User talk:FT2/ATA
Add topic | This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions. Rather than giving just short one-liners or links, try to explain why you feel an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines, policies. This essay should not be viewed as trumping existing policy or guidelines. |
The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion debates at templates for deletion, images and media for deletion, categories for discussion, stub types for deletion, redirects for discussion and especially articles for deletion which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments. The reason they should be avoided is because they are not based upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, but are rather arguments based from side issues that are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted. When taking part in deletion debates, then, it's best to base arguments on the policies of Neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not.
As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below). Furthermore, remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is WP:INTERESTING, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.
Arguments without arguments[edit]
Just a vote[edit]
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 --VoteyMcVoteson 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
| Argument omitted. |
|---|
| This is probably the worst kind of argument that can be made in a deletion debate because, well, it isn't an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "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 actual reasons as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons. |
Just a policy or guideline[edit]
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 violates WP:NOR --Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
| Argument omitted (II). |
|---|
| Only slightly better than just a vote, this also does not provide other editors with specific reasoning why the article should be deleted. Although the article might be in violation of the policy or guideline referred to, no explanation is supplied on why the article violates that particular policy. It is also good to remember that in many cases an article might be changed so that it no longer violates the policy and in those cases it might not have to be deleted at all. Try to explain to other editors how this relates to a particular policy and how that policy supports your vote. Naturally, this also applies on quoting policies to support keeping an article.
Imagine that your own username got blocked, with the reason being a vague wave at policy, "Violates WP:USERNAME", giving no indication of which specific rule it broke. You might have no idea of what to change, of how to make it acceptable. You'd want more detail than that. Likewise, please give others your detailed reasons for objecting to their work, so they needn't try to read your mind. Note that it is harder to explain why an article does not meet a policy or guideline, as that would be similar to proving a negative. Still, rather than merely writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - no sources cited or could be found with a web search" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts." It's often possible to pinpoint specific violations. For instance, an article that includes a copyright notice goes against WP:COPYRIGHT. Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above. |
Per nominator[edit]
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 per nom. Trustfull 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
| No new argument added. |
|---|
| It is important to keep in mind that every listing of an article for deletion is not a vote, but rather a discussion. That means that if several people already have showed support for the nominator, adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator may not contribute significantly to the conclusion made by the closing administrator. That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Where a nomination has been effectively addressed by counter-arguments in the discussion, however, it may be useful to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshaling your own evidence. |
It is unencyclopedic[edit]
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 as unencyclopedic. --Cyclops 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
| Basis of argument omitted. |
|---|
| As the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia shows, being "unencyclopedic" is an umbrella term covering all possible problems that an article may have that make it a candidate for deletion. In other words, the above recommendation by user Cyclops is so vague, it gives no information on why the article should be deleted. It is better to cite a specific policy that the article fails, or at least make an argument as to why it is unencyclopedic. |
Just not notable[edit]
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 as non-notable. --NotableGuru 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Example: Keep it's clearly notable. --NNotabilityDiviner 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
| Basis of argument omitted (II). |
|---|
| Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability.
The mirror of "Just not notable" is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim of notability. Notability requires an explanation so that other editors may be able to verify the claim as well as seek sources. An explanation is also helpful in deciding whether or not the subject of an article meets existing policies and guidelines that may cover the subject. |
Don't lose the information[edit]
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 because we would lose the information otherwise. --Redundant Redundant 13:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based on the idea that the information matters, but policy-based rationale omitted. |
|---|
| This argument is more common on WP:TFD and WP:CFD, although it sometimes comes up in discussions about lists as well. Sometimes, an issue is redundantly covered by both a list template and a category, or both a list article and a series box, or other permutations. Sometimes, a deletion debate is used to suggest that a template be converted to a category, or a category to a list. All of these have their advantages and disadvantages; generally, it makes little sense to simultaneously have a list and a category and a series box on the same issue.
In all these cases, removing information is not an issue; if the conversion is done properly, not a thing is lost. Objecting to removal of information is rather moot and pointless when such a removal isn't being proposed in the first place. |
Badly written article[edit]
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, the article is rubbish. --Rubbish McTrashtalker 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon current quality of article. |
|---|
| This kind of vote is based on the basis of the quality of the current article which may be poorly written, lack sources or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject. However, because the current article is poor doesn't necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia - remember that, thanks to the Wiki model, an article that is poor now can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. When voting, consider whether the ideal version of the article would be worthy of inclusion, rather than the present one and consider whether the article's subject is worthy of inclusion.
Sometimes, however, the current article is so poor that it's worth deleting the starting from scratch. Key examples are legal issues including copyright or libel problems, the article consists entirely of unverifiable original research or the article is so poor it's unredeemable. In such cases, it's worth mentioning that you wouldn't be against recreation so the article does not get salted. See the related Only created for... |
Point of view[edit]
I like it[edit]
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 The Flailing Hairnets are the best rock band in the world right now. --Superbestfan 02:02, 2 February 2002 (UTC)
| Argument based upon personal feelings. |
|---|
| There are a lot of variations to this line of argument but they generally amount to the same thing, the person arguing really, really likes the subject of the (typically) article being nominated for deletion and so doesn't want to see it deleted. Often the fact that the subject is really great at what they do is offered as a reason for not deleting. The problem with this line of reasoning is that how good, say, a band's music is is a very subjective statement; while you may love a band with all of your heart someone else may hate them with just as much passion. More importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias bring knowledge created by others into one place, they don't create new knowledge (see Wikipedia:No original research). In other words, a band or actor or computer game may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other reliable sources have written about them, they can't be included. Maybe they will be written about in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and articles can only be added when the subjects have been written about elsewhere. If your favourite band/game/sports team/webcomic/whatever really is that great it should happen sooner or later, though, so just be patient. |
I don't like it[edit]
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 as cruft. --Cruftbane 03:03, 3 March 2003 (UTC)
| Argument based upon personal feelings (II). |
|---|
| Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate fair use images and text, but again until there is a policy stating that fair use is prohibited the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided fair use criteria are met. Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Some may see it as an embarrassment if someone's garage band later enjoy international success, though we cannot yet know this, hence such an article would have little potential. On the other extreme, featured content has emerged from "cruft": a featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc began as an in popular culture section. |
I don't care[edit]
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, who cares about this stuff anyway? --Indifferent 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon personal feelings (III). |
|---|
| Not everyone is going to care about every topic. We can take that as given. But our own apathy about a subject does not prevent others from caring about it, enough to want to read about it, even enough to want to write about it -- nor should our apathy be a reason to delete it. If we really don't care about a topic, the courteous thing to do is to step out of the way and let others enjoy it if they will. If we really don't care about it, why argue about it? If we're so apathetic, why are we taking the time and effort even to say so? This is never a valid argument for deletion as Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is not concerned directly with how many people care about a topic so much as instead how notable it is, or how much it has been the subject of people giving the topic coverage. |
This number is big[edit]
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, 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
| Argument based upon the idea that size alone implies notability. |
|---|
| A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has x number of y, that's notable". In fact, editors are fooling themselves if they think they know how many subscribers makes a notable journal on calligraphy, how much revenue makes a notable cardboard box producer, and how many pandas make a notable zoo. Not to mention the other 97 different 'big numbers' that could be used to justify arguing 'keep' in an AfD every day.
The number that really matters is the tally of reliable sources--zero isn't enough. Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they don't, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of "how big is big" - but we can't rely on ours. 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. |
It's funny[edit]
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 This article is hilarious. --ComedyExpert 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon humor value. |
|---|
| Wikipedia is not a repository of humor; one might try Uncyclopedia if one is interested in a wiki of original humor. Articles can't 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 doesn't 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. |
I've never heard of it[edit]
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. Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. --Iknownothing 00:07, 1 April 2004 (UTC)
Example: Delete. Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? --Notknownhere 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon personal lack of knowledge. |
|---|
| 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. |
Better here than there[edit]
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 not kept then people will just keep putting it back into another article. --BHTT 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
| Argument based upon the idea it'll be somewhere anyway so who cares. |
|---|
| This argument is often made regarding articles comprised solely of mentions of otherwise notable subjects in non-notable circumstances, for example a character on one television show mentioning the name of a film or a fictional character or a real person. Often these articles are named something like X in popular culture or Cultural representations of X and are forked off from the trivia or "...in popular culture" section of the article for "X" because of the large size of the "X" article or the large number of the mentions. While removing trivia or reducing the amount of it in the main article is laudable, the information is no less trivial for being in its own article and any such article still needs to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. |
People put a lot of work into it[edit]
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 - Lots of people have worked on this. -- TheyWorked
| Argument based upon the idea that putting effort into something makes it notable. |
|---|
| It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that don't 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 requirement of policy and guidelines. In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. |
Nobody's working on it[edit]
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
| Argument based upon the idea that lack of obvious effort makes it non-notable. |
|---|
| Sometimes an article is proposed for deletion that isn't being worked on very much, or hasn't been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This doesn't 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 potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date, though such assessment should be realistic.
A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanup". Articles shouldn't be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet, as Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's anything useful towards a good article, the article should be improved, not deleted. |
It's only a guideline/essay[edit]
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. User:DissentingView 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep WP:XYZ is only a guideline. User:RulesLawyer 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon the idea that it's only an essay (and hence implied, not important). |
|---|
| 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. Guidelines do indeed have exceptions, however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we don't have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using "guideline" status as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made. 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. 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 neccesary 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. |
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia[edit]
It's useful[edit]
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)
| Argument based upon the idea that usefulness trumps policy. |
|---|
| Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that lots of things that are useful are excluded because they don't belong in an encyclopedia. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but are not included because Wikipedia is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page 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). In any case, usefulness is a very subjective judgment (what a physicist might find useful is not the same as what a high school student might find useful) and like all subjective judgments should be avoided in deletion debates as far as is possible.
In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. With all of that that said, there are some pages within Wiki which are merely supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance. |
It's interesting[edit]
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: interesting. --Fascinated 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
| Argument based upon the idea that interestingness trumps policy. |
|---|
| I can insert two pennies horizontally into my nostrils, that's a fairly interesting fact but does it belong on Wikipedia? Besides, just because I find something interesting doesn't mean anyone else will. |
What about article x?[edit]
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 that's just as famous as this. --KingPrecedent 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
Delete we don't have an article on y, so we shouldn't have an article on this --KingPrecedent 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
| Argument based upon precedent or other articles. |
|---|
| The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist; it's 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), but even here caution should be used.
Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: does the fact that there is an article on every Pokémon character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character in Super Mario Bros? Or every character in World of Warcraft? Or every character in Adventure Quest? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it's 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". The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" 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. See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Wikipedia:Pokémon test, User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. |
Notability is inherited[edit]
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. It's a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. Wheredoesitend 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon inheritance of notability. |
|---|
| Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That's not to say that the subordinate topic can't be mentioned in the encyclopedia. If it really is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. On the other hand, if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect. Often, sub-articles are 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, 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. Parent notability should be established independently. |
It doesn't do any harm[edit]
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 why delete this, it isn't harming anyone. --Donoharm 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
| Argument based upon argument 'it's not hurting anyone'. |
|---|
| Just because having an article doesn't directly hurt anyone doesn't 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 don't hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm that one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.) The "it doesn't 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. |
It should be about everything[edit]
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. User:AllInclusive 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep, you're trying to remove true information! User:Alltruthful 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this thing exists, so it should be included. User:AllExisting 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon ignoring WP:NOT. |
|---|
| Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and 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 in history, every person living, 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. It is impossible to document everything, and that's why Wikipedia has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it's also not "everything". So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia. Remember, the threshold is verifiability, not truth. |
All or nothing[edit]
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'll have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles. --User:AllOrNothing 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles, so this needs to go too. User:NothingOrAll 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
| Argument based upon 'all or nothing' logic. |
|---|
| The status of articles on other similar topics has no 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 attributable, 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. |
Fame and shame[edit]
Fame in x[edit]
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 John is the tallest person in my home town so should have an article about him --Smalltownboy 05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. People in my city haven't heard of her, so she can't be notable. -Anthropocentric 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
| Appeal to local fame. |
|---|
| Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. My Aunt Mildred might be the greatest crocheter in her local village crochet group, that makes her famous in the crocheting community in that village but it doesn't mean she qualifies 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 would end up being original research. Most likely, no reliable source has ever published on the crocheting skills of Aunt Mildred. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopaedia 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 isn't important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopaedia.
Conversely, very few things are well known everywhere. For instance, Pepe may not be well-known in London, but that does not by itself mean he is not notable. See also "I've never heard of it" above. |
Google test[edit]
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)
| Appeal to search engine hits. |
|---|
| 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 are 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. 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 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 popular as has been claimed.
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. |
Repeated nominations[edit]
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 just last week? --User:User 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. --User:User 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
| Appeal to prior deletion hearing. |
|---|
| If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), presuming that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion then, there is no reason to renominate it. Lack of previous consensus for deletion does not constitute a reason to Keep if the rationale for deletion (as given in previous AFD nominations) is supported by core Wikipolicies (such as neutral point of view or no original research).
At the same time, one should not frivolously nominate (or renominate) an article for deletion; Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded (particularly with stubs), one should allow time for editors to improve it; on the other hand, should the original rationale for deletion still apply to the article later, then it may be worth reviewing the previous AFD via a subsequent nomination. |
It was only created for...[edit]
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 - it was only created as a promotion page / as an attack page. --User:User 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
| Appeal to original purpose. |
|---|
| Example: someone creates an article on a politician, including negative information on them (an attack page), or about their company to promote it positively (an advertizing/promotion page). if it happens that the politician or company are in fact notable and the article isn't a complete waste of space, copyvio, or train-wreck, then where practical it is preferable that the article is remedied and made neutral, rather than deleted. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy)
In effect, once created (for whatever reason that may have been), an article takes on its own life. It survives or is deleted (so to speak) according to normal article criteria - notability (WP:N), suitability (WP:NOT), verifiable reliable sources, etc. It is AFD'ed, PRODed or SPEEDYDELETE'd if it's dubious, and kept and improved otherwise. There's a warning to this effect on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest related to self-promotional article creation. Deletion processes are always available if it's likely that non-notability, unsuitability, or lack of reliable sources can be established. But "It wasn't created for genuine reasons" isn't a valid deletion argument. |