Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daduzi (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 6 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Just a vote

Example: Keep --Daduzi talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (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, but try to avoid any of the following arguments.

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 --Daduzi talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (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. --Daduzi talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (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 notability 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 prohibitied 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.

What about article x?

Examples:
Keep there's an article on x, and that's just as famous as this. --Daduzi talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete we don't have an article on y, so we shouldn't have an article on this --Daduzi talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


It's useful

Example:

It's interesting

Example:

Everyone in x knows about it

It doesn't do any harm