Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.|
This essay miscited?
People have been using shortcuts, like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, to illustrate their points in non-deletion discussions. Perhaps we should create a section on advising readers to be careful of citing shortcuts and this essay in the future. --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Likewise users have been misusing WP:POINT. Which just means "never play devil's advocate when making edits". — Keφr 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Or was that deliberate irony? In that case, congratulations, I have been trolled. Though that might be a slight violation of WP:POINT.
Spacing and trimming example usernames
I love how the usernames in the examples are witty and fitting with the theme. Some of them, however, are approaching full sentences and include spaces. This leads to confusion when reading the examples, even more so for the editors most likely reading this page who are not as familiar with deletion discussion. Names such as "I just cannot accept it" and "Who has the secret?" read more like continuations of the !vote rather than signatures -- even while I knew that each example was signed I still sometimes got myself confused. I think an easy solution would be to reduce the spacing in these examples, moving ones like "I just cannot accept it" to something like "NotAccepting" and the like, but was wondering if anyone else had other suggestions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
There must be sources
Would it be worth merging Wikipedia:But there must be sources! here? Speculation that articles should/might exist is not the same as citing or linking them for verifiability. And I see this argument more than I'd like. Anyway, the essay already exists and has a similar scope, so I though it would be worth raising. – czar 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- This essay actually started out as a section of WP:ATA but there was a lot of (IMO unreasonable) resistance to it, so we decided to spin it out into a new essay. I think it should probably stay that way, because it has been expanded and improved to be more than just another WP:ATA section. Reyk YO! 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)