Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

message: I've seen this said a couple of times in a few AfDs (most recently in a currently active one the Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186). As I and a few other users states there, Wikipedia should operate based on the basis that it will be around when these sorts of things happen (with the exception being things like the Heat death of the universe or whatever. I've never seen the second one in an actual AfD but I figure it could be used and would be a faulty argument. As such, I believe this should be added (though I suppose only adding the first one would be fine too.) Thanks! Poxy4 (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose it's not clear to me that an event being too far in the future isn't a good basis for WP:TOOSOON. BrigadierG (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Delete because humans might be extinct by then" and "Delete because humans weren't even around back then" 

message: I sometimes come across people who argue that if a source or article is accepted on another Wikimedia project then it should be fine here on enwiki. Here is just one recent example. It seems the best page to show those people is the "Individual Merit" WP:OTHERSTUFF section, but I think it could be worth clarifying more. There is a paragraph in the middle that talks about different projects, but it's easy to miss because the section is already so long.
I'm trying to decide between these two options:
# Just add another example in the list of examples at the top of this section. The example could be e.g. 
# Split the previously-mentioned paragraph into another subsection that we can link to when needed. But, if we go this route, I'm not sure what the shortcut link should be - WP:OTHERSITES already exists.
Mokadoshi (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify that "Individual Merit" is different across Wikimedia projects 

message: Hmmmm, that is not mentioned here? I thought it would be. Should we add it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could certainly go into 'Surmountable problems'? Valereee (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Valereee Agreed. Can you add it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL]] 

message: This is something I see frequently, which typically takes one of two forms. One is about "it's been around for a long time, so it's probably good". The other comes down to one side saying WP:RAPID while the other side says WP:DELAY, two opposing principles of the events notability criteria that merely express a personal philosophy towards keeping vs. deleting rather than provide any real argument at all one way or the other. Idea being, those principles can accompany concrete reasoning to keep/delete (sourcing, evidence that coverage will/won't be sustained, other reasons beyond notability, etc.), but on their own they're useless (like many of the others here). What do people think about something like this:
Examples: 
* Keep Article was just created. Give it time to develop. –WaitForIt (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in the Article age section? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Somehow forgot that section (and "subject age") existed! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gotten very long. I'm wondering if we should start trimming the number of examples to those which provide actual additional info? Valereee (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like some can be combined. Maybe the two existing sections and the parts above that aren't included can be combined into a single "age". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting an addition: Arguments based on when the article was created