Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in RfD discussions
 | This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia users. Essays may represent common ideas, or ideas that many users would not support. They are not rules. Think carefully about what they say before following them. |
Some arguments should not be in RfD discussions, this will list such arguments
Arguments without arguments[change source]
Just notable[change source]
Examples:
Keep, Notable. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete, Non-notable. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
To provide a proper notability claim, it must state policies and guidelines.
Just a vote[change source]
Examples:
- Keep. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Merge. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion is not a vote, you should state what action to take instead of just voting.
It must be notable![change source]
Examples:
- Keep, there must be sources out there! 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, isn't there some sources somewhere? 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
There has to be proof of sources, not assumption of sources, you have to give proof of reliable sources, base your statements on fact, not assumption.
Just unencyclopedic/encyclopedic[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, totally encyclopedic. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Quick Delete, unencylopedic. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The claim of being encyclopedic is simply not a good claim.
Begging for mercy[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, don't waste my wonderful work! 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, the author is on a WikiBreak, don't delete this page. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Another unacceptable argument that does not state policy. There is no such thing as "mercy" on wikipedia
Personal interest[change source]
I like it/I do not like it[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, it is so nice 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, I DONT LIKE IT!!!! 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Such claims don't make any arguments about policies and guidelines, and so are useless arguments because arguments of personal interest are invalid
They don't like it[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, the people of fooia do not want any one to know this, we should not follow fooian interests. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, baz fans do not like this article as it makes baz seem bad. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, but that by itself is not enough to be a reason for deletion
Notability fallacies[change source]
Existence[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, This exists! it should be on wikipedia. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, This is not a hoax! it is aloud on here. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about everything in existence, nobody could imagine how big an encyclopedia of everything would be.
Inherited notability[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, he works for a famous person, so he is notable. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, the products of this company are notable, so the company is notable
Notability is not transferred by generation, and rarely is.
Crystal ball[change source]
Examples:
- Keep, this movement may be unknown now, but it will be world-famous soon. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, will be forgotten in a month. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This is obvious per WP:CRYSTAL
Other[change source]
Ad hominem[change source]
Examples:
- Delete, author is stupid. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, author has created many good pages. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Arguments should not be made to the person, but to the page's quality. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Arguments with jargon, idioms, weasel words, or excessively complex words[change source]
Examples:
- Delete, only telling the tip of the iceberg of information. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, author is worried about the small stuff, like wiki stuff. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Such arguments will not be understood, and be considered invalid.
Related pages[change source]
- WP:! (policy)