Wikipedia

User:Ikip/Del

< User:Ikip

In a deletion debate, there are several policy, guideline and essays you can use to help save the page you created. In addition, there are common arguments used in deletion debates to delete an article, which we will teach you how to debate.

Remember: Articles for deletion are where other editors decide on whether the page you created should be deleted. Your only purpose in this discussion should be to convince editors that your page should be kept.

For New users: How to comment in an Article for Deletion debate

edit
Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Guide to deletion]]

Posting your response

edit

Make sure to add:

*'''Keep'''

or

*'''Strong keep'''

...before you make your comments.

Use acronyms/policy to explain the reason why you want the article kept. You can change and add to your comments as the argument progresses.

You can make comments to/debate other editors arguments by commenting under their comments. Use : before your comments to indent your comments.

Policies Guidelines and essays

edit
Further information: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines

Wikipedia editors quote a lot of rules in an Article for deletion discussion, usually using acronyms. (See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands) Each rule page has a box at the top of the page, either: Template:Policy Template:Guideline or Template:Essay. When an editor quotes a rule, it is important to know what kind of rule this is, especially with essays, which are not binding at all, and carry little authority, a point which you can bring up in a deletion discussion.

There are few actual policies, Wikipedia:List of policies. Here are policies which can help an editor in a Article for deletion discussion.

Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, but:

guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.

Strong arguments

edit

Deletion is supposed to be the last step

edit

User:Inclusionist/1

Short cuts to simply cut and paste
Rule(s) Shortcut
WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL {{subst:User:Ikip/pot}}.

What editors who create Articles for deletion are supposed to do, and what editors almost always do is different. Deletion of articles in many cases is the last step. Bring this up in the deletion debate. For example:

1. WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
  • request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

2. Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.

3. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)

4. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.

5. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort User:Inclusionist/3

6. The founder of wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is an inclusionist. Quotes:

  • School articles "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.

    Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website.

    Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do."[1]

7. Jimmy Wales: Popular Fiction "All those people who are obsessively writing about Britney Spears or 'The Simpsons' or Pokémon -- it's just not true that we should try to redirect them into writing about obscure concepts in physics...Wiki is not paper, and their time is not owned by us. We can't say, 'Why do we have these employees doing stuff that's so useless?' They're not hurting anything. Let them write it...I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet. I mean why not" [2]

Average arguments

edit

Weak arguments

edit

User:Inclusionist/4

How to approach specific arguments

edit

Notability, Verifiability, No original research

edit

Notability Acronyms
Wikipedia:Notability WP:N
Wikipedia:Notability (books) WP:BK, WP:NB
Wikipedia:Notability (films) WP:NOTFILM, WP:NF, WP:MOVIE
Wikipedia:Notability (music) WP:NM, WP:NMG, WP:MUSIC
WP:Verifiability WP:V
WP:No original research WP:NOR

User:Inclusionist/1

The most common argument that editors use to delete a page is WP:Notability:

"The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice."

There are many other policies that are offshoots to WP:Notability, which you may also see in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion argument.[3]

To keep the page, you must show that the page up for deletion is notable and verifiable. This involves finding sources:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[4]

Which includes Google books, Google News, and the New York times. Finding several sources which mention the subject of the article and listing them on the Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion page is the most persuasive way to get other editors to vote to keep the article.

Wikipedia:Content forking

edit

User:Inclusionist/1 Wikipedia:Content forking, guideline:

"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."

Ask the deletion editor to explain when "extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing" occured.

Essay WP:Coatrack

edit

WP:Coatrack is no more than a controversial essay, as the essay template at the top of WP:Coatrack states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." On the other hand, Wikipedia:Content forking, a content guideline, states:

"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."

Wikipedia:Content forking essential nulifies WP:Coatrack.

No Original Research

edit

The idea of “No Original Research” was first articulated in September 2003 through a newsgroup post by co-founder Jimmy Wales:

"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it’s true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn’t belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."[5]

Wikipedia:Notability (music) Albums, singles and songs (WP:NALBUMS, WP:NSONGS)

edit

The majority of WP:NALBUMS article for deletion debates involve four or five editors nominating the article for delete, with no editor arguing the article should be kept. But there have been sucessful arguments, click "Show".

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

edit

"Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed."

Essays

edit

User:Inclusionist/2 Note the tag on top of all essays, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." this means that essays do not carry as much weight as policies and guidelines.

Although essays don't hold very much weight, they are often quoted in Article for Deletion discussions. You can cut and paste:

"Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion."

...in a discussion to severely lessen the authority of an editors argument.

But you can also use these essays yourself in discussions. Often using an acronym (shortcut) to the essay page makes the essay sound more authoritative than it really is, these acronyms are found on the essay's page. For example:

One of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions acronyms is WP:ATA

If used persuasively enough, you can convince other editors that the page should be kept.


Notes

edit
  1. ^ Partial solution to rampant deletionism WikiEN-l, Jimmy Wales
  2. ^ Wall Street Journal, James Gleick (8 August 2008) "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists
  3. ^ The notability guideline has a controversial history, but their is no point in arguing this history in the AfD. This is because editors often quote the firm, universally accepted, policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research in supporting the deletion.
  4. ^ From the template: {{Template:Template:Findsources3}}
  5. ^ Wikipedian Self-Governance in Action: Motivating the Policy Lens

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Ikip/Del&oldid=292008902"