Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in discussions

This page discusses statements, justifications, and rationales that should be avoided in any content or administrative discussion on Wikipedia. These types of argumentation should be avoided because they are:

Unclear, ambiguous, or underspecified.
Based in personal or stylistic concerns that have no bearing on the issue at hand.
Argumentative or belligerent.

or otherwise founded on factors not related to the topic at hand, or to neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people, what Wikipedia is not, or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Remember that a statement which by itself could be classified as an "argument to avoid" may be perfectly valid if it is supported and expanded upon by further discussion. This essay is intended to discourage what amount to grunts of assent and dissent and encourage more detailed discussion. This essay should only be referred to to encourage other editors to explain themselves more fully

Bald-faced assertions, with or without Handwaving

Statements which justify a position using vague, indirect, or second-hand referents (or which lack any justification at all) add nothing to the conversation and can't really be counted as arguments at all. Wikipedia does not make decisions based on simple votes, so expressing an opinion without discussion or explanation has has little value. It is not up to other people to divine what you mean from a pithy, telegraphic statement. common examples:

Simple declaratives	Keep this. – VoteyMcVoter 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete it. – JoeMcVoter 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Not useful. – JaneVoteé 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Declaratives with a nod to others' reasons	Delete per nom. – Trustfull 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Keep as per I'vanIdea 's statement. – Suckup 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
vague policy/guideline reference	Reverted unencyclopedic edit. – MsKnowItAll 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC) This addition is non-notable. –NotableGuru 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Keep per NN. – NNDeclarer 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Reverted per WP:CONSENSUS –IamConsensus 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Personal point of view

Like/Dislike

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep The Flailing Hairnets are the best rock band in the world right now. – Superbestfan 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
Delete – The Flailing Hairnets are the worst rock band ever. SuperCritic 02:03, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
Delete – It's annoying. – IAmReallyAnnoyed 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
Delete as cruft. – Cruftbane 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
Delete as trivia. – NoTriviaHere 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an election in a Third-world place. – AllBrownPeopleAreTheSame 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete it's offensive for my religion – MyGodIsBetterThanYours 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient.

And on the converse (see #I like it, directly above), while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see #Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also #Pointing at policy.)

This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. For example, while the "cruft" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential for verifiable inclusion.

It's interesting

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep Interesting. – Fascinated 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not interesting. – Notinterested 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway? – Indifferent 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Stuff and nonsense anyhow. – StuffyDecisionMaker 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be of interest to some editor somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may be apathetic, or not care, about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

See also #I like it and #I don't like it, above.

It's useful or useless

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:

Keep Useful. – Usefulisgood 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete – we don't need this here. – Judgmental 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded; yet everything in it should be useful in some context. But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.

A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikitravel for that). Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument.

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.

It doesn't do any harm

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep Why delete this, it is not harming anyone. – Hippocrates2 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete Why keep this, it doesn't do any good here – Hippocrates3 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)

But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable.

The "it does not do any harm" claim, and its rebuttal, is at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.

Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

It's funny

Shortcut

WP:ITSFUNNY

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep This article is hilarious. – ComedyExpert 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
KeepZOMG...this article is SOOOO friggin' funny!!!!ha ha ha . – Stand-upGal 4:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of humor. Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor can they be kept because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective value of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Wikipedia: The Office (US TV series), Red vs. Blue, and even unintentionally funny articles such as Exploding whale all have a place on Wikipedia. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are more appropriate places, even on Wikipedia, than in the article space.

It looks good

Shortcut

WP:PRETTY

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples

Keep Article is well laid out with good graphics – Styleoversubstance
Keep Very nice format and design, esp. the use of multicolour layout – Bauhaus11:0

While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Wikipedia.

It contains valuable information

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Shortcut

WP:VALINFO

Examples

Keep – This was not an advertisement, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our important cause that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – I. Wanda Publicize-Sumthin
Keep – This article is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – SaveTheKids!PleaseQ!

Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality and verifiability. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE.

Surmountable problems

Shortcuts

A common maxim is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.

Note: The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism.

Poorly written article

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Delete The article is rubbish. – TrashTalker 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article is messy and poorly laid out. – LostWillToFix
Delete It's not referenced properly – Lazy1 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Keep We'll find some sources later – NotRightNow 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.

With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible.

Nobody's working on it

Shortcut

WP:NOEFFORT

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Example:

Delete Article has been here for 2 years and is still a stub! – TheyDidntWork 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.

In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that needs to be added to it at the present time.

Notability fallacies

Existence

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep It exists. ItExists 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep It is not a hoax. It is truly real. NotAHoax 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep There is no Doubt that "KillMyMutha" as a band exist...there are 3 local newspaper articles about their show dates, plus they have a MySpace page. LoveGarageBandz 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Existence is important. The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information contained within sourced (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion. There are various other guidelines that must be met, mostly found in WP:N. As for the lack of existence, there are rare cases when this can be notable.

Google test

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Zero Google hits, must be a hoax. MustBeAHoax 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete Zero Google hits, so even if she is a tenured professor at Harvard, she must be non-notable. GoogleHits=measureOfworth 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.

Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.

Pageview stats

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples

Delete, Wikipedia does not need pages some handful of people (about 3 per day in this case) might want to find information about. – Trafficdirector 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 115th most popular article. – Porn enthusiast 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the news

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep I came here to find out more about the arrest and court case...should be kept and updated – NeedsToKnow1 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep On the news tonight and on all major newspaper frontpages – NeedsToKnow2 08:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep When I saw this I immediately looked it/them up here, as did many – CNNfan:) 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Huge media interest in this celeb romance...so we should keep the article – NeedGoode..Luvin 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service, articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Due to its popularity, Wikipedia is many people's first port of call to find out more about a breaking story or other current event they've just heard about. Wikipedia does have articles that cover current events, and it even selects certain newsworthy topics for display on the Main Page. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and keep arguments must take this into account. Wikipedia even has a sister project Wikinews, dedicated to hosting user generated news stories.

Arbitrary quantity

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. – Countvonnotable 04:56, 7 August 2006
Delete An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. – Notbigenough 04:56, 7 August 2006
Keep This person's video on YouTube just passed 1 million views mark and over 1,000 comments which is notable. – Lotsofviews 04:56, 7 August 2006

A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube.

This does not apply to the position taken in WP:NUMBER that articles on actual numbers over a certain size need to establish several reasons why that particular number is notable, which is a well-defined threshold.

Subjective importance

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Delete Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. – Iknownothing 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete People in my city have not heard of her, so she cannot be notable. -– Provincial 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? – Notknownhere 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep I know it well. It's on my way to school. – Myneighborhood 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep John is the tallest person in my home town so he should have an article about him. – Smalltownboy 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. – OnlySchool 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. A woman may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community; if the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community that's good evidence that the subject is not important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia.

Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.

Crystal ball

Shortcut

WP:ATA#CRYSTAL

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep This movement may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. – Youwillsee 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. – Shortattentionspan 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Notability is inherited

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable. – Classifier 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete All examples of faah are useless cruft. – Class Warfare 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. – Wheredoesitend 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep his brother is a notable athlete. – Family Tree 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep – there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. Adrian Listmaker 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.

In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child.

Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady.

Lots of sources

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Keep – there are many, many, many sources available. IFoundLotsofSources 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep – Did you even look for sources? SourceSearcher 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Search aggregators are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites.

Wikipedias in other languages

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples

Keep given the six interwiki links (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo , pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. – John Doe (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete No interwiki – NoInterwiki (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable.

Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Notability requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. Other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Wikipedia articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. Of course, if the other Wikipedia articles cite any sources not in the English Wikipedia article, they can be added to it.

On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted.

Individual merit

What about article x?

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. – EmperorOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Keep Look, if we have an article on Pokemon characters, we should be able to have an article on this band . – PokePerson:O 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.

Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.

Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.

The generic form of this argument, that "there are lots of other bad articles" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Wikipedia) – note that this argument differs from Fooian this vs. Fooian that or Fooian this vs. XYZian that.

All or nothing

Shortcut

WP:ALLORNOTHING

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles. – AllOrNothing 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles, so this needs to go too. – NothingOrAll 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles. Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. That said, there are precedents that may have an impact on a deletion discussion.

Meta-reasoning

Wikipedia should be about everything

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide information on everything. – AllInclusive 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep You are trying to remove true information! – AllTruthful 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This thing exists, so it should be included. – JohnPaulSartre&Ringo 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. This is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming unmaintainable. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every particle in the universe, every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

see also WP:NOTHING

Do not lose the information or the effort

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep because we would lose the information otherwise. – Essential Essential 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because the information is available elsewhere. – Redundant Redundant 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lots of people have worked on this. – TheyWorked 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines.

In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. Note that an argument from WP:PRESERVE does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion when material has been merged, as all contribution information may be lost, invalidating the licensing for the article.

Deleted work can be restored to your personal page or to the Article Incubator on request to an administrator. It is also usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a deletion review, provided that the deletion archive has not been cleared.

Better here than there

Shortcut

WP:BHTT

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection. Example

Keep If this article is deleted then the stuff in it will end up back in the main article – Keepitherenotthere

Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called "trivia" or "in popular culture" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Foo in popular culture articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as "use in fiction" or "cultural influences", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Wikipedia. Either incorporate the material in the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

That's only a guideline or essay

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy. – DissentingView 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:XYZ is only a guideline. – GuidelinesNoGood 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep because we should ignore all rules! – Anarwikist 01:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy.

Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines do explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it is fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you should try to make a reasonable argument for why this particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for breaking it.

Arguments to the person

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep Creator has a history of writing some really good articles, therefore this one must be good and should be kept. – GoodCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Creator has made only 27 edits so far. – FewEdits 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of articles that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. – BadNom 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Creator has previously created many articles that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. – BadCreator 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, nominator is a blocked user trying to destroy Wikipedia. – Tenacious Defender 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions.

Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

Repeated nominations

Shortcuts

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep Didn't we argue all this yesterday? – DejaVu 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. – Yawner 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted. – Trytryagain 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.

If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.

If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.

Denying the antecedent

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep It does not matter if it is original research, or non verifiable. It's notable. – Original scientist 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep It is verifiable, therefore it is not original research. – VerifiableOR 00:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy. It basically consists in confusing a necessary with a sufficent condition. All Wikipedia policies are necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficent. If the article meets one condition, it does not mean that it does not violate other policies: original research may be verifiable; articles which seem to be notable may be original research; notable biographies may be a violation of WP:BLP. The policies should be interpreted together not alone.

Other arguments to avoid

The following links are to articles which describe various relevance fallacies, which should also be avoided in discussions.