Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Comments

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I've tweaked the section a bit, but further comments/modifications are always appreciated. --Daduzi ^talk 12:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google test

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)[reply]

I have just added two additional sections (per nominator and just policy) and divided the arguments in several groups. Feel free to adjust. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed them

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: [1]. 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)[reply]

Two more arguments

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1.2 Just a policy or guideline,1.3 Per nominator

I disagree with both these sections. If the nominator already put things completely clearly, why do I necessarily need to restate them? Same thing with briefly mentioning a policy. If there are no reliable sources, and I say "delete, no reliable sources", do I really need to say more? While AfD is not a vote, there are certainly voting elements to it. If 3 people are "voting" keep, and only the nominator has asked to delete the article, probably it will be kept. If 3 people want to keep, and 20 want to delete, probably it will be deleted. So "me too" votes are, in fact, counted, so they do, in fact, have a purpose. Some people prefer brevity. --Xyzzyplugh 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one who contributed those sections, I'll answer your points. I do see your point and sometimes brevity is indeed a virtue.

With regard to the per nom: It is very disappointing (the actual word that came to mind was annoying) when someone goes through lengths making a point in favor of keeping an article and in the end it gets deleted because the nominator said only fails WP:NOTE and there are a couple of per nom votes, but no real argument. I will change the sections to mention that if the nominator makes a clear, well sourced point for deletion, one could think of supporting this with a per nom vote, but I'll a remark that this useless if there are already a couple of those votes.

With regard to the other one, I'll still think that it is a valid point. Saying delete, no reliable sources does not give much information to other editors. Does it have no sources at all? Do the sources not reflect what is stated in the article? Does it have sources, but are they to non-reliable? Also, please keep in mind here that there is often a lot of debate on what exactly constitutes a reliable source. Similar reasoning can be applied when referring to other policies without further comment.

I hope this clears things up a bit and I welcome any further suggestions. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the "per nom" bit is not true. Disappointing, perhaps, but a "per nom" vote does count, if the issues are otherwise debatable. Ask any administrator how they will close a deletion discussion with 5 good arguments to keep, and 5 to delete. Now ask how they will close a deletion discussion with those same 5 good arguments to keep, and 5 to delete, and 5 "delete per nom". It matters. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

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)[reply]

ILIKEIT

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)[reply]

I like it as well! :-) Carcharoth 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this is a good idea as well. *Sparkhead 22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Daniel .Bryant 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I haven't a clue as to how to do this, but ...

...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 {{AfD}}, {{Prod}} {{cfd}}, 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)[reply]

Great

Great page and very helpful. Thanks. Dgray xplane 05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about IAR?

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)[reply]

Well, it needs a clarification that IAR isn't an argument on its own, you need to support how it improves the encyclopedia. Since guidelines represent consensus on what constitutes improving the encyclopedia, you better accompany it with a darn good rationale why we should ignore those. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you add a section on WP:SNOW. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAR isn't an argument on its own but could be used to break through e.g. arguments that are technically true but not practically relevant. It's probably not the best way of phrasing that, thuogh. >Radiant< 11:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Go do something else!" argument

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)[reply]

Very valid point; I'd say it merits inclusion here. :] --Keitei (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article violate a policy...when the "policy" is a "guideline"?

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)[reply]

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 ^blah_edits 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly violate a guideline (maybe the term "violate" is too strong, but you can "break" or "go against" a guideline). It's not problematic if people or issues break guidelines, because guidelines can have exceptions. However, if people disagree whether such an exception is reasonable, it may be useful to discuss that, and that is what happens on AFD. Basically, people say (using shorter phrasing, but still) that they believe a certain page runs counter to our guidelines. Other people concur, or dissent that (1) it doesn't run counter, or (2) it's a reasonable exception because so-and-so. For instance, in the case of RS, a reasonable exception could be made if (a) it is common knowledge, or (b) a source could plausibly be thought to exist. That's why we discuss it. >Radiant< 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wtf?

Why are people citing this as policy? Gah. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]