Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion reviews for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments.

There is a common misconception that deletion review is "AfD Round 2." This leads to many arguments being made on the basis that a deleted article should be restored simply because it is "worth keeping", or that a kept article should nonetheless have been deleted. This overlooks the real purpose of the DRV, which is to challenge what is believed to be a closing administrator's poor or otherwise controversial judgment in making his/her decision on why the discussion was closed the way it was. Most of the time, fewer than 5% of closed deletion discussions end up at deletion review, though this is not a blanket rate and it can fluctuate at any time. Regardless, DRV is not a place to try to test an article at AfD again without any new issues not brought up during AfD.

By the same token, arguments that consist of merely repeating that "DR is not AfD Round 2" should not be made when the nominator has raised issues that are legitimately within the scope of DR, such as that the closing admin misread the consensus, or that policy was not properly applied. In legal terms, AfD is concerned with the substance of the article at issue, while DR is concerned with the process by which a decision was reached.

Arguments that are made in a deletion review should be concerned with existing policies and guidelines and reasons why one believes the closing admin's decision is not in line with them. 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.

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


Arguments without arguments[edit]

Just a vote[edit]

  • EndorseThoughtlessMcEndorse 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • OverturnThoughtlessMcOverturn 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Like deletion discussions, deletion review is not a vote. Intelligent discussion is what is used to make the decision.

Not making any real points[edit]

  • Endorse should be kept as it is – NoNeedToChange 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Overturn this was a poor decision – NoDecisionIsEverGood 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Endorse was obvious – Undoubtful 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Such arguments do not explain why one feels this way. This gives no reason why the decision should be changed.

Let's try again[edit]

  • Overturn Let's give it another chance – AnotherChance 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • EndorseIt was deleted already and that should be final 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

As stated above, DR is not AfD Round 2.

"Not AfD Round 2"[edit]

  • Endorse DR is not AFD Round 2 NoForumShopping 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

While this is indeed a valid argument when a nominator simply reasserts the failed arguments from the XfD, a nominator who has raised issues that are properly within the scope of DR should be engaged on them, not dismissed out of hand.

AfD-like comments[edit]

  • Overturn is clearly notable VeryClear 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Overturn meets inclusion guidelines WorthyOfInclusion 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

As stated above, deletion review is not a second AfD. The purpose of the deletion review is not to determine whether or not the article (or other type of page) belongs.

  • Overturn has sources HasSources 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Endorse has no sources Has No Sources 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Hopefully, if this was the issue, it has already been discussed at the AfD, and is already known. If new sources were found that were not noted during the AfD, let them be known and how they would bring notability to the subject.

Vote counts[edit]

  • Overturn There were 10 keeps and only 7 deletes. Outvoted 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Overturn Everyone wanted this to be kept. Only the administrator wanted it to be deleted. WasUnanimous 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

AfD (or other deletion) is not a vote. If a deletion was closed against the majority, it was probably because the minority better cited policies and guidelines regarding what the outcome should be. A good closing administrator would pick up on this.

Time passage[edit]

  • Allow recreation Several years have passed since creation of this article was protected – KilledByTime 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Do not allow recreation This was just protected yesterday – SentenceNotUpYet 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

When a page title has been protected against creation, or a redirect has been protected, there is obviously a reason for this. So if there is a desire to have it unprotected, the argument should either explain why that title should be unprotected. Some examples are that the subject was not notable back then but now is (providing sources), or that the title would now be used for a different subject that shares its name.

If you want in good faith to write an article using a title that was blocked from creation, some options are to write a userspace draft or to title it slightly differently and request it be moved to the blocked title.

See also[edit]