User:Sebwite/Arguments to avoid in discussions/construction sandbox: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:00, 24 January 2010

Revision as of 17:07, 24 January 2010

Line 1:

===Favoring keeping===

==Arguments without arguments==

{| class="wikitable"

===Just a vote===

|-

{{shortcut|WP:JUSTAVOTE|WP:NOREASON}}

!Type

<small>Please read also the [[#top|introduction]] of this ''essay'' on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

''!Examples:''

!Explanation

''Examples:''

!Shortcuts

* '''Keep''' &ndash; <span style="color:red">VoteyMcVoter</span> 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

|-

* '''Delete''' &ndash; <span style="color:red">JoeMcVoter</span> 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

===|Just a vote===

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.

|'''Keep'''

|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.

<span id="Per nom" />

|WP:JUSTAVOTE

|-

===|Per nominator===

{{shortcut|WP:PERNOMINATOR|WP:PERNOM}}

|* '''Keep''' as per [nominator's] statement.

<small>Please read also the [[#top|introduction]] of this ''essay'' on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

|It is important to keep in mind that the [[WP:AFD|AfD process]] is designed to solicit discussion, not [[WP:VIE|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.

''Examples:''

* '''Delete''' per nom. &ndash; <span style="color:red">Trustfull</span> 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' as per <span style="color:red">I'vanIdea</span> 's statement. &ndash; <span style="color:red">Suckup</span> 11:38, 1 April 2004 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that the [[WP:AFD|AfD process]] is designed to solicit discussion, not [[WP:VIE|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.

|WP:PERNOM

|-

<span id="It's unencyclopedic" /><span id="It is unencyclopedic" /><span id="Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" />

|Is notable

|'''Keep''' It is clearly notable.

=== Just unencyclopedic ===

|Simply stating that the subject of an article is not [[Wikipedia:Notability|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]]".

{{shortcut|WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC|WP:UNENCYC}}

<small>Please read also the [[#top|introduction]] of this ''essay'' on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

''Examples:''

* '''Delete''' as unencyclopedic. &ndash; <span style="color:red">Cyclops</span> 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

* '''Delete''' per [[WP:NOT]] &ndash; <span style="color:red">NotSpecific</span> – 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.

<span id="It's not notable" /><span id="Just not notable" />

===Just not notable===

{{shortcut|WP:JNN|WP:ITSNOTABLE}}

<small>Please read also the [[#top|introduction]] of this ''essay'' on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

*''Examples:''

* '''Delete''' as non-notable. &ndash;<span style="color:red">NotableGuru</span> 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

* '''Delete''' – [[WP:N|NN]]. &ndash; <span style="color:red">NNDeclarer</span> 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' It is clearly notable. &ndash;<span style="color:red">NotabilityDiviner</span> 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not [[Wikipedia:Notability|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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] found to [[WP:V|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.

|WP:CLEARLYNOTABLE

|-

<span id="Just a policy or guideline" /><span id="Pointing at policy" /><span id="Per policy" />

|

|

|

|

|}

=== Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===