain on this page how each of your changes does reflect reality? UnitedStatesian 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point was that my edits did reflect consensus and reality - for instance, the concept that notability does trickle down and up is based in a variety of different places, the way we handle albums, etc. I'll ask again - is there a specific change I made that you felt did not reflect reality? It's hardly proving a negative - if I'm wrong, there'll be plenty of evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Proving a difference is not proving a negative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about reality, it's worth pointing out that there's a very well-established idea that not every piece of verifiable information on a topic belongs in the article. Our article on Ford Pinto could verifiably list serial numbers of individual Pintos, but it does not. Perhaps this is a silly example, but hopefully the gist is clear. Information that's seen as too detailed is routinely pruned from articles on the basis that we're an encyclopedia rather than a repository of all information of every kind. Friday (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but not really relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was that saying "notability trickles down" or "notability does not trickle down" is not very helpful. This is where we go back to standard practice- if there is not sufficient coverage in sources that we have enough info for a proper encyclopedia article, the topic should probably be covered in the parent article rather than having its own. Friday (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thus my adjustments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia: another AADD?

(Disclaimer: I do have[certain involvement here], but not that I wasn't arguing to keep that article in particular, and there have been other relevant AfD discussions with this rationale.)

This is the English language Wikipedia.

Yes, this is the English language Wikipedia, but the only thing that affects is the language the articles are in. Using it as an argument to delete articles on subjects that are only notable in the non-English speaking world is not a good idea. Nowhere in any policy does it say Wikipedia should only have articles on actors famous in Hollywood and not Bollywood, or on an English homophonous phrase but not a Chinese homophonous poem. In fact, every effort should be made to include all of these, to counter the systemic bias inherent in en:WP's editor base. As long as the subject of the article has appropriate notability, as conferred by reliable sources (even if you need a native speaker of the relevant language to confirm both that the source is reliable and actually confers the notability), the article belongs here.

Comments? Confusing Manifestation 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your raise a very interesting point that is worthy of more discussion. My own view is that there are potential problems with articles in English wikipedia that do not have English sources - needing a native speaker for both the confirmations you list is contrary to "accessability," I think. Right now I am wishing I had a different UserName, because I don't wan't people to think I some raging xenophobe; in fact, am a huge believer in WP:CSB, but I think to your most immediate question, we should hold off on adding the AADD you propose to this essay, pending more discussion of this (and the related philosophical issue: why in fact do the WPs for the different languages differ in policies and in number of articles?) I would love to hear what Jimbo thinks, on both issues! UnitedStatesian 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the question "why in fact do the WPs for the different languages differ in [...] number of articles?" you might be interested in my essay User:Dcoetzee/Speakers per articles on Wikipedia. Dcoetzee 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting! To expand on my point: I think if you assume that "notability is universal," (which I think is the assumption of ConMan's proposal), you could immediately translate every article newly created in a given WP to every other WP; (and similarly should delete every article deleted from one from all the others); if the translation could be automated, the number of articles in each WP would be identical, no longer depending on the number of speakers of that language. UnitedStatesian 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not 100% sure whether I was saying "notability is universal", although it's quite possible, depending on what you mean by universal. At the very least, my point was that while the different WPs may have different notability standards, to my knowledge none of them specify that the notability has to be in the context of any particular language. Confusing Manifestation 12:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Soliciting WP:Essay feedback

Please see Wikipedia:Categories are different from articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be greatly expanded. Right now, there isn't anything to debate in there Perón 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of shortcuts == dick move

I've been seeing a lot of these shortcuts appear in AFD discussions, etc. Although I like the idea of the essay, my main gripe about the shortcuts is that they make the editor who use them appear hostile (and also the Cabal since only it uses them), and I believe the reason is that the shortcuts are all in capital letters. The shortcuts can be remade with lowercase (or God forbid CamelCase) to make them look like the editor isn't shouting. In their current state, the shortcuts promote WP:BASHing. Tuxide 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting possibility, to use them as well. Do you have in mind using lower case for the WP part also? Anyone here know what the practical implications would be? DGG 04:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It has become customary to write shortcuts in caps. You can in fact use lower-case to search for articles, although not to link; the search engine will take care of it. Lower-case versions are somewhat harder to type, because you have to capitalize the colon anyway. The only difficulty would be to make the redirects; some of them already exist, like wp:npov. Oh, and talking someone out of speedying the redirects wp:ncgn, and so forth, as obvious vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A better solution would be to use the shortcuts as (I believe) they were intended, [[WP:NPOV|neutral pov]] so that they are invisible. I think the point about typing them uppercase with the colon is a good one. -- nae'blis 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a person that actually does that "intended linkage" when linking to this essay. This is the internet after all, and most of those who use it want to make themselves feel as superior as possible. Although this is quite off-tangent (and I can't imagine anyone typing the whole thing) , there is a WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. I was thinking something like [[WP:All or nothing]], etc. or without the spaces would be better than what there is now. I'm still convinced that the current ones can be perceived as WP:BASHing because they're in all caps and some of them are grammatically correct sentences. Tuxide 07:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Like to propose another, if I may.

One argument that I've seen in AfDs, but isn't listed here: vandal target. That is, "delete the page because it'll get vandalized." I, at least, think that's a tragically flawed argument. If I may, I've written up a little draft:

Its a target for vandals

Example: Delete-Will just attract vandalism.--VandalFighter--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandlsim is an ever present problem on Wikipedia. Its simply the unfortunate side effect of the project's open nature. While taking steps to undo vandalism and stop vandals is very important, content should never be curtailed simply because it will be vandalized. Imagine if that principal were to be applied universally: would we delete George W. Bush? That page gets an incredible amount of vandalism. Obviously, though, deleting it would be a bad idea. If you’re concerned about vandalism on a page, try putting it on your watchlist and fixing vandalism as it happens. You can also request page protection if things get too out of hand. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for more on vandalism and how to deal with it.

Ends here. Anyway, I figured that just adding this right in would be a bad idea, especially since I'm not sure which section to put it in, so I wanted to see how everybody feels.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yours is definitely a valid argument, but is it common? That is, have you seen people, at least a couple of times, vote to delete an article based on the vandalism it would attract? Gracenotes^T § 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal fighting is important, but highly unlikely to appear in arguments for (or against) deletion. Interesting thoughts - Williamborg (Bill) 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have actually seen this crop up a few times in school related discussions. Not often, but it has come up. FrozenPurpleCube 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe something like this was proposed as WP:FORTHEPEOPLE (i.e. "more trouble than it's worth"). Nothing came of it. 81.104.175.145 13:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: "User is a sockpuppet" or "User only has X edits"

These are a form of ad hominem argument. If the process is not a vote, what does it matter where an argument comes from? Cnoocy 17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If the user is a sockpuppet, then it matters a great deal because that user is (a) misleading other users and (b) trying to make it seem as though editors share his or her view (notwithstanding that it is not supposed to be a vote) and may be trying to "drown out" or discourage other editors who take a different position. As for "user only had X edits", it is not an argument that I would ever make, but can be valid. Sometimes a novice editor makes arguments that a more experienced editor would be less likely to make, and some people feel that the user's exposure to Wikipedia in general and to AfDs in particular should be taken into account in evaluating those arguments.

For those reasons, I don't really agree with this suggestion, as both arguments can be relevant. I don't see either as being ad hominem attacks. Skeezix1000 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to rehash these arguments, but it certainly should be noted where the same person is voting twice or more, while attempting to disguise the fact that they are doing so. Deception to manipulate consensus cannot be tolerated. Other uses of sockpuppets or new users should (in my opinion) be tolerated and addressed based on the merit of their arguments. Dcoetzee 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

High time to edit the "Useful" segment of the page

This segment of the list of arguments to avoid only tells you what kinds of usefulness are bad in an encyclopedia. It gives you no indication of where usefulness is a good thing. I see people every day claiming that "usefulness is not a valid argument" by linking to this site, and therefore claiming that pages should be full of information that is useLESS, because "usefulness" = "bad." Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's time to accept that it needs to a USEFUL one. If we can't provide reasoning for why "useful" IS sometimes a valid argument, then what's the point of this entire experiment? We need to get specific. We need to mention that any information that is informative that is merely not a list and not opinionated (therefore keeping the phone book and restaurant guide as valid examples of "bad" usefulness) should be considered the good kind of "useful." I want to add this to the article. Your thoughts please. --Bishop2 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The essential point is that "useful" is necessary but not sufficient; that is, articles ought to be useful, and this counts towards keeping them, but just to say an article is useful isn't sufficient to protect it from deletion. Dcoetzee 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. "It's useful" is not a reason to keep an article. More accurately, the question is interpreted incorrectly. We ask "is this article useful?" Some make the mistake of assuming that if the answer is "yes" we keep it, when actually it's more correct to say that if the answer is "no" then we don't. If the answer is "yes", there are other tests that need satisfying. 81.104.175.145 09:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New example of notable topic with few Google hits

There weren't any 8th century Swedish kings. "Modern Sweden emerged out of the Kalmar Union formed in 1397 and by the unification of the country by King Gustav Vasa in the 16th century." (Sweden). I replaced it with a genuine example that I consider notable, a god in ancient Estonian mythology named Vanatühi, who has only 1260 Google hits, many from Wikipedia or its mirrors. Dcoetzee 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer viable as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS redirects to the top of this page, but not to any specific argument that supports that statement. I suspect something has either been reworded or removed, yet people on AFD are still using that citation regularly. Might I suggest a section relating to this -- with such a title -- either be added, or the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS redirect either lead to a specific paragraph or (in the extreme) deleted so that users notice it's a redlink? 68.146.8.46 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect fixed. Editors seem now to prefer WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS UnitedStatesian 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Random thought

In years of watching XfD processes (back from the days when they were votes), one line of argument annoys me more than any other. More than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, more than WP:USEFUL, and more than WP:BLOCVOTE (where everyone in a project piles on any attempt to take "their" turf- the US Roads WikiProject and its infinite descendents are a prime example) - above all of these - is what I call WP:ONLYAGUIDELINE. WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are, for all intents and purposes, set in stone. This comparative argument takes an absolutist stance beyond the Big Three. At some point in a debate, someone will decide to get retarded and say "X is only a guideline" or "Y is only an essay". There are two abuses of this. One is "You say X per WP:Y, but WP:Y is only an essay, so you're wrong". If someone says "delete per WP:DENY", they don't mean "DENY mandates action here", they mean "the reasoning for my argument is already reflected in this essay", and it's insulting, and bordering on the uncivil to suggest that someone's valid opinion doesn't matter because they based it on an essay (not the same as suggesting someone's argument is invalid by invoking this page). The other is "WP:Z is only a guideline, not policy, we don't have to follow it in every case so we don't have to follow it here", as if to make an excuse for behaving contrary to the guideline, as opposed to putting forward a reason to make an exception.

Anyone who tells me "X is only a guideline", especially to make an excuse, instantly induces in me a desire to cause immense physical pain to their person. 81.104.175.145 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another argument to avoid suggestion: "This article is rubbish"

Can I suggest that we add "The article is rubbish" to the page? This seems to crop up time and time again, and despite the fact an article might be rubbish, it doesn't change any inherent notability of the subject (particularly as deleted pages generally can't be recreated), particularly as articles generally expand as time goes on. -Halo 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It's now done. I've added "Badly written article" to the page. However, we'll need someone else to create valid shortcuts. --Bishop2 18:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea. It's true that in some cases, a bad article should be cleaned up, not just deleted. However, if the current article is, say, very biased, it shouldn't be kept because someone might clean it up eventually. It should be deleted, and then someone who later wishes to write a neutral article can do so. -Amarkov moo! 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What you're describing is a violation of NPOV, and an article can be deleted as such. This argument, on the other hand, stands on its own, and should be replaced in the project space. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But NPOV violation is by definition about the state of the article. It's not at all a statement on the subject, but saying "this particular article on the subject is biased". -Amarkov moo! 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Except biases violate NPOV. Both in the article itself and/or its text. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Um... yes, that's true. But again, there is no subject for which any article must be biased. It's just the article which happens to be written right now. -Amarkov moo! 23:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, I'm fully aware. But the point of this section is to say that bad prose is not a reason for deletion. And that argument occurs all the time. Hell, I just witnessed it today. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• NPOV already covers arguments such as "This article is rubbish." It's impractical to identify every possible NPOV-violating statement here. Doczilla 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think there is merit in discussing the issue of clean-up as an option in deletion. There are many cases where I've seen long discussions occur because somebody didn't understand cleanup was an option instead of deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that's true. Seeing AfD discussions where poor writing or other need for cleanup is the reason given for deleting an article annoys me because that argument inherently suggests that the article's subject otherwise has worth. Doczilla 04:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this is an "argument to avoid" in the usual sense. Traditionally, this has been a list of arguments that are invalid or fatally flawed. The argument "this article is rubbish" is not inherently invalid - vague perhaps, but not invalid. If someone says "this article is rubbish", we can ask them to be more specific and get something useful out of them. Compare this to arguments such as "I like it", which are unsalvageable. 81.104.175.145 08:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What I'm trying to convey is that a poorly written article doesn't mean the article should be deleted. In a deletion debate, the quality of the actual article should be secondary to the actual subject, and that the content of the article is pretty much irrelevant as long as the subject meets Wikipedia policy. As such, an argument such as "The article is rubbish" is a poor argument worth avoiding. -Halo 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just notable

Since I've seen that argument used before, I thought it appropriate to add a paragraph describing it to the just not notable one. Doczilla apparently thought my original version was rambling, but I have tried to improve it with:

The mirror of "Just not notable" is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim notability. Notability requires an explanation so that other editors may be able to verify the claim as well as seek sources. An explanation is also helpful in deciding whether or not the subject of an article meets existing policies and guidelines that may cover the subject.

Let me know if that's unclear, and if so, why, and preferably offer solutions to fixing it up. It does come up fairly often, believe it or not. FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloated

This essay has crept longer and longer until it is essentially almost unreadable. I remember seeing it when I first started voting at AfD and it was much more concise. Any thoughts on how to trim this down to make it less intimidating to new users? —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This essay is just ridiculous

Somehow the author has managed to label some of the most important, practical and clear justifications for deletion (per above, per nom, per policy, etc.) as if they were somehow less than ideal. That means we agree with the above. There's no point to making a new argument, argument was already made, we're just voting.

I should also note that people keep trying to cite this essay as if it were legitimate complaints about votes or as reasons to disregard votes. I think the tag and nutshell at the top need to make it more clear that it's just some people ranting and has no basis in policy (or, hell, even common sense). DreamGuy 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How did you fall on that conclusion? Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. — CharlotteWebb 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy is actually right for once. Whoever wrote this essay is an idiot, and people who link to this page from deletion debates are also idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.146.240.157 (talk • contribs)

It is a bit silly. It's really just an opinion of how AFDs ought to be judged (and not necessarily a good opinion), it doesn't have much to do with they actually are judged. —Ashley Y 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • So, do we keep it as a personal essay--and some of us probbly want to write another-- or do we turn it into a balanced discussion of criteria which are in fact used with their + and - ? A discussion in this way might be useful, and then we could retitle the article a little. DGG 04:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is not ridiculous, rather it gives a rather good explanation of common fallacies employed and ignored on AFD. >Radiant< 11:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• I mostly disagree. If you read the details and don't just skim it, it's quite clear and not particularly contentious. It mentions explicitly that "per nom" is useful at first, that "per a policy" is okay if you explain how the policy applies or if it's clear, and so on. On the other hand, the weakest arguments are presented first - few people would object to the silliness of later arguments like "I like it" or "this number is large" in most cases. Dcoetzee 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• There's no point to making a new argument ... we're just voting. Does that mean when your vote gets discounted, you'll be ok with an explanation of "per essay", or would you like a little more information? --Kbdank71 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rather, it should mean you should be content with the explanation "AfD is not a vote". 81.104.175.145 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This essay leaves no, and I mean no, arguements left to make that would be acceptable. This essay has been taken far too far, and I'll be working with others to pare it down to a more reasonable level soon. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

The point of the nutshell is to stop people from just referencing policies, guidelines, or essays, rather than making arguments and having a discussion. The reason why essays are mentioned is to stop people from simply responding to someone's argument by saying "WP:USEFUL," in the same way that it is attempting to stop people from saying "Delete, fails WP:N." Neither of those examples are discussions. This is why essays are mentioned in the nutshell and why they should remain there. Now can we please stop having this pointless edit war? Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - "only a guideline"

Not to be confused with WP:JUSTAPOLICY, I propose something along the following lines (though the example shortcut will probably need changing, unless someone is willing to leave WP:EXAMPLE as a protected title):

Certainly needs work, but a point that is presented frequently, both on and off AfD. 81.104.175.145 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this would engage users to directly to the point discussion, if it becomes policy. --Andersmusician $ 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• If this helps to make people discuss article content rather than bureaucracy, go for it. >Radiant< 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Pending no reasonable objection, I shall insert this. Recommendations for suitable shortcuts are invited. Since it refers to more than just essays (since people also use "it's only a guideline" as a lame excuse), I had hoped for WP:NOTPOLICY, but that is already taken. WP:ONLYANESSAY and WP:ONLYAGUIDELINE are reasonable, but could do with a shorter one. 81.104.175.145 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I object; often, the reason guidelines are just guidelines is either because there isn't enough consensus to make them policies, for one reason or another (such as a significant portion of the community rejects them). While guidelines often can be useful, it can be helpful to remind new contributors that these are just guidelines, as they often don't know the difference; I don't think that is "unhelpful" at all. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll excuse me for not counting this as reasonable objection. Evidently you don't know the difference between policy and guideline yourself. The level of consensus support has nothing to do with it whatsoever. If someone has based their argument on a guideline or an essay, to dismiss their argument for that fact alone is nothing short of utter idiocy, and an insult to their intelligence (which we assume they have). 81.104.175.145 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The real difference between guidelines and policies, however, is - or ought to be - that, as {{guideline}} says, guidelines have exceptions. The argument you would deprecate is often a response to "We can't possibly do that; WP:GUIDELIBE says..." when, in fact, WP:GUIDELINE is only intended as a rough cut, and will benefit from contact with reality. I have seen too many guidelines I have written quoted as absolute when they were meant to be guidance; or quoted when one of the reasons for the discussion was to check whether the guideline was reasonable in practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Policies tell us what we must or must not do (almost) without exception, whether we like it or not. Guidelines tell us what we should or should not do, with the occasional exception - though users should still discuss the reasons for making the exceptions, rather than using "it's only a guideline" as an excuse. The reasons for the status may also be pragmatic - it would be impractical to elevate WP:NFC to policy, as it would be unworkable (rather it covers the discretionary part of non-free content use, the manadatory parts are in WP:NFCC). Put simply, think of policy as stating what and guidelines as stating how^{[oversimplification]}. Essays may well make reference to them, supplementing the what and the how with the why. There are plenty of reasons why an argument presented in an essay might be invalid, including their being misleading, irrelevant, or not in keeping with our policies and guidelines - "it's only an essay" is not, has never been, and will never be one of them. 81.104.175.145 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea how annoying it is when you tell someone something from here, and they go, well that's an essay. I support that addition. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while simply saying "WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy" may be unhelpful, it is usually done in response to the equally unhelpful argument of simply citing an essay. Both "Delete, per WP:THISESSAY" and "Keep, per WP:THATESSAY" are just as invalid as WP:JUSTAPOLICY (if not more so), and should be listed on this page as well. If an essay is giving reasons to delete something or reasons to keep something, those reasons ought to be based on policies and guidelines, and those policies and guidelines themselves should be cited and it should be explained how they apply to the material under discussion. DHowell 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, it should be mentioned under JUSTAPOLICY. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue - "THATESSAY is an essay, not policy" is insulting, both to whoever has cited the essay and the people that have contributed to or happen to agree with its sentiments. A simple "Keep per ESSAY" may be as invalid as just linking a policy, but it is not more invalid. Whether a page is tagged {{essay}}, {{guideline}} or {{policy}} does not determine the validity of an argument. 81.104.175.145 12:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions on a usable shortcut? WP:NOTPOLICY appears to be taken,. WP:JUSTANESSAY (WP:JAE?) and WP:ITSANESSAY are available. 81.104.175.145 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:ONLYAGUIDELINE perhaps? 81.104.175.145 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Inside WP:IDONTLIKEIT it states: "it should be remembered that Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion" Um, no weight? The article seems to have forgotten that it itself is an essay. Many people link to these sections to show that certain arguments have no weight in an AFD. Now to say that essays (and therefore this article) has no weight is presumably contridictory considering that this article (I assume) is intended to be used for just sort of case. The Filmaker 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It also contradicts the proposed argument-to-avoid above, "It's only a guideline/essay/proposal", which appears to be well thought out. Dcoetzee 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I would reword that considerably. To say they carry "no weight" as essays ipso facto is misleading. Whether an essay carries weight depends on the strength of the argument that an essay puts forward. People will use canned responses citing a project page saying "My opinion is summed up by Wikipedia:No snazzled frobnitzers". There are many reasons why the argument presented on WP:NSF may be invalid, but "WP:NSF is only an essay" isn't one of them. 81.104.175.145 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has changed the wording to: While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Some may see it as an embarrassment if someone's garage band later enjoy international success, though we cannot yet know this, hence such an article would have little potential. This new section is ambiguously-worded (who is the judge of what is "minor interest"? Who are the people who consider things embarrassments? Why bring up garage bands? Why make the unsupportable claim that a hypothetical article on a garage band has little potential? The article should assert notability; this assertion just muddies the water). I'm reverting this (again). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why make the even more unsupportable claim that an essay has no weight in deletion debates for no reason other than the fact that it is an essay? The new wording is fine. Leave it alone. 81.104.175.145 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DP (the relevant policy) states "Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines". According to your contribution list, you've been editing for a little over a month, clearly getting upset on WP:AFD when you cite an essay that other users don't agree with. WP:POLICY is clear: An essay is any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Essays tend to be opinionated. We don't give weight to essays because they "tend to be opinionated". They aren't actionable. WP:FAIL is an essay. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is an essay. Administrators base their AFD decisions on consensus, on the arguments presented in the debate based on policies and guidelines, not an op-ed piece someone decided to write one day. As you grow as an editor, you will come to understand why we can't base our decisions on essays. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So then, saying "delete per WP:CRUFT" is the same as saying "I think this should be deleted because of the arguments in WP:CRUFT, which I won't waste our time repeating". That has as much weight as any other opinion, which is greater than zero. -Amarkov moo! 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Amarkov! There is a difference between deleting an article because the consensus agrees that the article should be deleted, and deleting an article because an essay says the article should be deleted. You'll probably be an admin soon, right? What would you do if a user asked you why you deleted his or her article? If it was deleted because consensus agreed it violated a policy, you could say "because consensus at the AFD was..." or "because it violated policy X". If it was deleted because of a guideline, you might say "It was deleted because consensus at the AFD was..." or maybe "because it didn't conform to Wikipedia guidelines." How often might you tell someone his or her article was deleted because of an essay? It's the consensus that matters, not the essay itself. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Essays are opinionated - but so are arguments on AfD. Consensus means giving your opinion and if necessary compromising. How you give your opinion, whether by writing it inline or by citing an essay that describes it, is irrelevant to the fundamental process. Dcoetzee 01:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is why both "delete per WP:CRUFT" and the equivalent "I think this should be deleted because of the arguments in WP:CRUFT, which I won't waste our time repeating" are unhelpful: If you actually read the WP:CRUFT essay, it suggests options for dealing with "cruft" before nominating for deletion, such as posting a template and discussing on the article's talk page. On the other hand, it does say that deletion may be appropriate if the article is poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, non-neutral, or an "indiscriminate collection of information", in which case wouldn't it be better to state one or more of those reasons instead of simply citing WP:CRUFT? DHowell 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being awkward here, and finding small loopholes or situations where the general proposal doesn't fit - remember that words are not binding, but rather we act with the consent of the community. This isn't a mathematical problem - the general solution does not need to fit all specific cases (we have WP:COMMONSENSE for that). What you've said here is rather that you have a problem with the WP:CRUFT essay, or how people are applying it - which is not the same as there being a wider problem with people citing essays in general. Remember, someone saying "per X" is not saying "X says we must do this" but "my reasons for this are best summed up by X". 81.104.175.145 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think this whole damn essay is contradictory, heh... Oh well. --Jaysweet 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an article because the consensus says it will be deleted, is not an argument in any sense, and I can't see how it could ever be used as an argument--all articles at AfD are either deleted or not according to the consensus, and at speedy by the implied consensus. So I don't see it as a description either. It says it was deleted because it was deleted.

Essays are opinions, but the opinions in them are given a variable amount of weight depending on what people decide to give them. They can never determine an argument, the way an unambiguous policy does, unless everyone concern decides to accept that opinion in that case. It is rational to speak of the ground used in a particular decision, which may well include opinions either raised directly by individuals or summarized as essays. The essays are useful because they summarize and give the argument behind some frequently used opinions. The only difficulty occurs when someone tries to say that one must follow an essay. DGG 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New Argument Idea

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tawana_Brawley <--- see edison's comment, he said it best. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think another link to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would do the trick - WP:OTHERSTUFFDLETED? 81.104.175.145 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Featured Article X

Is there a good reason why the "What about Article X" argument should still apply when X is a featured article? It seems quite frankly ridiculous to me that an article should be considered suitable for deletion when there are less notable examples that have reached featured status. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 10:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Less notable"? If an article is established as notable, then it would not be an issue of whether or not one is less notable than another. If it is your opinion that one is less notable than another, you'd have to back that up by pointing out why your preferred article is notable at all (regardless of what featured article you think it is more notable than). If you cannot independently establish notability anyway, without resorting to analogy to a featured article, I would consider that analogy highly dubious. --Cheeser1 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think you have a point. Comparison to a FEATURED article should be considered valid in terms of article content. However, in terms of whether one article is "less notable" than the other... well, that's highly debatable, and I don't think just saying "this is obviously less notable" will usually prove that. --Bishop2 13:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, comparisons of notability can be pretty subjective. However, non-notability and featured article status are at opposite ends of the spectrum, so the fact that something even comes close in terms of notability to a FA (or, for what it's worth, an article that unanimously survived a bad faith AfD nomination) should be a fairly convincing point in terms of "keep". But I would agree that you may need to provide some justification for such a comparison. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring parts of other debates here. You can't win a debate by circularly referencing another debate. A bad faith AfD is all the more reason to have a good faith one, if the notability of some article is not established. Maybe it's as notable as featured article X. Prove it. That's all I ask. If you can prove it, there's no need for this analogy argument anyway. I couldn't make it any clearer, and I hope you see my point, because I'm not trying to be argumentative. --Cheeser1 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"What about X" is flawed in every instance, even if X is featured, because inclusion is (should be) decided independently of other content (see WP:INN). We don't decide what to include based on what we already have included, because Wikipedia is inherently unreliable. There are ways to approximate "encyclopaedicity" and "notability" objectively - they are relative to the field in question. Comparative notability, OTOH, is always subjective - being relative to both the field and the observer. We commonly see variations of the Pokémon test, but some sociologists might (quite validly) suggest that the phenomenon has had a greater impact on the world than an individual school, hospital, street, or village. Ultimately, when you suggest that "X is as/more notable than Y, which already has an article", you might as well be comparing Kirk and Picard. 81.104.175.145 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I think "What about X" could be a valid argument: If the arguments to delete Y would apply equally to X, and there is consensus about the inclusion of X (e.g. X is a featured article, X has consensus to keep on another AfD), then it is valid to say that the inclusion of X does say something about the invalidity of the arguments to delete Y (especially if those arguments were already addressed in discussions about X). Silly hypothetical example: If someone says "Delete Jean-Luc Picard, because The Star Trek Encyclopedia is not an independent reliable source", I think it is valid to say "What about James T. Kirk, which was kept in AfD where there was consensus that The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an independent reliable source?" DHowell 02:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer to your last point (which isn't a form of WP:WAX) is WP:CCC. "What about X" must by necessity fail because no two articles are the same, and we never compare unrelated articles. Remember, this form as detailed in the essay is specifically "Keep, because we have X" or "Delete, because we don't have/deleted Y" - which is always invalid. 81.104.175.145 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "I don't like it"

I think this particular section is confusing "I don't like it" with "Cruft" -- cruft is a valid, if not particularly effusive, argument on an AfD. Andre (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel cruft is a valid argument, because it's a little too informal and dismissive, and as such, less neutral and reasonable than desired. In a sense, it comes off as more of a personal opinion than it does a considered position. I'd prefer people not use the term cruft, but instead stuck to less loaded terms that don't tend to upset people. If you call something cruft, you may get folks who agree with you, but folks who don't agree with you could just feel you're belittling them. Not a good thing. FrozenPurpleCube 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What arguments are valid then?

Some of those listed here are obvious, common sense. But others seem to be a bit overreaching, such as those in "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Taken in whole, these seem to preclude almost every comment someone could make to "keep". This prompts me to ask, what arguments can be made which are valid? Odd nature 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to use in deletion discussions. In all seriousness, WP:RS and the notability criteria, both the general one and the more specific ones that override it.

Caveat is required

I've seen this essay used as a justification to discount comments in a way that is not consistant with actual guidelines and policy, for example to discount comments in AFDs and CFDs despite Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus saying nothing about discounting comments made in good faith. Having seen this happen several times now, I think a caveat is in order so that this essay is not abused. It needs to be made clear early on here that it in no way trumps existing policy or guidelines. Odd nature 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This essay is being given far too much weight and the community has started to take notice. FeloniousMonk 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New one

for when there's a debate for a forked off section, people have said "it's too long to merge into the main article". think this could work? Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Guideline proposal

I have seen links to this essay used frequently in numerous xfd discussions, as if it was a guideline or policy. Maybe we should make it a guideline.--Sefringle^Talk 04:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

the different parts of it are of very differing degrees of general acceptance. I agree that there should be some way of indicated the parts that are universally accepted, such as Ilikeit/Idontlikeit,but can';t thing of a way to do it, except to split them off from the main page; if we tried to fully discuss the degree of consensus for each one of them here here we'd have a verychaotic discussion. . DGG (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The line between essays/guidelines/policies always has been thin on Wikipedia. This essay is (in its current form) certainly not uncontroversial. I suggest leaving it an essay, which will not affect its usefulness in discussions. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IF it were desired, it'd be easy to put a box saying "This position enjoys high support among Wikipedia editors" versus "This has low support" in each position. I'm not sure that'd be a good idea, just picking the wording would be a problem, let alone deciding what to apply. FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggestion that this should be made a guideline. That would only encourage people to abuse the many abbreviated links to this page to WP:BASH opponents in AfD discussions. It's fine as an essay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Parallel to WP:ONLYESSAY?

I've seen people discount policy and guidelines solely because they don't like them, which is tantamount to proving a point. For example, keepers will say "I know Wikipedia isn't about everything, but it should be!" or deleters will say "I think WP:RELEVANTNOTABILITYGUIDELINE is too loose, so I'm voting delete even though this article meets it", or keepers will say "I think WP:RELEVANTNOTABILITYGUIDELINE is too stringent, so I'm voting keep even though I know this article doesn't meet it". Thoughts? Morgan Wick 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider these valid arguments - deletion is established by consensus, not any set of rules, and frequently deletion discussions are the first place reasonable exceptions to the rules show up. Of course, if you're saying "keep because verifiability doesn't really matter", well, nobody's going to listen to you. Dcoetzee 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But these people aren't finding exceptions to the rules, they just don't like the rules so they're going to ignore them at will, hoping others will do the same. Morgan Wick 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion is established by consensus about what the rules are and how they apply. Fifty people giving foolish reasons do not make consensus--the German Wikipedia does operate by counting votes to determine consensus. We do not, except to a limited extent in RfA. IAR is for when there is no rule to deal with a situation, or a rule gives an obviously unreasonable result. such occasions are very rare. In eight months here, I've not seen once when IAR was really needed to get the right result. There's an important reason for using rules

it increases the likelihood that we will agree. DGG (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually the way guidelines (not policies) are made and unmade. If most people consistently follow a particular behaviour, that becomes a guideline. If most people consistently oppose a guideline, it stops being one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Computer Bias

I'm noticing a lot of bias on wikipedia towards PC web usage. We don't seem too friendly to people trying to edit articles from a cell phone. Mathiastck 12:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion?

The Ad Infinitum Clause?

• Keep - Discount the above vote because it's obviously WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --User:InfinityThis
• Delete - Majority keep rationale is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --User:InfinityThat

In effect, citing the very essay that lists the many infamous deletion arguments, and yet you do not provide a reasonable argument yourself, is no better than saying "I like it" or "I don't like it". WP:AADD is not a cushion to fall back upon in AfD.--WaltCip 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts of this; the "discount the above !vote", and the !vote. Deprecating WP:IDONTLIKEIT - if it is - is fair and useful comment; but it is only a hairline reason to keep or delete. (I say hairline, because keep, no reason to delete; and delete no answer to nom, are both reasonable.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM

I think that this argument does not belong here. When it's a clear-cut case, and the nominator made it clear why the article should be deleted, there's nothing wrong with saying "per nom". This section says that you should provide an argument, however, sometimes the case is so simple that all arguments have already been given (you can also say "per user XX" instead of "per nom"). Melsaran 11:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying per nom or per whoever else is a perfectly valid procedure, as it means a user shares the exact same position another user already has and that's all he/she has to say. I also dispute that simply writing Delete and signing should be something to avoid. That should be just enough to endorse the nominator's arguments for (in this case) deletion. The closing admin cannot disregard the position of users who are endorsing something despite not having added any new arguments.--Húsönd 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An Afd is not a show of hands, which is what "per nom" effectively amounts to. The text does say "In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient", which addresses Melsaran's point about there sometimes simply being nothing else to say. Skeezix1000 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"only an ad / attack"

I've struck the section on "it was created as an attack page or advertisement". Being an attack page or advertisement can be grounds for speedy deletion, so it certainly can be a valid argument in deletion debates. >Radiant< 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that section is specifically about articles that were "only created for" e.g. POV-pushing, but developed into a reasonable article. I've seen arguments like "it was originally an attack page, so delete it, no matter what the contents are now" very often. Melsaran 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this is especially true for ads--speedy is only for a page that is so thoroughly advertising in tone that it cannot be reasonably rewritten into an acceptable article. So agreeing with Melsarani, I have therefore restored the section, and you might want to discuss adjusting the text to clarify the meaning. DGG (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• It definitely needs rewording, then. While I see your point, I've also seen people argue that "advertising isn't grounds for deleting a page", when it obviously is in cases described at WP:CSD. >Radiant< 09:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OTHERCRAPEXISTS misuse

A good deal of my work on Wikipedia involves participating in AfD discussions, and I've noticed that from time to time it is very helpful to reference another article. Now, this is not to suggest that an article should be used as an excuse to delete another article, but often it is purposeful to point out the similarities between two articles when drawing a comparison. For example, if two articles are on a similar topic, a person can compare the two to demonstrate what qualities one article has that makes it keepable, that the other lacks that makes it deletable (for example, notability, grounds for expansion, etc.) Essentially what I'm talking about is using one article as a standard to which to compare asimilar article. Now, this is not prohibited by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in fact, it's almost a counterargument, but often times people are quick to rush in and act as though it does. My questions are (1) Would the situation I gave be a valid argument, and (2) Would it make sense to make a change to the article to reflect that, or is it not worth the hassle? Calgary 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and similarly WP:ALLORNOTHING. Simply saying that we should keep or delete an article because another similar article exists or was deleted is useless. But making a cogent argument, and using another article or series of articles as an example to support that argument is completely reasonable. People misuse these two links to dismiss the argument because of the example, without addressing the merits of the argument. I think both of these sections are in need of a serious rethink to address these problems. Dhaluza 10:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New article?

I saw this recent addition and thought it should be discussed first, so I am moving it to the talk page:

New article

Example: Keep, the article is only a month old, give it some time. -- User:Clock 12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments that "the deletion is out of process because the article is too new" are meaningless because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. A deletion debate lasts at least five days, frequently longer, which is plenty of time to "fix" the article by e.g. adding some sources to it.

---

Many people object to nominating an article for AfD in the first minutes hours of its existence. Although the example cites a month, this argument could be used to justify deletion during the initial posting phase. Also many editors think the five day period is too short, and have argued for longer AfD durations, so the statement that five days is plenty of time may not have consensus, the five day period may just exist by default. Many editors also object to using AfD to force others to improve a particular article, and AfD's on articles in a state of flux are difficult to interpret because they involve a moving target. So, overall, I think this item is too controversial as written and needs more discussion. Dhaluza 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, I added that. It's an argument that crops up a lot, people claiming that "you can't delete this article because it's new". This is contradicted by the fact that we regularly do precisely that. The point is that it's the article's content that counts, not its age. >Radiant< 10:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't. I don't think it is so universal that the argument is invalid. It's a case by case basis. Dhaluza 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, and it came up in one recent AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrinyup Shopping Centre. In that debate, some of the "keep" editors made a number of really inappropriate comments about the nominator, some of which crossed the line set by WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, essentially suggesting that the nomination had been in bad faith because they had been given no warning, and had very little time to fix the article due to the AfD. In other words, lots of kvetching and complaining, but they all ignored the fact that the article had been around for 7 months and no one had bothered to ensure that the article asserted the notability of the subject or that it complied with WP:V. The article was kept, which I supported, and was far superior after the AfD than it had been before.

Ultimately, the appropriate timing for nominating an article for deletion should be determined over at WP:DEL. Until there are guidelines on that issue, an AfD is always a risk. Whereas I am sympathetic to the argument that newly-created articles should be left alone for short time, I also understand the argument that once an article appears in the article namespace, it is subject to all policies and guidelines and an editor who wishes to tinker with a new article should do so in his or her sandbox first. In any event, I don't think "let's ignore WP:V for awhile and see what happens" is a valid argument at any time.

I agree with the proposed text. If the subject is notable, and the article can be sourced, a few days is more than enough time to demonstrate both. If the article is deleted, it is always without prejudice to the recreation of an article that complies with WP:V and WP:N. However, I'm not sure that WP:BURO is the right reference in the text. Skeezix1000 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

but if one notices an incomplete article, the right thing to do is to improve it. Deletion is the last resort, a provision of WP:Deletion policy that seems to be ignored. There is a difference between something that will clearly never be an article and something that might be, with help. A reasonable chance should be given--this is not supposed to be an antagonistic process, but a cooperative one. At the least, putting a PROD tag on and following it up is a safe and reasonable course--it reminds the author that someone is watching, and most of the time it gets the article either improved or abandoned. If only the ones neither improved nor abandoned were sent to afd, we could pay more attention there to the real problems. Trying to fix an article at afd is the way with the highest overhead for all concerned, and involves multiple editors without necessity, when one would be enough to find the needed source. DGG (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly. The point is that "keep this article because it's salvageable" is an argument, whereas "keep this article because it's new" is not. >Radiant< 08:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All articles, even stubs, are subject to policies and guidelines. Having said that, I agree with DGG -- if there is some reason to believe that an article might be valuable, then I would (and would recommend that others) tag it or improve it rather than nominating it for AfD. However, that is a completely different issue from this one. I've been known to make the argument in AfD discussions that the current article is terrible, but I believe the subject to be noteworthy and worthy of an article, so let's keep it. However, I would never suggest that an article be kept merely because it is new and maybe someone could demonstrate that the subject is notable.Skeezix1000 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just add, if an editor comes across an article, and can discern no kernel of notability or other valid reason for the article to exist, an AfD is a perfectly valid response. It's in the discretion of the editor to decide on the most appropriate route. Sure, WP:DEL states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion", but that's contingent on having some basis to find that the page can be improved. In some circumstances, tags accomplish nothing, and I find PROD tags often cause as much offense and howls of outrage, and resulting work, as an AfD nomination (case in point, the shopping centre example mentioned above). Skeezix1000 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the valid complaints about WP guidelines is that they are not always consistent, and are sometimes contradictory. One problem with this item, is that it internally inconsistent with WP:BIG in that it states that five days is "plenty of time" to fix an article. This may be true in many cases, but as that section cautions, we don't know exactly how much time is needed in every case. It's a subjective judgment. I also agree that the WP:BURO reference is not a good explanation. Also AfD's started very soon after an article is created are controversial. So this item is just too problematic to be put in an essay that is so widely used. Dhaluza 01:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a conflict with WP:BIG, but I agree that saying that 5 days is plenty is very problematic (BTW, I don't think an article must be fixed by the end of an AfD, simply that the consensus be that it could be fixed). Generally, I think the whole section needs a rewrite. As for Afd'ing new articles, I admit it can be controversial, although why it is controversial boggles the mind -- for example, there isn't anything in WP:OR that suggests that the policy doesn't kick in until an article has been around for two months. Frankly, some editors need to become more familiar with the joys of using a sandbox. Having got that rant out of my system, however, I agree that this proposal should not be added to the essay until there has been more discussion and some consensus emerges to do so. Skeezix1000 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

there is a difference between new articles that are merely inadequate , and new articles that clearly violate WP requirements in some basic way. AfDing or for that matter Prodding or Speedying new articles that are merely inadequate harms the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "new articles that clearly violate WP requirements" and unencyclopedic topics--one of them may be fixable. It is impossible to differentiate the two in a matter of minutes, which is what some AfD nom's don't consider when they have an itchy trigger finger. Following the sound advice at WP:DEL to give the editor a reasonable amount of time to finish creating the article, and then tagging as appropriate before starting an AfD would go a long way to keeping WP a collaborative project. I don't think we need to require that editors play in a sandbox, because that is not collaborative. Dhaluza 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's useful

"It's useful" can easily be, and usually is, a perfectly valid argument. It's inclusion in this essay has lead to abuse through the discounting of valid comments, so I've removed it. Enough is enough. Odd nature 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, though. A phonebook would be useful, but it's not encyclopedic, so "List of phone numbers in Chicago" should be deleted. A dictionary would be useful too, but dictionary entries aren't encyclopedic, so they don't belong here. Usefulness isn't a reason for inclusion. -Amarkov moo! 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amarkov. "It's useful" is usually the least relevant comment in an AfD discussion. Skeezix1000 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? The usefullness of information is the only reason why Wikipedia exists. Like I said in my edit summary, 'patent nonsense.' I've yet to see a compelling or relevant justification why noting a topic's usefullness is to be avoided, and that includes the content of the section in the essay I removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Odd nature (talk • contribs).

Just because its useful, does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Amarkov provided some great examples.Skeezix1000 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia has a scope- it's an encyclopedia. A car is useful, but this doesn't mean we're trying to let people drive to work in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. An encyclopedia article is usually useful, but everything useful isn't necessarily encyclopedic. Therefore, this is not a particular valid argument, on its own, in an AfD discussion.Skeezix1000 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well both the argument "It's useful" and this essay have scopes as well, and latter is stretching the former by extending it ridiculous lengths. What we need is a thoughtful list of obviously specious arguments, not a string of discussion-terminating cliches misapplied to discount valid comments, "It's useful" being the most obvious example. So far I've only seen non-anlogous examples, more discussion-terminating cliches, tossed here. I've yet to see an analogous example, such as an article, where "It's useful" is not a valid comment. Odd nature 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to define "article" to mean "encyclopedic article", then no, there are no counterexamples. But the point is that "it's useful" is irrelevant, because things still must be encyclopedic. -Amarkov moo! 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature, if you're unconvinced by the arguments here and the content you keep removing, then perhaps there's nothing to be said to convince you. However, this does not give you the right to edit war to make the page reflect your own personal opinion. You've made a bold change, there was no support for it, and it's been reverted. When there is disagreement like this, don't just keep putting the page back the way you like it. Friday (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My mind is open to other arguments, the problem is those given so far are even more lacking then the XFD comments this essay attempts to address. Apparently you've failed to notice that there's no consensus shown for keeping it as-is either: so far three editors support keeping it in and two do not. That's barely qualifies as support, much less consensus. As for your description of my edits to the page ("don't just keep putting the page back the way you like it") One reversion does not an edit war make. If you're going to lecture me, at least get the level of for/against right and leave out the pants wetting about 'edit warring'. Odd nature 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I think Odd nature is being a bit too WP:BOLD, which is distracting from his point, there is a point to be discussed. The examples of useful but non-encyclopedic things only shows that "It's useful" can not be used as a conclusive test--it shows the correlation is less than 1.0. In order for it to be an argument to avoid, it would have to be virtually uncorrelated--the correlation would have to be near zero. For example, "It's red" would be an argument to avoid, because there is no known correlation between color and encyclopedic suitability. But WP is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of the readers, so the usefulness of information to the reader can be relevant. There is some non-zero correlation. "It's useful" would not be an argument to keep an article that is wholly WP:OR or completely unsuitable for some other reason, but in the subjective discussions that often occur at XFD, subjective arguments are valid. Unfortunately this essay, and this section in particular, is used to cut off discussion, by dismissing arguments as out of bounds, without addressing their substance. Dhaluza 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheareas I don't really understand the point (points?) Odd Nature seems to be trying to make, Dhaluza's points are well taken. Dhaluza is right: "'It's useful' would not be an argument to keep an article that is wholly WP:OR or completely unsuitable for some other reason" - we've all seen articles like "List of Shopping Mall Opening Hours in Edmonton, Alberta" which do not belong in Wikipedia, no matter how useful that particular one might be to a shopper in Edmonton. "It's useful" is not a helpful or relevant response to an article that is proposed for deletion due to WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, etc. I also agree, of course, that many arguments made in an AfD are subjective -- the discussion around notability often tends to be quite subjective. I suppose that if the proposed deletion is based on WP:NN, "it's useful" could be relevant in a borderline case where there are differing views of the notability of the subject (much the same way that WP:NOTPAPER is used - i.e. if in doubt, let's keep it). I'm not sure personally that it would be a particularly compelling argument, but it shouldn't be dismissed entirely in that context. Dhaluza, are there other scenarios where you would see "it's useful" as valid? Skeezix1000 12:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that "It's useful" is not alone a justification for an article, and I do not think that Odd Nature meant to say that. It's a consideration however, differing in different types of articles. I don't think it's necessarily borderline, or that it necessarily goes towards keeping the article: the information in many school articles in some sense would be useful, but essentially equally accessible and useful information is to be found elsewhere. Lists of stores in shopping malls may seem useful, but they are in most cases not actually as useful as the mall's web site. And there is one special case: Those lists intended primarily for browsing and orientation, and other organizational articles should in large part to be judged on whether it in fact does serve as a useful guide or organizational device. DGG (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think DGG has come up with a notable exception that shows that this section at least needs address more directly. For list articles, usefulness, or uselessness, is probably a valid argument. While I have seen a lot of frivolus "who needs this" arguments which should not be taken seriously, a list should at minimum be useful in some encyclopedic context. Dhaluza 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I dissent. For list articles especially, "useful" is just an alternative way of saying "I like it". I'm sure somebody could come up with a possible usage for List of celebrities with breast implants, meaning it's de facto useful, but that doesn't make it a valid argument for retaining such an arbitrary/POV/OR/unencyclopedic list. >Radiant< 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, as discussed above, just because some "useful" arguments are invalid, like the one you cite, that does not make them all invalid. Only an argument which is almost always invalid should appear here, not just one that is sometimes or even frequently invalid. Are you dissenting because you think this section is useful? Dhaluza 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness is never a valid argument. It may be that something should be kept, and is useful, but it's not because it's useful that it should be kept. Of course, that only applies to AfD, but so do many other arguments on the page. -Amarkov moo! 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As this essay points out, some pages like redirects and disambiguation exist strictly for usability, so never say never. Beyond that, AfD is often subjective, so subjective arguments like "it's useful" can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Dhaluza 10:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that is why we don't have a policy forbidding people to make that argument. >Radiant< 10:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's why this is an essay, not a guideline. Melsaran (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on both points above, this essay is often cited with the air of authority of policy to dismiss these arguments. Dhaluza 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This page seems to be effectively a guideline, yes. However, I'm sure some people will scream bloody murder if that fact is pointed out. >Radiant< 09:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New one: Hopeless cases

I'd like to add this in somewhere if possible:

Surmountable problem

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

Examples:

• Delete It's not referenced properly --Lazy1 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete It's written in-universe --Lazy2 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete There are currently no reliable sources --Lazy3 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep It'll be cleaned up eventually --I'llGetRoundToIt 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep We'll find some sources eventually --NotRightNow 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

It's very easy for editors to consider an article for AfD based solely on its current state. Instead, try to consider the article's potential for improvement. If an article is written in the wrong style, tense, person or format, it can be rewritten. If an article is not verifiable, references can be added. Instead of arguing over the problems in an AfD, go out and fix them! AfDs are not a way to make a problem disappear. AfDs are for getting rid of hopeless cases. If an article has no reliable sources, and there are no reliable sources to be found, then the article has a problem with reliable sources and verifiability.

On the other hand, simply arguing that "we'll find some sources" or "it's possible to rewrite it" is equally useless. If it's possible to improve an article, why haven't you already done it? Saying "there are sources available" is useless; saying "I've found these sources ([1], [2] and [3]) and I'm now going to add them to the article" is very useful.

Also note that "eventually" does not mean "in ten years time" but rather "when people get round to doing what needs to be done". Arguing that the 2060 Summer Olympics does not fail Wikipedia:Notability because reliable sources will appear in the 2050s is not a valid argument. Nor is saying that it doesn't matter that the Great Dungbomb conspiracy is written from an in-universe perspective because eventually the truth will out and reveal that it's not a conspiracy. Ask the question, "If a thousand editors worked all day on this article, would it still qualify for deletion?" If the answer is no, become one of those editors.

Does anyone have any comments? Also, does anyone object to archiving this page, because it's ridiculously long. Happy-melon 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument isn't always true, though. If an article has no sources, that may be because nobody's done the work of adding them, but it may also be because no sources exist. And also, if it's been shown that nobody is willing to do the work that would be needed to make the article good, it shouldn't be kept, even if the work would be clearly possible. -Amarkov moo! 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The first point is exactly what I mean - "there are no sources" is only a reasonable argument if no sources exist to add. for the second point, remember that there is no deadline and, as long as the current content is not actually offensive in any way (ie libelous, copyvio, downright wrong, etc) it shouldn't matter if it stays that way (with appropriate cleanup tags plastered all over it) until it is eventually fixed. AfD is for things that can't be fixed by editing. Happy-melon 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this addresses an important point in a well balanced manner, not favoring either keep or delete. Dhaluza 13:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RUBBISH -81.178.126.124 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that that section is a rather poorly phrased and overly specific way of saying what I'm trying to say. The proposal above covers WP:RUBBISH, so could perhaps replace it, but is broader in scope to cover more classes of bad argument. Happy-melon 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged this into the WP:RUBBISH section. Dhaluza 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ITSHARD

Similar to what is proposed just above, but with a somewhat different focus... I have seen several !votes that are along the lines of:

• Article X will be difficult to maintain
• Article X has had lots of problems from biased/vandalistic/S.P.A. editors
• Article X might have/has had numerous edit wars

I've seen some proposals for additions about articles being POV magnets and so on, but has anything come of it? I may have missed the addition to the main essay if so. In any event, what about a WP:ITSHARD link that either goes to its own section outlining that this is not really a commentary on the state of the article, or redirects to another (appropriate) section of the arguments to avoid list? This would be more general that citing specific problems or potential problems that are often raised as irrelevant reasons to delete. ◄Zahakiel► 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be something worth adding to this page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is different from the examples above. "Not referenced properly", "in universe", "currently no reliable sources", are all surmountable problems. We can fix them, if only we try hard enough. But ITSHARD can be a valid reason. If the consensus really is that the article can't be maintained in a reasonable state, that the problems from bias won't go away, or that there will be no end to the edit wars, then it might actually be worth deleting the page. (Actually, edit wars aren't so much of an issue, as long as the contents at any given time are coherent and within policy/guidelines.)

If an article can't be of good quality, for some reason, that's a reason to delete it, in my opinion. -- BenBildstein 06:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I'm proposing. I am not talking about articles that are impossible to maintain or source. I am talking about pointing out that arguments to delete based upon the difficulty of maintaining an article against vandals, POV pushers, anon. IPs that keep adding irrelevant information is not an argument against either the article itself or the topic it explains. Just being "hard" (a highly subjective term anyway) is not a reason to delete anything. ◄Zahakiel► 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this addition. The claim that some list or category is "unmaintainable" is a weak argument; it does not address the merits of the page, but the diligence (or lack of same) of editors. Hell, the High Command has ordained that there must be a Category:Living people - that strikes me as the ultimate "unmaintainable" page, but it exists and people do in fact maintain it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTINHERITED

Hi, could use some help with this, i was wondering, i get the gist of NotInherited, e.g. one notable person joining a group/club/etc doesn't make the group notable, but what if it's several notable people, e.g. a student newspaper, with several notable former editors. Does that make it notable or not? thanks--Jac16888 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability in a nutshell says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So if several notable people join an otherwise not notable group, this may make the group notable, but only if the inclusion of the new notable people has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Imagine Tom Cruise and George Bush join the Noobsville Primary School Parents and Friends association. Does that mean that NPS P&F is now notable? You might think so, but no, it doesn't. Not from what I've said so far. But if it turns out that lots of reliable sources, independent of NPS P&F, cover Bush and Cruise's joining the Parent's and Friends association, then yes, it will become a notable subject. The group become notable, not because the notable people joined it, but because it has now received significant coverage from independent sources.

However, I should point out that it could be argued that the P&F association isn't really what's notable, but rather that what is notable is the event of Cruise and Bush joining. Because that's what we are really going to write about. We're still not going to write about what kind of biscuits they serve during the tea break. -- BenBildstein 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop voting

I haven't been around that long, but it seems like it's current practice to start your comment on an AfD with delete, keep, merge, etc. And then, if you're a good Wikipedian, include some reasoning (because you recognise that AfD is not a poll).

I guess people think that the important part is to voice their conclusion (delete, keep, etc.), and the reasoning is less important. But if we know that the reverse is actually true, why don't we just post our reasoning, and not post our conclusion. To steal someone else's examples (forget the content, I'm talking about the form):

• Keep, an Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. --Countvonnotable 04:56, 7 August 2006
• Delete, an Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. --Notbigenough 04:56, 7 August 2006

This would then become:

• An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. --Countvonnotable 04:56, 7 August 2006
• An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. --Notbigenough 04:56, 7 August 2006

Or even:

• I think an Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. --Countvonnotable 04:56, 7 August 2006
• I think an Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 'is not notable. --Notbigenough 04:56, 7 August 2006

Forgetting the (in)validity of the arguments (we all know big numbers don't make notability), doesn't the third version read a whole lot more like a discussion? Such a simple change, but suddenly we're being engaging.

The first version has connotations. It's really a statement. When I read "keep for reason X", I don't feel I can argue. Your statement is that you want to keep the article because of reason X. I can't argue that you don't. In the latter, you're making an observation. An observation the closing admin can, should and will take into consideration. And it's an observation I feel I can argue with.

Does anyone else feel the same way? Has this been discussed before? Is this even tre right place to discuss it? Why do we phrase comments as votes? Is it just historical? What would be the best way to start to change this practice, given there is so much momentum in that direction?

Anyway, this is just a thought I felt obliged to share.

-- BenBildstein 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a very good idea. >Radiant< 09:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think you'll get many people to agree to leave out their conclusions... and having the users' reasoning preceded by their final opinion has never prevented an argument/discussion that I've seen. I think the conclusions right up front are a very useful way to tally the general "feel" for the contributors. It's not about vote-counting, that's true, but the list of conclusions is a fast and fairly accurate way to get an idea of the discussion. Also, you're going to get into all kinds of trouble with ambiguous statements... there are sometimes subtle differences between (for example) merge and keep, delete and keep, split and merge, etc. The stated opinions tell the closing admin and other users exactly what the contributor feels should be done. ◄Zahakiel► 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad idea. Opens the door to personal interpretations of the commentors intent and all the ambiguity that will come with that. Very bad idea. Odd nature 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While AfD is not a vote, the general conclusions do matter. Furthermore, it seems like more and more often admins use the *fD-is-not-a-vote as an excuse to ignore consensus completely. This proposal would further encourage that problem. JoshuaZ 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the existing language. The notion that an Xfd is not just a vote anticipates that users will (1) make their individual judgments/conclusions clear, typically in bold letters, and (2) participate in a discussion with the idealized goal of achieving consensus. Clear consensus often is unattainable, or at least unattained, in practice. Those votes are there for a reason, which is to tally up the number of users who assert they fall on a particular side of the debate. And those bolded statements of preference for the outcome greatly reduce the likelihood that users will accuse the admin of misrepresenting their judgments and preferences for the outcome, so admins do not constantly end up having to argue in DrVs and on talk pages that "Oh, I thought you were arguing something else", or whatever the misunderstanding may be. The bold statement "keep", or "delete" or "redirect", or whatever, makes the position explicit. Additionally, changing this language opens the door for unfettered administrative discretion or even outright abuse. Further yet, admins are already stretched almost to the limit maintaining these things. It is not the admin's required function in most cases to divine what all the relevant arguments are in every case and what the proper conclusion is, but rather to respect the consensus, or lacking clear consensus, to respect the majority preference at least, unless there is a clearly defined, explicitly stated, justifiable reason for an administrative override. If they have the time to do dig in and understand all the arguments and implications in great detail, all the better. But lacking a clearly defined administrative dictum agreed among the administrative community to be in clear need of enforcement irrespective of user preferences, the majority in a proceeding with conflicting opinions generally will prevail. Otherwise, who would want to participate in a merely advisory capacity for the administrative staff? --part of what's important about participating in this project is the perception that one actually has a voice in the issues, and the clearest way to state that voice in an Xfd is to start one's statement with "Keep" or "Delete" or "Comment [presently undecided because....", etc. Moreover, the ability of persons involved in tendentious argumentation to prevail with a bunch of fancy rhetoric that rings hollow to the other participants would be enhanced, effectively silencing a consensus and depending on the intensive analysis of the closing admin. The vote tally is also a very reasonable way to double check the admin's decision after it's over; admins are human after all, and do have biases. With the vote tally, it is possible to refer back to a proceeding and request or even demand an explanation why the clear majority or consensus was overruled. Without the vote tally, all you end up with is more back-and-forth gobbledygook in a contested case. ... Kenosis 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying, but it comes across sounding more and more like AfD is a vote. Or that "consensus is when more than half agree". Can you explain what you see as the difference? For example, how can an admin not read the discussion, count people's conclusions, and not be effectively conducting a poll? And per what you are saying, what exactly is the point of including reasoning or comments? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't understand. -- BenBildstein 00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just gave six or seven reasons why the existing language "not 'just a vote'" should not, IMO, be changed to "do not vote". There are many more, but I don't have adequate time to articulate them here at the moment; maybe over the weekend. But here's a couple more very quickly. An XfD is generally a contested proceeding to begin with. The ideal is that a consensus is achieved one way or the other based on the merits of the arguments with little or no objection at the end--sometimes this happens. Quite often, though, there are two competing camps. Arguments and counterarguments are exchanged, etc., as I imagine you know, and an administrator must close the proceeding. Ordinarily the administrator would be expected to make an assessment of consensus, but 1) may already be in one camp or the other, where the clearest way to remain objective is to count up how many participants have clearly stated which camp they are in; or 2) simply does not have adequate time to spend taking in and digesting arguments that the participants may know in greater depth because they are familiar with the particular X that's been nominated for deletion. Not everybody has forever to spend on each proceeding becoming intimately familiar with it. There are other scenarios too, which actually occur, so they're not just hypothetical speculation. The ideal is that the administrator is uninvolved, but an uninvolved admin often is not familiar with the arguments. Thus, in addition to the debate and any attempts to form consensus, it is wise, indeed necessary as a matter of practice, to make explicit what each user's preference is. It there are, say 13 keeps and 4 deletes or vice-versa, that obviously is a strong consensus with several users disagreeing. If the opinions are more evenly divided, say 9 to keep, 10 to delete, that's not a conensus, and ordinarily the status quo is expected to prevail (can't cite you the project page that asserts that at the moment). Yet, both of these hypothetical proceedings could easily appear equally argumentative to someone unfamiliar with the discussion. Each user's explit statement of preference, however, allows the closing admin to make an assessment of how many users ended up expressing which preference, i.e. what their vote was for the outcome. Contested cases would frequently be chaos without these markers. If a particular user, or set of users, has a strong enough argument, that user often can influence and even change others' positions, part of the consensus process of course, and when such a user changes position, that user need only strike through their prior preference and enter a new one, e.g. ("keep""delete"). Thus, voting in and of itself does not inherently conflict with the consensus process. I'm out of here for now. Talk with ya' later. ... Kenosis 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD's not being a poll means that the closing admin. is not bound by the mere "majority wins" rule. In other words, he/she is free to disregard the raw number of "keeps" if the reasons given are, "Keep because I like this article." Conversely, if the votes are 5 to 7 in favor of deletion, but 4 of the "delete" votes are, "I don't think this article has enough sources," the article can still be kept according to the evaluation policy. It essentially allows the administrator to "weight" the keeps/deletes/merges according to how good the arguments are. This is why just saying "keep" or "delete" tends to get disregarded, but it doesn't mean that the ratio of opinions is entirely useless... it does play a role. ◄Zahakiel► 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. That really is useful. So do you think it's fair to summarise this situation as follows: it is a vote, but where the closing admin gets to decide how many votes each voter gets, based on their reasoning or lack thereof? This seems to be the current practice, and indeed it makes sense, and if this is so then I can say I do now understand the difference between consensus and voting. -- BenBildstein 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, this is very close to the principle of "not just a vote" as I understand it. There are exceptions in every direction, and different schools on how exactly to interpret all this of course. But the logging of clearly stated preferences for the outcome--indeed call them "votes", is important to keeping track of the process. It allows each user to make precise what their assertion for the preferred outcome in fact is== there it is in black and white, so to speak. ... Kenosis 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the existing language per Kenosis. This just seems like a new age feel good politically correct way of trying to take the perceived negativity out of a delete vote. Just more Utopian nonsense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, I'll keep my Utopian mouth shut next time. -- BenBildstein 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do you realize how silly you look bolding your so-called votes in a simple discussion here? >Radiant< 08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Actually I think that was intentional, as a bit of a comment in and of itself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Me too. I thought it was pretty neat. Kind of a double entendre. It might be silly if the vote was good idea or such. -- BenBildstein 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement

I've seen this come up a few times this week so I thought it could stand a little discussion here. Based upon its very frequent usage in deletion debates, and the widely accepted fact that these kinds of arguments should (in most cases) not be used and be discounted by the closer, it follows that for all practical purposes this page is a guideline. It's still not set in stone and has a number of exceptions, and nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, but it is obvious that this page is more important and more supported than just some random opinion piece. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree for three reasons. First, I am not convinced that it has consensus support, given the presence of the WP:BASH essay (which also raises some points which one may or may not agree with). Second, it is not clear to me whether the examples of arguments presented here are "invalid", "not so good", "OK, but not very solid" and so on, rather it is very situation dependent. Even for a guideline, it is not solid enough. Third, and most importantly I think people will be misquoting this page even more so than WP:POINT is misused today. I have seen this essay quoted in ridiculous places. For example on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive an argument pointing out the verifiability and sourcability, "Keep all - the information is actually verifiable by third party sources. OAG publishes a list of every route served by every airline in the world. As we mentioned before, simplying copying that list would be excessive, however, the OAG lists can easily be used to compile a destination list for each airline." was met with an "ILIKEIT" quote! The most common misuse I have seen is people finding one flaw in a someone's argument... a line in the argument where someone hints that the article is intersting to someone, and is then met by "see WP:INTERESTING" to refute what is otherwise a sound reason. In short, people using this argument not to point out flaws in someone's reasoning, but as a way of dismissing views they disagree with. I fear that this kind of (mis)use of the "arguments to avoid" page will get even worse if it is given status as a guideline.

I am not trying to say that this page is useless. Although I have some issues with it sometimes, it is good food for thought, and reasonable advice for people participating in AFDs. I think it is best left as an essay to advise people, not as a guideline to instruct people. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The danger with such reasoning is that it's essentially saying "yes, it's a guideline, but if we admit that, people might use it in the wrong way, so we had best pretend it isn't one". The problem that people can misunderstand pages, is not alleviated by attempting to protect people from themselves by not calling things as they are. >Radiant< 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But it it remains an essay, then at those who understand that--as all of us here do--will be able to point that out, when people use it too strongly and literally in a discussion. As it is, people try to apply these rules as if they were foundational principles. If this were called a guideline, they would do so all the more, and then the exact wording would matter even more. There's more chance of agreement of what to say if we continue to say its an essay--that while it may be in some measure based upon the actual guidelines, its just a convenient way of looking at things and talking about common situations. DGG 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it feels like a guideline. Heck, I do think it reflects consensus. The other thing I wanted to mention is that it is probably, in effect, a guideline for closing admins, too. In a sense, you could read it as "feel free to (semi-)ignore these kinds of arguments." I don't know if that's happening, though, but perhaps there's no way to know. -- BenBildstein 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would support turning this into a guideline:

first, it helps establish basic props that can be used in support of policies. Too much stuff gets kept on AfD in clear violation of WP policies (e.g. Snowball the dog), simply because of mass Ilikeit, don't-ruin-Wikipedia, other-stuff-exists style discussion. A guideline like this would be salutary in helping provide proper focus on policies. Second, I echo Ben's point above. Closing discussions needs more intelligence. A guideline like this could be useful to introduce that. Eusebeus 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would support it being a guideline also. The essay has had a lot of attention from various editors, and certainly just about everyone who's ever participated in an AfD has seen a link to this page somewhere, so it's obviously very well known. I've never heard any real rebuttals against any of the suggestions it makes, except for the obvious, "Well, that's just an essay." As a guideline it can still be put aside if other reasonable positions show it to be ineffective in particular cases, but as a guideline I think it would legitimize the very frequent use it currently sees by editors all along the deletionist-inclusionist spectrum. ◄Zahakiel► 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would strongly oppose this essay becoming a guideline. I take it that you are just testing the waters rather than formally proposing to make this a guideline, so I won't go into detail about my problems with this essay. I can expound at length if you want.

-Fagles 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just noticed that there was a similar discussion a month ago. You may be interested in looking at the comments there. Some good reasons not to make this a guideline were also mentioned in February -Fagles 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I read that... a few editors did chime in with concerns. It may be worth opening it up to the community at large to see what the responses might be. I agree there is a potential for some users to employ it as a means to bash, but they do that with the existing policies and guidelines anyway. I'm not sure if any of the concerns raised are both major and unfixable. I'd be curious to see what a discussion about the essay becoming a guideline would look like. ◄Zahakiel► 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing that we change anything, and "formal" proposals don't exist on Wikipedia in the first place. This is not a matter of something "becoming" something else, this is the simple matter of recognizing how a page is used in actuality. The word "guideline" is clearly defined in any dictionary, and does not (despite popular belief) have a different meaning on Wikipedia. And of course these things are not decided by voting on them, it's a simple matter of checking the facts. Therefore, does anyone have a plausible rebuttal to the CONTENT of this page? >Radiant< 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merely because a number of users, in actual practice, sometimes use WP:ATA in attempts to jockey into position to override the common practice of using "consensus counts" or "vote counts" often used by the closing administrators in deciding which way a deletion discussion went, is not a reason to make WP:ATA into a guideline. It's a set of suggestions, and a farily loose-knit set of suggestions at that. In a word, it's an opinion piece. The word "guideline" in Wikipedia, at least thus far, implies something stronger than what this essay actually is. The reason is this: Until less than two years ago there were only three policies in Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR, with one procedural policy, WP:Consensus. Since then, a several more dictates have become WP:Policy, and the list of WP:Guidelines has grown increasingly lengthy (see the present list of policies and the present list of guidelines on the right hand side of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines page). To make a page such as "Arguments to avoid in X-type of discussion" a guideline, would be trying to make something that is inherently advisory into a de facto mandate, equivalent with WP:MOS and other such guidelines. It is not equivalent, but is actually a loosely assembled set of practical advice. ... Kenosis 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That isn't actually true; there were many policies even before that, such as the deletion policy, blocking policy, and civility policy. There have been nearly no new policies since 2004. >Radiant< 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The rebuttal, Radiant!, is that the individual points are not well enough establish, and have different degrees of acceptance. If you make this a guideline,there will be renewed disputing over every one of them--or most os them--because then the exact wording will become very important. Leave well enough alone. If you think something needs to be upgraded into a guideline, suggest it specifically. I think of this as a convenient reference manual. I wouldnt mind having a rule that nobody may link to it from an AfD debate--its a substitute for saying what one actually means. DGG (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• So the point is that there are people who misunderstand what "guideline" means, and for their sake we should contribute to this confusion by obfuscating how a page is used in practice. Sorry, but I think that's a really bad idea. >Radiant< 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay, and a very poor one at that that is often misused to dismiss and ignore consensus as defined actual guideline at WP:DGFA. I for one, and about eight or so admins I've spoken to all feel strongly that this essay is a Bad Idea and will not be made a guideline for all the reasons made here previously, despite a small handfull's best efforts. Odd nature 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know a vote was going on, but I'll make my opinion here. This is just a method to ignore consensus, and for a select few admins to have "superpowers" to get their way. I agree with Odd Nature completely. Let this drop and go back to the way it was done. Oh by the way, it is a poorly written essay.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote, just some editors discussing the possibility. ◄Zahakiel► 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a possibility it ranks down there with the Bushista guideline that the "presidentiary" is above the law. In other words, it's a sucky idea. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Second the sucky. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay and should remain so. It's bad enough when admins use this essay as an excuse to override clear consensus, it will only get worse if this is made into a guideline. Orangemarlin summarized the issue well. JoshuaZ 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of appeal to emotion and proof by assertion. Well, I suppose people will just keep on using this page as a guideline, like we've been doing for over half a year, and people can keep deceiving themselves by asserting it isn't. The fallacy you're making is that preventing common practice from being written down doesn't make it any less common practice, it merely makes Wikipedia more confusing for novice users. >Radiant< 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can claim that it's a de facto guideline all you want, but the fact remains that it is an essay that is not widely accepted, viewed only as valid by a very narrow group, and is used with some contention by same. The reason for this is there's an essential fact that stands in the way of this ever gaining consensus as policy: It allows for the discounting of good faith comments, regardless of how well or ill-reasoned, it flies in the face of an actual guideline, WP:DGFA#Rough_consensus, which has no provision for discounting comments made in good faith, only bad faith. Now there have been plenty of times that those with an interest in a particular outcome have misused this essay to ignore a rough consensus, and there will be those times when those who find their comments disregarded will blindly accept Radiant's claim that this is as good as a guideline. But as long as this remains an essay, editors making comments and admins closing xFDs are free to ignore this, and I encourage them to do so as long it remains so overreaching (there are apparently no arguments that are valid) and violates an actual guideline. Odd nature 23:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The combination of the two arguments above would imply to me that even the label "essay" is too strong. Perhaps the actual problem for using this as a guideline is the ambiguous nature of the individual items. ILIKEIT is perhaps the most widely used, and the most often widely used one correctly, for it is not much of an argument, but I have seen it applied--wrongly-- to even serious arguments for the importance of things. I do not however thing that DGFA contradicts the use of these factors--in addition to providing for the discounting of bad faith debates, it talks, correctly, about the relative strength of arguments. Perhaps we should retitle this as a guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates. DGG (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this esasay does contain some wisdom, and with continued work it can be improved. It should not be elevated to policy at this time, because it still needs significant development. For example, we have discussed whether arguments that are sometimes, or even often, but not always invalid should be avoided, and therefore included here. Also many of the examples were unbalanced in favor of either delete or keep, and many have been nominally addressed, but this still needs further work. This page still needs to be actively developed, and elevating it to policy will hinder that. But I think it does provide a useful forum for discussing how to keep deletion discussions productive, and it may ultimately shape future policy, though not necessarily in this form. Dhaluza 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In WP, some guidlines are seen by a number of users as de-facto policies that typically take a very strong reason to override. It doesn't necessarily follow that they should all be called "policies", which have a stronger weight of authority. Same with "essays" that are seen by some users as de-facto guidelines. The very title of this essay says "essay" or " some practical advice" loud and clear. It is inherently a supplement to the project pages on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#General_advice), and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators (WP:DGFA). This, on the other hand, is a set of opinions, so to speak, about what is suggested by its editors not to argue in deletion discussions. And in fact, some of the advice contained in it is very commonly abused in asserting, e.g., that a deletion debate is "not a vote", which is a takeoff on "not just a vote" brought to bear when a minority seeks to overtake a majority in a debate. In other words, the situation's already covered by the four project pages I just mentioned, and the "advice" in this essay is already more than adequately confusing as it is without trying to turn a set of "arguments to avoid" into a "guideline". .. Kenosis 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd throw in my opinion on the whole "overriding consensus". I don't think consensus was ever intended to allow inappropriate articles to be snowballed in to wikipedia simply by allowing interested parties to throw on keep "votes" that do nothing to address policy issues in articles and fall in line with many of the arguments made in this essay. if 2 or 3 people make concise and compelling arguments as to why something should be deleted based on policies and guidelines and half a dozen people show up and say "keep it because its Tuesday", there is no reason that should be interpreted as a consensus to keep the article because you're ignoring the larger consensus that was used to form those policies and guidelines. I can't count the amount of times I've found and article and thought "why is this here?" checked the talk page and saw it was previously up for deletion and checking that AfD, not found an actual compelling reason for keeping the article. Instead a "majority" was formed based on ILIKEIT statements (and usually nothing but those). --Crossmr 06:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Balance

In an attempt to overcome some of the problems raised above, I have tried to balance the keep/delete uses of these arguments in a few cases. (Adding some either way--trying for matched pairs) DGG (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputing the addition of "ITSSOURCED" section

This was added to the essay a few days ago, and I think it needs serious discussion, first and formost because the presence of sources is a perfectly reasonable point to make in what I would guess is well over half the AFD debates.

The presence of sourcing is not an unsubstantiated "point of view" like "interesting", "I don't care", "I don't like it", "I like it" and so on. It is a matter which strikes right at the core of the verifiability policy, and straight into the heart of the notability guideline ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject").

OK, we can hold a discussion on whether the sources in a particular article are reliable, and if they are significant, and I agree that just counting the number of bullet points in the "reference" section is too superficial. But I fear that the presence of a section like this will, more than any other, encourage the dismissal of valid arguments which are based on what is a fairly objective standard for notability and verifiability. It is not an "argument to avoid", but rather an argument which needs to be applied and used with a little common sense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Sjakkalle, so strongly that I removed the section. If we reach consensus, it can be readded. UnitedStatesian 14:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's way too frequently used as in "the article is sourced so KEEP, it must be notable". Yes, the fact that an article is sourced is often an indicator of notability, but not always. Likewise, "it's sourced" is not always an argument to avoid, but if it is used as the sole argument for keeping or deleting an article while there are other concerns, it is often a flawed argument. The "ITSSOURCED" section does in no way assert that sources are irrelevant in deletion debates. Melsaran (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To your "but not always" statement, can you give an example of where an article was properly sourced (i.e. significant coverage in sources that were reliable and independent), but still not notable? UnitedStatesian 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall an example right now, but it happens a lot. I just saw this prod nomination, which is a typical example of someone thinking "it is unsourced therefore it's not notable". Melsaran (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an example of an article where the ITSSOURCED argument was used in the AfD discussion, and many other editors found it be invalid: Cultural depictions of Medusa and gorgons (the result was keep, though...)

I don't have a specific example, but one way something could be well sourced but not encyclopedic would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. You can have sources coming out the wazoo, but it can still be an essay and not an encyclopedia article.

Personally, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the ITSSOURCED section being added here. I tend to be a little inclusionist when it comes to stuff like Cultural depictions of Medusa and gorgons, because I think it adds value and does not significantly dilute the mission on Wikipedia. heh, in other words, my opinion tends to run along the lines that if WP:ITSSOURCED and WP:ITSUSEFUL and it's WP:HARMLESS, I tend to lean towards keep, even though each of those arguments on its own is insufficient. Which maybe means I am ignoring WP policy anyway and should keep my mouth shut! ;D --Jaysweet 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Heh. I wrote my own version of WP:ITSSOURCED, quite unaware that it existed once upon a time, but found this section. Since I discovered that it was disputed, I moved it to User:Duja/It's sourced, so I feel I'd submit it for further reconsideration. In the meantime, I'll study the Melsaran's original.
I've seen many arguments of similar kind in deletion debates for articles which violate WP:SYN, such as infamous "Allegations of apartheid" series, or "Anti-fooian sentiment". Duja► 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Extending/Adding another example to "I like it."

Does anyone object to me adding another example to this section, namely "Jimbo Wales likes it." While I have much admiration for the (co-?)founder of Wikipedia, it is a very stupid reason to keep/delete something, especially when Jimbo made that comment a few months ago. I see this reason very often which is why I want to add it somewhere. Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section

The whole "cruft" in arguments on AfDs just sounds silly. Saying "delete, because it's cruft" does not read like something one would expect in a mature encyclopedic argument. Therefore, we should urge editors not to use the word "cruft" in arguments. I accordingly recommend that someone add a section to that effect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT do that? I agree that the "cruft" argument is silly, and I avoid using it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cruft should fail notability requirements anyway, so there's no need to explicitely mention it in AfDs. --54x 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OTHERCRAP Shortcut Issues

Is there some reason why we have WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a shortcut? I'm not disputing the policy behind it (I've used WP:WAX plenty in reply to the "But what about X" arguments). Rather, isn't it a bit bitey, given that we have OTHERSTUFF? I understand that there is actually plenty of crap on wikipedia, but having a shortcut that actually calls it that seems needlessly inflammatory. Since editors are likely to keep using it, I'm not sure what the best direction for action would be, but first I'd like to see if there's any consensus for a change. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Put it up for RfD. I would probably support deletion, as it's needlessly inflammatory (although some people would cite WP:DICK as an example of a precedent for keeping offensive shortcuts). Walton^One 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we counter with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, or does that get too circular? :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see [[Talk:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] for previous deletion attempts. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I went and read the RfD's right after I posted. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New section proposed

I propose to add a new section as follows:

Wikipedia-is-not-isms

Example:

• Keep, Wikipedia is not censored. NotCensored 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not MySpace. NotMyspace 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"While Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a core policy that helps to define Wikipedia's fundamental mission, it is not always helpful when applied to individual situations, and is not a trump card that absolves you of the need to construct a rational argument. This is especially true in miscellany for deletion discussions, as projectspace and userspace pages do not need to be held to the same standards as encyclopedic content. When debating whether to delete such a page, try to explain how the deletion will actually benefit Wikipedia, rather than just citing "what Wikipedia is not". If the page is in a user's userspace, consider whether deleting the page may drive that user away from Wikipedia; also, consider the general impact of deletions on the strength and cohesion of the Wikipedia community."

Does anyone object to me adding the above wording into the essay? Walton^One 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is that it is along the same veins as WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If you want to add it, go ahead, but I suggest putting it under the "just a policy" section instead of as a new section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward with the ITSHARD idea

I've tried to put together some proposed language on the ITSHARD idea.

It's too difficult / It's easy

Example

• Keep - Only a couple cuckoo clocks that are also gumball machines were ever built, so we can have articles about each of them. - User:Cuckoogum
• Delete - This article is attractive to vandals / can never be NPOV because it is controversial. - User:Lukewarm
• Delete - This list is hard to maintain. - User:LazySmurf

The difficulty here is that these arguments address the (lack of) attention, diligence, or skill of Wikipedia editors, and not the merits of the underlying subject. Historical events such as the Trail of Tears, controversial institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, and belief systems such as scientific creationism can be the subject of strong opinions, but nevertheless represent valuable articles.

There are indeed subjects, lists, and categories that are difficult to maintain up to date, but there may indeed be good reasons to have them. For example, Category:Living people is a very broad category that contains more than two hundred thousand articles in the English Wikipedia; but it exists because Jimbo Wales finds that it is needed.[4]

How is that? (Feel free to edit the proposed text.) - Smerdis of Tlön 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ◄Zahakiel► 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

This page is now 240 kilobyes long. What do you guys think about archiving it? Useight 05:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Conversations ending on or before 30 March 2007 went into Archive 1, and everything from 1 April through 27 August 2007 went to Archive 2. Good call. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)