Wikipedia talk:Arguments to make 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.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.


Is being linked really a good reason to keep an article? The way the argument is worded now runs afoul of WP:N and WP:V, as it seems to we don't need sources if there are a lot of incoming links, a claim which is contracted by WP:V's requirement that there be sources.

There's also the problem of gaming. A savvy editor can easily generate a bunch of incoming links to an article... and indeed with some of the most problematic articles you find they're linked to in a bunch of legitimate articles that have been modified to exaggerate the importance of the problematic article. Since it's perfectly possible to game links, it's hard to take them seriously as an indicator of notability.

In sum, I really doubt there's consensus that incoming links really are a good argument to make in deletion discussions. People make the argument sometimes... but it's pretty fishy. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

These arguments are, after all, suggestions. As mentioned on this page, it is best, when using this argument, to list at least some of the articles that have these links so the importance can be evaluated by others. Even if not sourced in the article proposed for deletion, hopefully they would be in others. If at least several other articles had these links long before a deletion proposal, this would be indicative of the importance. On the other hand, creating needless links just to save an article would be a form of disruptive editing. Sebwite (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Still, the way this essay is worded right now goes against WP:V's requirement of sources. I don't think it's fair to tell people that, in its present form, this is a good argument to make... it'd never be accepted as the sole argument at a place like DRV, so you're kind of arming people with defective tools. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Could the sentence under links be any longer?! Currently it reads: "Even if an article does not appear to have sources making it notable, being linked directly from a significant number of other articles in a manner that the links in those articles show that the reader of those articles would want to know more about the blue-linked subject shows that the information the article contains is valuable in defining and providing information on a subject already described in multiple articles." Lugnuts (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we specify that we aren't explicitly encouraging[edit]

these particular arguments to be used in all deletion discussions?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai is a NOTDIC discussion (the article appears to be a coatrack for an environmentalist campaign hiding behind a dictionary definition/etymology). But someone has shown up and made a HASREFS argument, despite this having nothing to do with the article's problems. I came here, and I noticed that this page appears to imply that HASREFS is an argument that should always be used in deletion discussions -- should we include an intro stating that these arguments are not all good for all deletion discussions?

猿丸 09:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Links" argument (again)[edit]

This argument should probably be moved to this page's counterpart, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This argument is a contravention of WP:ARTN, which I'm going to quote; Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content can make the subject notable.

For example, a music band can have around 5 links from its members' articles, and still fail WP:GNG, because no reliable sources have been published for that yet. Any thoughts? --TL22 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)