Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL

Hmmmm, that is not mentioned here? I thought it would be. Should we add it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Could certainly go into 'Surmountable problems'? Valereee (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Agreed. Can you add it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting an addition: Arguments based on when the article was created

This is something I see frequently, which typically takes one of two forms. One is about "it's been around for a long time, so it's probably good". The other comes down to one side saying WP:RAPID while the other side says WP:DELAY, two opposing principles of the events notability criteria that merely express a personal philosophy towards keeping vs. deleting rather than provide any real argument at all one way or the other. Idea being, those principles can accompany concrete reasoning to keep/delete (sourcing, evidence that coverage will/won't be sustained, other reasons beyond notability, etc.), but on their own they're useless (like many of the others here). What do people think about something like this:

Examples:

• Keep Article was just created. Give it time to develop. –WaitForIt (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article has been around for 10 years. –TenureCommittee (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article was created just two days after the event occurred. -TooSoon (talk), 15:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RAPID –DeletionNotAllowedYet (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DELAY –CreationNotAllowedYet (talk), 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How recently an article was created does not factor into the deletion policy. One common version of this argument regards the time an article spends on Wikipedia granting it a form of tenure, assuming that because it had not been deleted over the course of many years, it must exist for good reasons. However, there are many articles which attract little, if any, views or scrutiny over extended periods. Similarly, criteria such as notability can change over time, affecting older articles. Another version of this article is common in disputes over our coverage of events. The events notability criteria provides two opposing sections encouraging users not to rush to create an article and not to rush to delete an article. These are frequently cited by those advocating to delete or keep an article, respectively, but neither is a good reason for doing so unto itself. The underlying disagreement to focus on concerns whether the subject has received or is likely to receive sustained coverage over a period of time, as required by the notability guideline.

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe in the Article age section? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ha. Somehow forgot that section (and "subject age") existed! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's gotten very long. I'm wondering if we should start trimming the number of examples to those which provide actual additional info? Valereee (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like some can be combined. Maybe the two existing sections and the parts above that aren't included can be combined into a single "age". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"We'd rather not have an article on us"?

Has there ever been consideration for inclusion of the argument, "We'd rather not have an article on us" or "I'd rather not have an article on me" as an invalid reason for deletion? This feels different from "I don't like it" or "They don't like it", but I can't point to a place where this sentiment is addressed. I've seen deletion discussions where the subject didn't want the article to exist but the article was kept anyway (because notable). I know there is the concept of WP:BLP which allows some leeway for a person to ask us not to host an article on them (sometimes) but WP:BLPGROUP suggests that this same courtesy does not extend to groups, esp large groups. A loose necktie (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for the rules on this and at first all I could find werefailed proposals from 17 years ago: Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion (proposing it as a type of speedy deletion) and in Notability (people) Archive 5. It which surprised me to find that they both failed and I cannot find a discussion after, since definitely the argument is used often (and often successfully) in AfDs for at least the past decade or so. My sense is that consensus has changed on this since 2007 and that borderline-notable people who request deletion often get their wishes respected -- in fact such an outcome is discussed in WP:BLPDEL: "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion" but even there it's just a wave at a guideline rather than a given rule. All in all, it doesn't seem to be fixed enough nor have enough consensus to go (either way) on this page.

As far as groups go: I think that the BLP article stating that it's a "case-by-case basis" whether BLP can apply to a group stands here. If the article were about two sisters (who, say, own a marginally notable store or have a marginally notable band) and they both wrote in asking for the article to be deleted, that sounds to me like BLP would apply. If it's about the United Auto Workers and the request came from its president, that does not sound like anything BLP should get involved with. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Change Example of OR in VAGUEWAVE

I decided to be bold and changed the example of a good Original Research argument in the "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" (VAGUEWAVE) section. Before it was (emphasis added)

Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet WP: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.

I did not feel that this was a great example of a "more detailed summary" as much as the definition of what "original research" is. Changed to "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation". I think in order to give a sense of what a detailed argument would be, we need to get concrete with a hypothetical detail from a hypothetical article rather than leaving it in the miasma of generalities that we are suggesting people avoid. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)