User:Sebwite/Arguments to avoid in discussions/construction sandbox

Arguments without arguments

Just a vote

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 – VoteyMcVoter 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete – JoeMcVoter 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an argument for deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons.

Per nominator

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 per nom. – Trustfull 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as per I'vanIdea 's statement. – Suckup 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions.

If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".

Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position.

Just unencyclopedic

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 as unencyclopedic. – Cyclops 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT – NotSpecific – 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia shows, being "unencyclopedic" is a general term covering all possible problems that an article may have which may make it a candidate for deletion. This is like claiming that an article is "worth deleting" or "worth keeping". It is better to cite a specific policy reason for deletion, such as a topic that clearly runs against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, rather than make an overly broad assertion that an article is unencyclopedic.

Just not notable

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 as non-notable. –NotableGuru 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – NN. – NNDeclarer 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is clearly notable. –NotabilityDiviner 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "#Just unencyclopedic" and "#Just pointing at a policy or guideline".

Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline

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 Meets WP:NOR – Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

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 is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.