Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion debates at templates for deletion, images and media for deletion, categories for discussion, stub types for deletion, redirects for discussion, miscellany for deletion and especially articles for deletion which should generally be avoided. The reason they should be avoided is because they are not based upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, but are rather arguments based from side issues that are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted. When taking part in deletion debates, then, it's best to base arguments on the policies of no original research, verifiability, use reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not.

Arguments without arguments

Just a vote

Example: Keep --VoteyMcVoteson 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

This is probably the worst kind of argument that can be made in a deletion debate because, well, it isn't an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any argument that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature is almost certainly not going to be considered by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to make an actual argument as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons.

Just a policy or guideline

Example: Delete violates WP:NOR --Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Only slightly less bad than just a vote, this also does not provide other editors with a real argument why the article should be deleted. Although the article might be in violation of the policy or guideline referred to, no argument is supplied on why the article violates that particular policy. It is also good to remember that in many cases an article might be changed so that it no longer violates the policy and in those cases it might not have to be deleted at all. Try to explain to other editors your reasoning on referring to a particular policy and how that policy supports your vote. Naturally, this also applies on quoting policies to support keeping an article.

Note that it is harder to explain why an article does not meet a policy or guideline, as that would be similar to proving a negative. Still, rather than merely writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - no sources cited or could be found with a web search" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts."

Per nominator

Example: Delete per nom. Trustfull 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that every listing of an article for deletion is not a vote, but rather a discussion. That means that if several people already have showed support for the nominator, adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator will not contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing. Showing support for the nomination certainly can be a good thing, but it is good to try to explain why this support is justified. Even better is to try to formulate the arguments for deletion in your own words, even if those arguments are very similar to those presented by the nominator. If that is too much work or too difficult, it might be better to refrain from making a statement at all.

It is unencyclopedic

Example: Delete as unencyclopedic. --Cyclops 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia shows, being "unencyclopedic" is an umbrella term covering all possible problems that an article may have that make it a candidate for deletion. In other words, the above recommendation by user Cyclops is short for the statement: "Delete because I think it ought to be deleted". This can be shortened even more to simply: "Delete".

Point of view

I like it

Example: Keep this band is the greatest band in the world and I love the lead singer and he is great and they are great --Superbestfan 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)

There are a lot of variations to this line of argument but they generally amount to the same thing, the person arguing really, really likes the subject of the (typically) article being nominated for deletion and so doesn't want to see it deleted. Often the fact that the subject is really great at what they do is offered as a reason for not deleting. The problem with this line of reasoning is that how good, say, a band's music is is a very subjective statement; while you may love a band with all of your heart someone else may hate them with just as much passion. More importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias bring knowledge created by others into one place, they don't create new knowledge (see Wikipedia:no original research). In other words, a band or actor or computer game may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other reliable sources have written about them, they can't be included. Maybe they will be written about in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and articles can only be added when the subjects have been written about elsewhere. If your favourite band/game/sports team/webcomic/whatever really is that great it should happen sooner or later, though, so just be patient.

I don't like it

Example: Delete as cruft. --Cruftbane 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria), as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate fair use images and text, but again until there is a policy stating that fair use is prohibited the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided fair use criteria are met. Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used to the extent of apparent acceptability, it should be remembered that Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion; even if an article is clearly mere cruft it's still better to argue for deletion on the basis of actual policies and/or guidelines rather than use a somewhat subjective shorthand.

This number is big

Example: "Keep, an Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable."

At the basic level, humans can't really comprehend any number larger than about seven. Try it - put four objects on your desk, and you should be able to focus your eyesight on all of them at once. Now try with ten. Unless you're a spider, you'll fail. Stockbrokers, economists and politicians may pretend otherwise, but numbers like "twenty thousand" "fifty-three hundred" "seven million" are all basically just "a very large number".

A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has x number of y, that's notable". In fact, editors are fooling themselves if they think they know how many subscribers makes a notable journal on calligraphy, how much revenue makes a notable cardboard box producer, and how many pandas make a notable zoo. Not to mention the other 97 different 'big numbers' that could be used to justify arguing 'keep' in an AfD every day.

Editors should stick to looking for multiple independent reliable sources. 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. So we can rely on their judgement of "how big is big" - but we can't rely on ours.

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

It's useful

Example: Keep: useful. --Usefulisgood 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This means that lots of things that are useful are excluded because they don't belong in an encyclopaedia. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but are not included because Wikipedia is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page defining the word useful would be useful but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (we have Wikitravel for that). In any case, usefulness is a very subjective judgement (what an American physicist might find useful is not the same as what an Indian high school student might find useful) and like all subjective judgements should be avoided in deletion debates as far as is possible.

It's interesting

Example: Keep: interesting. --Fascinated 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so many interesting things are not included because they are unencyclopaedic. I can insert two pennies horizontally into my nostrils, that's a fairly interesting fact but does it belong on Wikipedia? Besides, just because I find something interesting doesn't mean anyone else will.

What about article x?

Examples:
Keep there's an article on x, and that's just as famous as this. --KingPrecedent 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete we don't have an article on y, so we shouldn't have an article on this --KingPrecedent 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created a lot of articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist; it's quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokemon test) but even here caution should be used. Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: does the fact that there is an article on every Pokemon character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character in Super Mario Bros? Or every character in World of Warcraft? Or every character in Adventure Quest? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it's better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". The generic form of thios argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common.

See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Wikipedia:Pokemon test, User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond.

It doesn't do any harm

Example: Keep why delete this, it isn't harming anyone --Donoharm 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because having an article doesn't directly hurt anyone (unless the rumour that every time a bad article is kept on Wikipedia a fairy dies is true) doesn't mean it should be kept. An article doesn't need to be harmful to be unencyclopaedic, and unencyclopaedic subjects don't belong in an encyclopaedia for the reasons detailed above. That being said it's wrong to say that keeping articles that don't meet the criteria for inclusion doesn't harm anyone. For starters, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true. This means it's entirely possible that the information could be completely false, and spreading disinformation is always harmful. Adding companies or bands who don't meet the criteria, meanwhile, could give them undue prominence and thus harm their competitors. In addition, though nobody has to pay to read Wikipedia that doesn't mean it costs nothing to run, computing hardware and bandwidth both cost money, and checking new articles to make sure they are up to the right standard takes manpower. There are 6 billion people in the world and if even a tiny fraction of them all had an article, then Wikipedia would quickly become incredibly expensive to maintain, and there simply wouldn't be enough editors to make sure articles are of a good enough quality. And if every band ever formed, or every building in every town was included, well, things would get pretty crazy. The strict criteria for inclusion, then, as well as being neccesarry to keep Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, do also prevent harm: while having one article about a subject that does not meet the criteria might not harm Wikipedia too much having an article on everything that doesn't meet the criteria most definitely would.

It should be about everything

Examples:
Keep I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide information on everything. --User:AllInclusive 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep, you're trying to remove true information! User:Alltruthful 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "All branches of knowledge" is not "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. This is to prevent Wikipedia from being unmaintainable. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every particle in the universe, every idea that has existed or will exist, every person in history, every person living, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. It is impossible to document everything, and that's why Wikipedia has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it's also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

Fame and shame

Everyone in x knows about it

Example: Keep John is the tallest person in my home town so should have an article about him --Smalltownboy 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. My Aunt Mildred might be the greatest crocheter in her local village crochet group, that makes her famous in the crocheting community in that village but it doesn't make her well-known enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it would end up being original research. Most likely, no reliable source has ever published on the crocheting skills of Aunt Mildred. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopaedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community; if the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community that's good evidence that the subject isn't important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopaedia.

Google test

Examples:
Keep It has 345.400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. --GoogleBoy 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable --GoogleGirl 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, these arguments should never be the only criterion for a argument. It should be realized that on highly specialized, yet suitable topics the number of hits might be much lower than for more well-known subjects. 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. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Wikipedia:Search engine test.