Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale.

Shortcuts and hatnotes[edit]

The top and bottom of the page may help readers where else to click. However, what about the shortcuts? After WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON discussion, time may be now for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

School outcomes[edit]

I have added a brief section here based on the RFC. Anyone please feel free to edit. Pinging Jbhunley since he updated the SCHOOLOUTCOMES page itself and might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I did some wordsmithing there. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Jbh Talk 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. Just copyedited a bit more. Thanks for the wordsmithing Masem. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's in the wrong section; it's not meta-reasoning. It belongs under Arguments without arguments. It should go right next to Just pointing at a policy or guideline/WP:JUSTAPOLICY. In fact, it's just a special case of the general advice, "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 applies to the discussion at hand." Do we really want to to add an entry for every possible application of WP:JUSTAPOLICY? Kind of redundant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Updating ATA to include school outcomes was specifically requested in the close to an extremely large site-wide RfC that was closed by a committee. I don't particularly care where on the page it goes, but to my reading it seems to fit best with all of the other meta-reasoning arguments rather than "arguments without arguments". TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Add a note for people in ITEXISTS?[edit]

Hey, I was just wondering - would it be possible to have something in the WP:ITEXISTS section that mentions people? The reason for this is that I will frequently mention this section when it comes to professions like so:

John Smith may be a writer, but it's generally assumed that a writer will put out content during the course of their career so being a writer does not give notability in and of itself. Sometimes their work can get the coverage necessary to pass NAUTHOR, but being (ie, existing as) a writer is not inherently notable.

It's pretty common that I or others will say something like this and even reference this section, however I just noticed that it doesn't mention people despite the section saying "it". I was just thinking that having a small mention of it applying to professions would help, but especially since we could then have a redirect "IEXIST". Mostly this is just because I don't want people to get upset and think that we're referring to them as an "it". Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"I'm sure"[edit]


I think it might be worth mentioning that a statement like "I'm sure there are sources" isn't good enough, there has to be actual evidence of sources. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Likewise with "I know it's notable" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)