Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 1

message: Some parts of the essay are good, but others seem unconvincing. My least favourite section is "It doesn't do any harm". Although this argument is clearly overinclusionist and wrong, the explanation does nothing to establish why non-notable topics should be deleted - just because there are 6 billion people in the world doesn't mean all of them are going to have articles overnight, and I don't seriously believe resource constraints will ever be a problem. I think a better argument would discuss the maintenance overhead of each article, the spread of misinformation (which you did address), and the inflation of lists and disambiguation pages with less useful entries. Deco 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it's unlikely that every single person on the planet would get an article, like a lot of the examples contained in the essay it's taking things to ridiculous extremes to make the point more clear. Still, I'd agree that it could be clearer that it doesn't take everyone on the planet having an article before non-notable articles are a bad idea. Now that I think about it, it would probably be worth pointing out the issue of manpower restraints as well as resource constraints, admins and editors who do RC/vandal patrol are spread fairly thinly as it is. Of course, resources aren't the key reason why non-notable articles are a bad idea, the fact that they're unencyclopaedic is more vital, but from my experience most people making the "it doesn't do any harm" argument have difficulty seeing how the fact that an article is unencyclopaedic is harmful; they tend to consider being informative (even if it's being informative about things nobody cares about) as more important. I wanted to add maintainence haul into the equation but couldn't for the simple fact that I don't know what the maintainence haul is, and couldn't for the life of me find the info. Anyway, I'll probably have a crack at making that particular section better, but I never intended this to be a personal essay so feel free to change/add anything you want to. --Daduzi talk 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've tweaked the section a bit, but further comments/modifications are always appreciated. --Daduzi talk 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I must say that I really liked your essay, because exactly these things have crossed my mind a lot lately (especially the cruft argument). I have taken the liberty of adding a section on using search engines to determine notability. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google test

message: I would take issue with "Wikipedia has a number of fairly strict notability guidelines that need to be met before a subject can even be considered for an article." [Emphasis added.] This keeps coming up in discussions on whether or not to keep articles, and shouldn't.
From Wikipedia:Non-notability:
: This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". 
: Notability should not be used to argue for or against the inclusion of information on Wikipedia – instead, official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability should be used. However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information.
[emphasis added]
The article goes on to give great guidelines on how to handle articles that may be nominated:
# No solution is possible for articles on non-verifiable subjects, or topics that directly violate official policy.
# Articles that lack quality can be tagged as such, or readers can judge for themselves that a page is not written with the same standards as other articles.  A suggested fix is to specially mark articles of quality, and also articles without quality.
# Categories can be reorganized or further split off to form smaller more specific categories in which to place topics of differing degrees of fame.
Notability isn't on the Wikipedia:List of guidelines. That list "is a comprehensive summary of all guidelines that are in use and have the current consensus of Wikipedia editors. Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions and could be changed and improved more easily."
The issue at hand is consensus. As has been noted at Wikipedia:Notability, notabliity is a sticky wicket:
::This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the talk page to discuss major changes.
:: Although notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of some editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy). 
I'm obviously one of the editors that doesn't agree with the "opinion of some editors". I can't see how one can assert or deny notability without violating Neutral Point of View Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Let's take a brief outline for an article as an example: (assume all statements are verifiable and citations obtainable)
This person:
* Was part of the original staff of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.
* Is credited in an Academy Award-winning film.
* Created the largest known database using the early flat-file version of the database software FileMaker Pro with more than 10,000 records.
* Was a member of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus (SFGMC), considered the "grandaddy" of the more than 100 LGBT Choruses worldwide. (See GALA Choruses.)
* Served on the Board of Directors of Golden Gate Performing Arts, the non-profit parent corporation of the SFGMC; and produced the concert in 1987 that raised the money to retire the loan that financed the SFGMC's historic nationwide tour in 1981. 
* Was a member of the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, which has won several Grammy Awards.
* Has worked as an Associate Instructor teaching Watsu, a ground-breaking form of bodywork done while floating the client in warm water.
Is this person notable? Can you imagine the discussion that would ensue? I warrant one of the first arguments to be put forth would be notability, which some people would feel was met. This person is directly associated with topics that are included in Wikipedia, etc. Others would feel that this was a perfect example of violating the Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles official policy. (The latter people would be correct.)
So, at the risk of starting some sort of flame war, I'd like to see references here to Notability removed, as this would just fuel the flames of the controversy already surrounding the controversial guidelines associated therewith. There are other official policies and actual guidelines that are in place or being developed to use as reasons for deleting an article.
For example, I don't think the following is a sufficient argument (which you have pointed out in your similar example regarding WP:POV:
Delete. Fails WP:BIO.
The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability (people) (formerly/still known as WP:BIO states:
::This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included. Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline.
So if someone wants to cite the guideline, they need to cite the specific portions of it that they feel are applicable to the discussion at hand, not cite it as a blanket reason for deletion.
Additionally, a guideline that is proposed, e.g., Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) should definitely never be cited as a reason for deletion in and of itself. By virtue of its being a proposal which has not gained consensus, there are most likely portions that enjoy even greater contention than that of a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability (people). Again, the editor arguing for deletion should list those points that are relevant to the discussion at hand rather than citing the proposed guideline.
Since these sorts of edits are what I would consider to be rather major, I leave them to you to either perform or ignore, as you see fit. I realize that this was a long slog, I appreciate your making it this far, and thank you for your consideration.—Chidom talk  18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the original author of this essay, but I have contributed a couple of paragraphs to it, including the just a policy one, so I suppose I can also comment on this a bit. I partly agree with you that including the notability guidelines is tricky, because they are only guidelines and not policy and most of them are still under development. Also, the exact same points can be made by referring to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS in many cases where notability is an issue. On the other hand, I certainly looks like the notability guidelines will be an important part of Wikipedia guidelines and maybe even policy in the future, looking at how quick the concept is being adapted by the community. One could ofcourse argue to reinstate mentioning those criteria once this had happened and the process is finished. Personally, I think we should take the notability references out for now and only refer to real policy, but it is not a major issue for me, so I'll leave it up to Daduzi. I have just read Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay, which increases my feeling that we should leave out notability here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I guess I kinda changed my mind on what I wrote earlier, but I just removed all reference to the concept of notability from the essay, where applicable replacing them with references to policies. This way, the essay sticks only to policies (and a few guidelines) for making the arguments, leaving out the more controversial notability concept. These are the changes I made: . For a short while I considered including even a seperate heading to describe why notability would not be a good idea to use withour further arguments, but I've decided to refrain from that because that way the essay would lean the other way, towards people not liking the notability idea. So for now, it is removed all together. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed them

message: I'd like to suggest two more arguments that I've seen bandied about in AfD a lot...
"Keep: I thought AfD was to provide information on anything."  --AllInclusive
"Keep: It violates the spirit of Wikipedia/Jimbo Wales' vision."  --FriendOfWikiSpirit
Both of these are similar; in any case they're not true.  Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information.  The "spirit of Wikipedia" argument in particular is annoying because it assumes the keep voter can read Jimbo's mind.  
Should these be included in the "arguments to avoid"?  Expanded of course.  ColourBurst 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that the first one pops up now and then (assuming you mean Wikipedia rather than AfD :) ), although mainly from new, inexperienced users. But sure, you can add it. With regard tot the second, I (luckily) have never seen that one in an AfD, so I would leave it out for now. But the choice is yours :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page is ideally kept to common problematic arguments, and would avoid ones that don't come up as often to avoid a flood of information. I agree that the first above is quite common, and the second is not. Deco 09:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written up the section on "providing information on everything".  Let me know if there are any problems.  ColourBurst 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more arguments 

message: Before reading this essay, I wrote a somewhat similar one (with a more narrow focus) here.  I think our general normative conclusion (that Wiki content policy should be used as ground for deletion in lieu of many other inferior reasons) is similar.  I enjoyed reading your essay. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: Dear Daduzi,
You started off with the User:Daduzi/Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page some time ago. Me and other contributors have added to it and it is quite stable now for some time. I was wondering if you would agree with moving (or copying) it to the project space, it might attract more attention there. Regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it as well! :-) Carcharoth 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe this is a good idea as well. *Sparkhead 22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Daniel.Bryant 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this move as well. However Special:Contributions/Daduzi says he last edited in September, which makes this even better a candidate for being an essay in the general space rather than leading people to believe it 'belongs' to this one user. What say the rest of you? -- nae'blis 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Not sure what to do here. If you don't think the user would mind, move it to the Wikipedia namespace, possibly as a subpage of Wikipedia:Deletion, but leave a note on the talk page making clear that you moved it, not the user. The redirect left here will go across namespaces though, and I thought that was not allowed. Definitely need to leave something here indicating where it went, and have the edit history over there for correct attribution. Also, a note on the user's talk page would be good, in case he or she comes back. Carcharoth 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ILIKEIT 

message: ...how would one go about proposing that this essay become a guideline? Does anyone know how that process works? (I'm not sure that that isn't what's being proposed in the section above this one.) I think it's useful information that should be more readily available and referenced more often. (I could even see putting a link to it in the ,  , etc. templates.) Alternatively, a proposal to incorporate this information in How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. 
I could also see a spin-off from this essay into one about discussions in general (i.e., for surveys, nominations, etc.). These arguments really should be avoided in any type of discussion where recommendations by editors are being solicited in a discussion.—Chidom talk  18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I haven't a clue as to how to do this, but ... 

message: Great page and very helpful. Thanks. Dgray xplane 05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great

message: Does anyone object to adding a section of WP:IAR? I've seen it be used latetly a few times on deletion discussion. Such as:
*Keep per IAR. -Iignorerules
:What does everyone think? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you add a section on WP:SNOW. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about [[WP:IAR|IAR]]? 

message: Here is an argument that I see from time to time, and I wanted to see what people thought if it should be added here.
*Example: Keep - Why are you wasting time trying to get this article deleted? You could be spending your time working on article X. --User:WikiTaskmaster
*Example: Delete - We don't need people wasting time on articles like this when they should be improving article X. --User:WikiTaskmaster
There are several problems with this argument. 1) No one is obligated to do anything on Wikipedia. We're all volunteers, so we are free to work on whatever we want as long as they are good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Any edits that improve the encyclopedia are welcome regardles of how unimportant they are. 2) The importance of articles (or debates) is subjective. What is meaningless to one person may be a high priority for someone else. 3) This argument doesn't address the argument at hand at all. Whether or not another article is more in need of work than this one has no bearing on whether it should be kept or deleted. —Cswrye 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very valid point; I'd say it merits inclusion here. :] --Keitei (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Go do something else!" argument 

message: One of my favorite "delete" comments I see a lot is "violates WP:RS". Yeah. You can't "violate" a guideline. Per Wikipedia "guidelines": ...it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. 
Except, that isn't how it's done. WP:RS is used all the time as a basis for deletion, with NO exceptions that I can find. Thoughts? -- weirdoactor t|c 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give you my opinion. The page itself is a guideline, because it's not meant to be followed to the letter. But the concept of providing reliable sources is just WP:V. After all, what some random guy said on a forum does not provide verifiability; they could easily be lying, or be misinformed, or some such. -Amarkov blahedits 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can an article violate a policy...when the "policy" is a "guideline"? 

message: Why are people citing this as policy? Gah. oTHErONE (Contribs) 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wtf? 

message: "Similarly, there are many examples where a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee for being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, for example in the case of wide spread urban myths."  But if an urban myth is pervasive and well known, it can be notable.  I think the example erroneously suggests that falsehoods cannot be valid subjects, perhaps confusing a false assertion in an article with an article about a false assertion.  Just wanted to point that out; I can't think of a good replacement for it right now.  Postdlf 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google test example 

message: Is there an essay that lists good arguments?  It would be valuable to link to that from this one.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be like the worst essay ever. People would constantly be saying "That doesn't fall under Wikipedia:Arguments to use in deletion discussions, so you can't use it!" -Amarkov blahedits 15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would not differ from what they're doing now. I've created a companion essay for this one, though it's probably more cynical/nihilistic than you had envisioned. — CharlotteWebb 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, but seriously, this essay is full of negativity. There should be a guide to good deletion discussion arguements if anyone cares to write it.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the good arguments? 

message: I keep seeing users pop out of nowhere and suddenly claim that they're using the article to be deleted for a paper. Recently here. I think pointing out the weaknesses of this argument (Wikipedia is not here to cater to your strange choices for research and laziness of looking for better sources) would be a nice addition, at least as a section of "It's useful". ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm using this for school!

message: in recent AfD debates I've heard these used more about notability than about content--and much more using it against the validity of a statment implying inclusion than the other way round.  How can one like  content? I think te equivalent for content might be "I know in my heart it's true" vs "this sounds like nonsense to me." Should this one be moved within the essay? DGG 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "It's all true information, trust me", it's a common argument in AfD.  And people have used it to argue for a keep/delete vote.  ColourBurst 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I like/don't like it

message: I have seen such an argument about an article on zh:wikipedia.   I found that I could understand that article.---user talk:hillgentleman 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't understand

message: It's not a recent trend, but it's becoming one of my pet peeves when authors are making comments such as "Delete as indiscriminate knowledge". I view this as nothing better then the IDONTLIKEIT argument, but substitutes a policy instead of an essay. Therefore I suggest to clarify that use of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE should be avoided unless the editor is referencing one of the specific points on the section or explain why the article is "indiscriminate knowledge". In short, the burden of proof should be on the editors claiming that an article is indiscriminate knowledge instead of having other editors prove that the article isn't indiscriminate knowledge. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can be used as IDONTLIKEIT if you fail to explain why. We don't really need to list everything that doesn't imply a reason why. -Amark moo! 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE used as IDONTLIKEIT 

message: I'd like to raise an opposition to the received wisdom that othercrapexists is not a good argument.  I agree that in the main this is true, however othercrapexists should be a good counter to systemic bias and so should not always be assumed to be nonsense.  An example would be the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affluence (KCR) AfD as the comparison to similar articles from other areas of the world where wikipedia has a better developed article set serves as a useful means of determining the notability of the articles. MLA 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the point you bring up is exactly why the othercrapexists criteria is there.  Two articles may have similar content (or maybe only similar subject matter, I've seen arguments like "but my little company that has no sources sells software, just like Microsoft and IBM"), but one may be covered in reliable sources, meeting WP:V and the other may not be so lucky.  For your example, the argument's hinging on whether "light rail" (in the Hong Kong context) is rail, and I'd say that those would be closer to streetcars than rails.  ColourBurst 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping my point is somewhat more subtle than that.  Othercrapexists in respect of some notable and verifiable thing exists so therefore my related but non-notable and non-verifiable article should exist is fine.  However, I think it is easy to use this as a means of excluding articles through wikipedia's pronounced systemic bias.  On the example that I put forward, the prevailing argument was that it should be deleted until the putting forth of an argument that seems on the face of it to be othercrapexists and I believe it was a good use of that kind of point as it helped to clarify the equivalence to other articles that are better covered. MLA 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had another thought about this and that is that othercrapexists is a form citing precedent, particularly for those who might not be familiar with wikipedia's complex processes.  While I sympathise with the concept behind othercrapexists, I'm finding myself in opposition to this particularly as ilikeit is cited quite so frequently these days. MLA 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" covers good as well as bad arguments, in my view. To state that a comparable article survived a previous deletion debate is absolutely relevant to an AfD discussion - the whole point of such discussion is to establish consensus, and any evidence of an existing consensus is germane to the debate. It is a far more useful argument than simply invoking WP:N without explanation or citing an arcane and pedantic interpretation of a policy or guideline (something which I feel is often used in bad faith, by experienced Wikipedia editors, to intimidate newcomers). Bad arguments include using the existence of an article on a notable topic to argue for the retention of a non-notable one, or using the non-existence of an article to argue for the deletion of an existing one (better phrased as "OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST" - if this was consistently applied, of course, Wikipedia would have no articles at all). AdorableRuffian 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Othercrapexists

message: User:The Sky May Be added the phrase into the header.  What purpose does this add to this page?  A lot of essays are unlikely to become policy, yet they don't have this modification.  The future standing of this essay doesn't really affect how it's applied or not applied now, either.  ColourBurst 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because s/he disagrees with the essay and is trying to do a minor POV push. I first thought it was a simple  of the tag and didn't pay that much attention, but now that you bring it up, I'm going to restore the original  tag. --Farix (Talk) 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, as NPOV doesn't apply to essays. See Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is unlikely to become one" 

message: On second thoughts, I've reverted my edit where I put on that essay-NPOV template. I have instead created the essay Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. As they say, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted my edit 

message: I would like to add "Wait and See". I have never added to an essay before. CAn I just add it, or does it have to be ratified? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essays are opinion pieces and represent the opinions of the user who wrote them, and often other users as well. Feel free to add to the essay, but don't worry too much if your addition is reverted; there are people who disagree with the essay, and different people will like different parts. --ais523 10:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait and See 

message: There has been some discussion about how this essay is referred to in deletion discussions and (as one of the original authors, together with Daduzi), I must say that the diversity of shortcuts referring to the different sections encourages overly enthusiastic citation of this essay. Personally, I'd like to see most of those shortcuts deleted (e.g. the inflammatory WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:SCORCHEDEARTH, which show very little respect when used in reply to arguments). But, I would like to know how other people feel about this and would like to hear some opinions, before (if at all) nominating the shortcuts for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as WP:SCORCHEDEARTH is concerned, I think it is an appropriate way of describing attempts to defend an article by stating that other similar articles should be deleted as well. And I don't see either of these shortcuts as inflammability, but rather being blunt about someone else's argument. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that blunt or rude would a better description. The argument still stands however, this essay is cited too often and read to little by those who cite it. I believe that occurs largely because of the large variety of "funny", blunt or otherwise inappropriate redirects that have been created to link here. Currently, we have:
* WP:ILIKEIT - by far the most used
* WP:IDONTLIKEIT - also quite often used
* WP:INTERESTING - also quite often used
* WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - used often, way to blunt though
* WP:USEFUL - used ~40 times
* WP:AADD - used ~20 times, most neutral link
* WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT - unused
* WP:JUSTAVOTE - used 2 times
* WP:ATA - used 7 times
* WP:ITSFUNNY - used 6 times
* WP:HARMLESS - used 3 times
* WP:NOHARM - used once
* WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING - used once
* WP:SCORCHEDEARTH - used 4 times
* WP:IDONTKNOWIT - used 3 times
I mean, this is just too much... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For certain, WP:ILIKEIT is the one used the most often.  It comes from the consequence of being the first shortcut made (long before the essay was moved to WP: space, to get an idea of how long it existed), so most people referred to it that way.  I know it promotes "just a policy" thinking, but even without the current shortcuts people will just revert back to the "NN, D" style of arguing which is just as bad.  So ILIKEIT is the new NN.  I'm not sure we can prevent this without modifying people's behaviour.  As for "other crap exists", do you have an alternative that would get the point across?  WP:COMPARE?  WP:JUSTASNOTABLE?  ColourBurst 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ILIKEIT was used before it even was a shortcut. -Amark moo! 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how long it has existed, together with Daduzi I was one of the early authors. The first shortcut was WP:ILIKEIT, to which I have no particular objections. My problem is mainly that we do not need this diversity of shortcuts, as it distracts from the main message of the essay, that you should use sound arguments, not shouting links or hollow phrases. This diversity of links actually promotes shouting them around, which is contrary to the essay itself. One or two good links should be more then enough I think. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm not sure this is a shortcut problem, rather than a behavioural problem.  The "I like it" meme has travelled so far that even if you wiped out all the shortcuts except WP:AADD tomorrow it'll just cause people to go ILIKEIT instead.  Which is ironic given that the essay was designed to wipe out these arguments.  I think a better way to solve it is to put a nutshell statement saying "try to fully explain your reasoning behind your keep or delete statement; short statements that don't explain the reasoning don't help the deletion discussion."  That way people don't have to read through the whole essay to get the point.  Of course, purging a large number of the shortcuts wouldn't be bad, either. ColourBurst 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think I totally agree with you. Its a behavioural problem, of which the many shortcuts are a symptom (which does not mean some of them should not be deleted). I liked the idea of the nutshell statement and included one just now, you're welcome to tweak it as you see fit. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the shortcuts 

message: I've seen far too many deletion nominations and comments that simply state that the subject of an article is not notable. Instead, I would like to see better explanations as too why the subject is not notable. Comments such as "No reliable sources to establish notability" or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes WP:N" are far better then simply saying "non-notable". However, I'm having trouble on how to phrase this in the essay. So I welcome additional comments --Farix (Talk) 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably closest to "it's unencyclopedic" and "just a policy" in the reasonings.  Try looking at those.  ColourBurst 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Written and included. Feel free to cleanup, expand, and/or clarify. --Farix (Talk) 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not notable 

message: I'd like to remove IFD from being mentioned in the opening of this. The "discussions" that occur there are often minimal (if any) and most of this does not include IFD. Specifically, the code UE (unencyclopedic) is a valid claim for images. If it had a value to us (aka, encyclopedic) we'd put it in an article somewhere, but the nominator (and others) are saying that they don't see how this is useful. It's most likely used on images of a user they uploaded for their userpage (a picture of a user isn't encyclopedic) so we don't need it (would only generally apply if the image was also an orphan, aka not used), but can be used in other times. --MECU≈talk 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only seen a bit of IfD, but from what I've seen, it's quite hard to decipher what UE, OB, OR, etc means unless you've read a few nominations.  But IfD regulars use them, and don't have shortcuts to point to.  I'm not sure they're immune to the allures of the "short arguments" (WP:WOTTA, anyone?) ColourBurst 23:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove IFD from the opening paragraph 

message: Someone just put up the tag that proposes this essay to become a guideline or policy. As one of the early authors, I want to advise strongly against doing so. As I have explained before at several locations, this essay is being cited too much by people who have misinterpreted its intention. The essay was meant to encourage people to use sound arguments rather than dumping votes, Google searches or links to WP:ACRONYMS in AfD discussions. Quite the contrary has happened though. This essay is being cited too often in AfD discussion without the citing person giving any additional rationale for providing the link. In addition, the contents of this essay are so diverse that they do not reflect a consensus opinion as a whole. Many people agree with certain sections of the essay, but not with others. In addition, its contents reflect the current situation of Wikipedia, as is exemplified by the later addition of arguments on notability and the like. Therefore, its contents might change to much to ever reflect an "official" guideline (and especially policy). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--I too saw it recently used & had to explain. As I havent that much personal involvement on this p., I consider myself objective enough to remove the tag, & I just did so,DGG 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarifying why I feel this is not actionable.  Although it recommends against a bunch of behaviours, it doesn't really say not to do them, it just says that there are more effective ways to opine.  GRBerry 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful to have a guideline which sets out the kind of arguments that administrators should find persuasive when considering an AFD. Except we have one already - Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Personally I don't think this essay should be used as a guideline as many of the sections would not command consensus and some could simply discourage editors from commenting on AFDs - not the solution we want. Perhaps some of the sections from here that do command consensus could be moved there? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes that makes perfect sense. I also think the linking to subsections is part of the problems. I am going to put a short, once-sentence statement at the beginning of each section to clarify the idea and make clear this is an essay. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a short statement at the beginning of each section that is directly linked by a shortcut. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A guideline or policy? Preferably not! 

message: If WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are "arguments to avoid" in supporting the keeping or deleting of an article, where is the best place to express the subjective opinion that articles on certain subjects should or shouldn't be part of Wikipedia? Everyone has different opinions on what is "encyclopedic" and what is "notable". If I think, for example, that articles on schools should be part of Wikipedia, where exactly do I go if I want to help establish consensus? I would have thought that AfD was one of the best pages to establish consensus on what should be kept, but it would seem that some editors have decided point blank that this is not so.
AfD in particular seems to be somewhat biased in favour of "delete" voters, and these little shortcuts ("ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep the article!") mainly add to that bias. AfD is no longer just about cruft and vanity - we have someone there now who wants to delete articles about number 1 hit songs by a major artist (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song)) using a subjective and strict interpretation of the WP:N guideline. AdorableRuffian 11:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my subjective interpretation. It is pretty commonly agreed that notability requires for X to be the primary subject of multiple independent reliable sources. If you want to talk about changing guidelines and policies, the talk pages of the relevent guidelines and policies are the places you should go. — coelacan talk — 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is "pretty commonly agreed", show me a page which explains this. I did not say that I wanted to change the WP:N guideline, I was questioning your interpretation of it. The WP:N page does not state that the subject of an article should be the primary subject of multiple cited works and I highly doubt that such an interpretation would be agreed upon by the majority of Wikipedia editors. It sets the "bar to notability" far, far, higher than would generally be considered reasonable. Going by your interpretation, citing a textbook about the pancreas in the article Islets of Langerhans, or a Beatles biography in the article Ringo Starr, would not "count" under WP:N, as the article subjects are not the primary subjects of the cited sources. AdorableRuffian 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The best thing to do is to see if the stuff really doesn't belong on WP, based on the content policies, and if it does belong, but you don't like it, then just live with it! Or try and discuss a change in rules -- but remember, the final consensus will still stand and you'll have to accept it. If it really doesn't belong, then you should nominate it on AFD. We should have less subjectivity here on WP, not more. mike4ty4 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, so I've read an article and decided ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT - what do I do now? 

message: May I draw attention to the following sentence:
Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they don't, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired.
In fact, the subject may not be notable before they write a piece on it! Influential journalists have the ability to make a subject notable. Certain websites, certain bands, certain other things, have only become notable because a notable journalist has decided "ILIKEIT". For popular music in particular, journalists can be "kingmakers". Look at all the bands in the UK who only made it big because a NME or Melody Maker journalist thought they were great.
This isn't a criticism of the general argument, merely an observation that professional writers are not always held to the same high standards as amateur Wikipedia editors. AdorableRuffian 11:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd then have to establish "influentiality" of a journalist, etc. I think the gist is that Wikipedia should not decide it, since Wikipedia is just to report on what is already out there. It doesn't have so much to do with "professional" vs. "amateur" as it has to do with the purpose of Wikipedia itself. The world outside of Wikipedia is what defines and creates notability. mike4ty4 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This number is big" - establishing notability 

message: ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS - when used in good faith, these arguments are direct attempts to establish or cite consensus.  Saying you like/dislike the subject of an article is obviously not a very good argument, but ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT are often (incorrectly) invoked when a person explains why they like/dislike the article itself. In this context, these are primarily arguments about what Wikipedia is/is not and are a perfectly valid means of expressing an opinion about what should or shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument based on an existing consensus about which articles should be kept or deleted; where it refers to previous deletion discussions, it is more often than not a good argument.
INTERESTING, USEFUL - again, fair arguments if "interesting or useful to readers of Wikipedia" is implied (and the editor elaborates a little on why s/he thinks the article is interesting or useful). The essay tells us to "avoid subjective judgements" in deletion discussions, which I find ridiculous as such discussions are inherently subjective.
Arguments without arguments - just plain bad. No argument from me.
This number is big - this may be a good argument if used in conjunction with OTHERCRAPEXISTS as stated above, to establish that a valid comparison is being made. If, for example, a band verifiably sold nearly as many records or had nearly the same number of hit singles as a notable band such as The Beatles, then there is a strong argument for keeping the band article. "This number is small" may be an equally valid deletion argument if used in a similar way. See also my comments about journalists above.
ITSFUNNY, IDONTKNOWIT - bad. I'm surprised at how often the latter pops up.
NOHARM - possibly a bad argument in itself, but poorly explained in the essay. There are severe limitations on Wikipedia's size other than the notability guidelines (e.g. the finite number of people who wish to edit and contribute to the encyclopedia). Relaxing inclusion guidelines does not mean we will end up with articles about everything. One could say that NOHARM argues for a presumption in favour of keeping an article if there are no more convincing arguments either way.
ABOUTEVERYTHING - a perfectly valid opinion, but not a strong argument in favour of keeping an article if the overwhelming consensus is that there should be at least some restrictions on what articles are included. Again, Wikipedia will never have articles on everything so long as it is maintained by a finite number of human beings (rather than these guys).
SCORCHEDEARTH - actually a good argument which cites the existence of a consensus in favour of keeping the article. If consensus has changed, the evidence of this should be cited by those who wish to delete the article - simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "SCORCHEDEARTH" is not helpful. Strangely, the essay here seems to imply that deletion discussions are somehow separate from the consensus-forming process, when surely they are (or should be) a key means by which consensus is established.
Fame in x - "big fish in small pond" is a tricky issue on Wikipedia, and this part of the essay does not really address it properly. Forget about your Aunt Mildred in her sleepy village, and think about well-known politicians, sportsmen, and local "characters" in large or medium-sized towns. That is where the main problem lies. Not only that, there may be geographical bias in the "reliable sources" themselves. In the United Kingdom, for example, most of the print media is based in London, so readers in, say, Newcastle have far more opportunity to read about London-specific phenomena than readers in London have to read about Newcastle-specific phenomena.
Google test - this is just a variant of "this number is big" and is only meaningful if a relevant comparison is made.
AdorableRuffian 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few random thoughts about these arguments 

message: I took the (ironic) liberty of butchering the "no harm" section and replacing it with some links to meta that cover similar material, and in fact use very similar wording:
:"inclusionists counter that there is little harm in keeping material that might some day be improved as information on the topics become more widely available"
The "no harm" argument is an extreme inclusionist position best discussed in the philosophical context of inclusionism versus deletionism, which the meta articles already do much better than the rambling diatribe we had there before. Thus the drastic change. If you liked some of the material we had, I think it would have more room for review and expansion at :m:Deletionism. Deco 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No harm and redundancy 

message: Just now, for a broader view. - Denny 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Posted to village pump

message: Here is a draft for a new section, perhaps under the "fame or shame" or maybe the "point of view" header:
===Ad hominem arguments===
Examples:
*Keep The nominator simply hates all Death Metal bands and is obviously out to delete every article related to this topic. -- Dontlikethenom 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section proposal: ''Ad hominem'' arguments. 

message: Examples:
*Keep The nominator simply hates all Death Metal bands and is obviously out to delete every article related to this topic. -- Dontlikethenom 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Ad hominem]]'' arguments

message: #Magnet for vandalism/POV pushers
#Article is a mess
Would everyone agree that these are two bad arguments? Every page is a magnet for vandals and everyone has a POV on a subject so wikipedia would have to be entirely deleted if this was a valid argument. As for the second it is a bad argument since XFD is not WP:CLEANUP and the state of the article is not a cause for deletion. Koweja 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I see them used often, as well. - Peregrine Fisher 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That an article has been a particular attractor for vandals is a fact that can reasonably be weighed in a deletion discussion.  We would never delete George W Bush just because it attracts vandals because it is a clearly encyclopedic topic and there are very many good editors who keep the article on their watchlists in order to revert the inevitable vandalism.  That's a very expensive task but we do it because the encyclopedia is clearly better with the article.  We might not make that same cost-benefit decision for a minor stub about a non- or semi-notable subject.  If Wikipedia can not find the necessary critical mass of informed and interested editor/volunteers to keep the article clean, to revert not just the overt vandalism but also all the subtle vandalism, the encyclopedia is better off without the page.  This is a relatively rare situation but it happens enough that we can not categorically state that "vandalmagnet" is always and forever an invalid argument.   On the same note, "article is a mess right now" is a non-argument but "no one has shown any interest in cleaning it up or maintaining it in over x months despite requested cleanup" can be a valid consideration during the discussion.  Rossami (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Rossami. Those can not be the only reason, but they can be used as supporting reasons. -Amarkov moo! 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I commented earlier in the WP:Forthepeople section that defining the point when notability is outweighed by "more trouble than it is worth" is likely to create as much talk as it seeks to save in individual article AfD debate.LessHeard vanU 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more types of arguments 

message: "Delete as unencyclopedic" isn't short for "Delete because I think it ought to be deleted". It's short for "Delete for any number of reasons listed at Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which I have not bothered to specify". In other words, it's too vague. I think the essay should simply indicate that it is too vague rather than attempting to interpret what Cyclops' statement is shorthand for. Punctured Bicycle 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is unencyclopedic