Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments. 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 discussions, then, it is best to base arguments on the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, or on Wikipedia guidelines; however, just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid.

Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is WP:INTERESTING, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.

As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below).

Arguments without arguments

Just a vote

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep – VoteyMcVoter 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete – JoeMcVoter 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an argument for deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "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 statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons.

Per nominator

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Delete per nom. – Trustfull 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as per I'vanIdea 's statement. – Suckup 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions.

If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".

Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position.

Just unencyclopedic

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Delete as unencyclopedic. – Cyclops 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT – NotSpecific - 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia shows, being "unencyclopedic" is a general term covering all possible problems that an article may have which may make it a candidate for deletion. This is like claiming that an article is "worth deleting" or "worth keeping". It is better to cite a specific policy reason for deletion, such as a topic that clearly runs against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, rather than make an overly broad assertion that an article is unencyclopedic.

Just not notable

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

• Examples:
• Delete as non-notable. –NotableGuru 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN. – NNDeclarer 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is clearly notable. –NotabilityDiviner 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "#Just unencyclopedic" and "#Just pointing at a policy or guideline".

Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep Meets WP:NOR – Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.

Personal point of view

I like it

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:

• Keep The Flailing Hairnets are the best rock band in the world right now. – Superbestfan 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient.

I don't like it

Main page: Wikipedia:I just don't like it

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Delete - The Flailing Hairnets are the worst rock band ever. SuperCritic 02:03, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't like it. – IDontLikeIt 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
• Delete - It's annoying. – IAmReallyAnnoyed 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need this here. – Judgmental 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
• Delete as cruft. – Cruftbane 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia. – NoTriviaHere 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And on the converse (see #I like it, directly above), while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see #Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also #Pointing at policy.)

This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. For example, while the "cruft" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential for verifiable inclusion.

It's interesting

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep Interesting. – Fascinated 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not interesting. – Notinterested 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway? – Indifferent 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Stuff and nonsense anyhow. – StuffyDecisionMaker 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be of interest to some editor somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may be apathetic, or not care, about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

See also #I like it and #I don't like it, above.

It's useful

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:

• Keep Useful. – Usefulisgood 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded; yet everything in it should be useful in some context. But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.

A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page simply 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 (there is a Wikitravel for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument.

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.

It doesn't do any harm

"WP:NOHARM" redirects here. For You may be looking for Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, see WP:NOHARM (disambiguation).

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep Why delete this, it is not harming anyone. – Hippocrates2 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why keep this, it doesn't do any good here – Hippocrates2 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, 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, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)

But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable.

The "it does not do any harm" claim, and its rebuttal, is at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.

Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

It's funny

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:

• Keep This article is hilarious. – ComedyExpert 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of humor. Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor can they be kept because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective value of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Wikipedia: The Office (US TV series), Red vs. Blue, and even unintentionally funny articles such as Exploding whale all have a place on Wikipedia. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research - not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are more appropriate places, even on Wikipedia, than in the article space.

It looks good

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example

• Keep Article is well laid out with good graphics – Styleoversubstance

While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Wikipedia.

Surmountable problems

Poorly written article

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Delete The article is rubbish. – TrashTalker 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is messy and poorly laid out. – LostWillToFix
• Delete It's not referenced properly – Lazy1 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Keep We'll find some sources later – NotRightNow 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.

With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible.

Note: The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism.

Nobody's working on it

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:

• Delete Article has been here for 2 years and is still a stub! – TheyDidntWork 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date.

In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that needs to be added to it at the present time.

A common maxim is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.

Notability fallacies

Google test

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

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, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.

Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. 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.

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.

Pageview stats

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples

• Delete, Wikipedia does not need pages some handful of people (about 3 per day in this case) might want to find information about. – Trafficdirector 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 115th most popular article. – Porn enthusiast 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary quantity

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. – Countvonnotable 04:56, 7 August 2006
• Delete An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. – Notbigenough 04:56, 7 August 2006
• Keep This person's video has over 1 million views and over 1,000 comments which is notable. – Lotsofviews 04:56, 7 August 2006

A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources.

This does not apply to the position taken in WP:NUMBER that articles on actual numbers over a certain size need to establish several reasons why that particular number is notable, which is a well-defined threshold.

Subjective importance

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Delete Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. – Iknownothing 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
• Delete People in my city have not heard of her, so she cannot be notable. -– Provincial 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? – Notknownhere 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I know it well. It's on my way to school. – Myneighborhood 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep John is the tallest person in my home town so he should have an article about him. – Smalltownboy 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. – OnlySchool 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is notable enough 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 could be considered original research. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia 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 is not important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia.

Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.

Crystal ball

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep This is going to be really important very soon. – Youwillsee 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember it in a week/month/year. – Shortattentionspan 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Notability is inherited

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep All examples of X are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All examples of Y are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. – Wheredoesitend 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a family member of someone who is notable. – Family Tree 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.

In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notability guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents.

Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady.

See also Wikipedia:Summary Style and Wikipedia:Article series.

Individual merit

What about article x?

Main page: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – EmperorOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is 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 Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, 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: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is 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". However, a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.

The generic form of this argument, that "there are lots of other bad articles" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Wikipedia) - note that this argument differs from Fooian this vs. Fooian that or Fooian this vs. XYZian that.

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

All or nothing

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles. – AllOrNothing 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles, so this needs to go too. – NothingOrAll 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles.

Should not exist

Main page: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists

This argument, similar to the all or nothing argument, claims that certain things "should not exist." In detailed form, the concept reads "[other stuff] exists, but should not," and as such is just a mirror equivalent of the "other stuff exists" argument; widely considered to be a fallacy.

The term "should" here indicates that similar things in fact actually do actually exist, even though the argument claims they should not. A valid, logical, rational, reasonable, and encyclopedic argument against a site-wide phenomenon, usage, or convention could, should, and would in fact be handled at the meta/policy level, not at the individual article level.

Thus the "should not exist" argument carries with it not only the tacit admission that similar concepts do in fact exist, but the concept that even though those similar concepts exist, the arguer isn't going to actually do anything about these other similar articles: Their concern is with the article in question alone, and despite the fact their argument rests on a concept of site-wide policy change, they may themselves be either not in interested or else incapable of changing site-wide conventions.

Stuff should exist

"Stuff should exist" is a variant of the above fallacies.

Meta-reasoning

Wikipedia should be about everything

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide information on everything. – AllInclusive 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You are trying to remove true information! – AllTruthful 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This thing exists, so it should be included. – JohnPaulSartre&Ringo 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, 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 becoming 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 who ever lived, 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. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

see also WP:NOTHING

Do not lose the information or the effort

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep because we would lose the information otherwise. – Essential Essential 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because the information is available elsewhere. – Redundant Redundant 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of people have worked on this. – TheyWorked 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirement of policy and guidelines. In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. Deleted work can be restored to your personal page on request to an administrator.

Note that this argument does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion, as all contribution information is lost, invalidating the GFDL license for the article. However, even in these cases, it is usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a deletion review.

Better here than there

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection. Example

• Keep If this article is deleted then the stuff in it will end up back in the main article – Keepitherenotthere

Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called "trivia" or "in popular culture" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Foo in popular culture articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as "use in fiction" or "cultural influences", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Wikipedia. Either incorporate the material in the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

That's only a guideline or essay

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy. – DissentingView 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XYZ is only a guideline. – GuidelinesNoGood 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because we should ignore all rules! – Anarwikist 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy.

Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines do explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it is fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you should try to make a reasonable argument for why this particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for breaking it.

Arguments to the person

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep Creator has a history of writing some really good articles, therefore this one must be good and should be kept. – GoodCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Creator has made only 27 edits so far. – FewEdits 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of articles that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. – BadNom 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Creator has previously created many articles that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. – BadCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, nominator is a blocked user trying to destroy Wikipedia. – Tenacious Defender 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions.

Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

Repeated nominations

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

• Keep Didn't we argue all this yesterday? – DejaVu 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. – Yawner 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted. – Trytryagain 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.

If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.

If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.

Other arguments to avoid

The following links are to articles which describe various relevance fallacies, which should also be avoided in discussions.

See also

• User:Hiding/What notability is not
• User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates
• Wikipedia:Does deletion help
• Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft
• Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
• Wikipedia:Discussing cruft
• Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact
• Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability
• Wikipedia:Follow the leader