Wikipedia:Keep it concise
 | This is an essay on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: AfD discussions are best served by keeping your comments short. The closing admin isn't grading you by volume. |
Editors are encouraged to fully discuss all sides of the issues surrounding articles considered for deltion. If one editor brings up an argument, another editor should be allowed to respond to it in good faith.
Example:
- Delete Non-notable subject fails WP:BIO due to not meeting criteria X, Y and Z. User:HackNSlash 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well, let me address every word and phrase you used in your deletion nomination ..................... [ seven hundred words later ] ............................................... User:SirTalksALot 8:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well, let me address every word and phrase you used in your deletion nomination ..................... [ seven hundred words later ] ............................................... User:SirTalksALot 8:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If one editor has a position in an articles for deletion discussion (or any other discussion for that matter), any editor of opposing viewpoint should be allowed to respond to it in good faith. Making an argument to either delete or keep an article, and then dismissing the opportunity for response is not only one-sided but may be considered uncivil and perhaps even disruptive.
Even without the consideration of disruptiveness and uncivility, the purpose of disuccions of articles for deletion is to get to the bottom of the idea: should an article be kept or deleted (or any of the other options available through the conclusion of an AfD such as merge).