This formula is the purview of csd a7, a9 and A11, three of the criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria are a test of what is seen in the article content and only apply to specific subject areas and conditions. If an article on an A7- A9- or A11-eligible topic does not make a credible assertion of importance or significance for that topic, it should be nominated for speedy deletion, which is a much faster and simpler process than nomination at Articles for Deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is based on whether the topic itself meets the criteria not on what is or is not currently in the article. Thus, whether an article asserts significance for its topic is not germane when notability is at issue at an AfD discussion; what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless. Begging for mercy edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Keep I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste?
quot;s About, hard, work (576"s)
" Original research : Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet wikipedia: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. Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.) Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like. WP:ilikeit or WP:idontlikeit without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above. Assertion of notability edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete no james assertion of notability. If It Was It'd say so, 01:10, (UTC) Delete There's no way anyone could be notable just by doing that. not a chance, 01:10, (UTC) keep Text of article explains why it is notable; that is good enough vouchingForMyself, 01:10, (UTC) keep Article says that the topic is very important to the history of underwater basket-weaving. rightOnTheTin, 23:05, (UTC) keep The article's content asserts importance and significance for the topic. WhoneedsProof, 23:05, (UTC) An assertion of importance or significance (not "notability as such, though these are often and unfortunately conflated and confused) is related to a potential reason to delete an article, but not one that is relevant at Articles for Deletion, where the merits.
pilingiton, 01:01, (UTC) revelation keep because we should ignore all rules! Anarwikist, 01:41, (UTC) While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing " Original research or "Does not meet wikipedia:Verifiability consider writing a more detailed summary,.
OracleOfNote, 09:17, (UTC) Simply stating that the subject of an article is not 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 reliable sources found to 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. Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability; this is often seen when trying to assert notability under a sub-guideline (like music or internet content ). Additionally, the subject may possibly pass WP:n, but fails a more stringent set of standards: for example, articles about notable living people may be deleted if they are marginally notable, and must be deleted if they are defamatory. The standards of inclusion don't mandate inclusion; they merely suggest. Just pointing at a policy or guideline edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: keep meets WP:nor policylover, 01:01, (UTC) Delete per WP:v, wp:rs, wp:or, wp:npov, etc.
Essay on Ambition custom Essays, term Papers
Examples: keep This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Prejudger 01:01, (UTC) keep There must be plenty of sources. Presumer 01:01, (UTC) keep we shouldn't delete this, because it's possible there may be sources that we haven't found. Speculator 01:01, (UTC) keep you should find sources, instead of deleting. ItsUptoyou 01:01, (UTC) we keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the online sources are, they are not verifiable.
Just notable/Just not notable edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete dessay as non-notable. notableGuru, 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Delete :. nndeclarer, 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) keep : meets WP:n dialNforNotability, 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) keep It is clearly notable. notabilitydiviner, 01:21, (UTC) keep Topic is notable.
Examples: Delete as unencyclopedic. cyclops, 06:26, (UTC) Delete per WP:not notSpecific, 22:53, (UTC) Delete does not belong here. membersOnly, 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) keep This definitely belongs in an encyclopedia. TrustMeItFits, 22:53, (UTC) What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what wikipedia is not, has been defined by consensus. However, this includes many types of things, each having its own section within that or another policy. Therefore, the terms "unencyclopedic and its flip-side "encyclopedic are too general to be useful in deletion discussions.
What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how? An example of a well-specified deletion nomination is "The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and therefore violates WP:NOTdicdef ". There must be sources edit main page: wikipedia:But there must be sources! Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.
The death of the moth, and other essays, by virginia woolf : chapter1
It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions. Consensus can change, and it is not uncommon for attitudes to shift during a deletion discussion. When it seems after just a few days that it'll surely go one way, london often one single statement can turn the tide. Also, articles can be improved over the course of a discussion, leading others to change their minds. It can be the statement or the salvaging work of one person who is at first in the minority that makes all the difference. Just unencyclopedic/doesnt belong edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.
Where reasonable counter-arguments textbook 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 or WP:ilikeit position. Per majority edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. See also: wikipedia:Follow the leader and wikipedia:outcast examples: keep per everyone else. Grouper, 04:04, (UTC) Delete since most others here think this should be deleted. copycat, 04:04, (UTC) Delete most people are saying it should be deleted, and it looks like that is what will happen. selfFulfillingProphecy, 04:04, (UTC) AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion.
keep " or even ". Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons. Per nominator/X edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete per nom. Trustfull, 04:04, (UTC) keep as per User:IvanIdea's statement. suckup, 11:38, (UTC) It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not 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, practice, or simple good sense 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 keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient.
Remember that a discussion rationale which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid may still contain the germ of a valid point. For example, if a person argues that an article is interesting, and in making that point, cites evidence that could also be used to support a determination of notability, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because wp:interesting is a section in this. 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, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also. Just a policy or guideline below). While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, night these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. Contents, arguments without arguments edit This section is about deletion arguments that do not seem to make sense, and otherwise do not point at or even make correct usage of policies or guidelines whatsoever. Just a vote edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: keep ThoughtlessMcKeep, 01:01, (UTC) Delete deleteyMcSheep, 23:28, (UTC) This is not an argument for or against 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.
Story, writing, class 9 10 (Tips, Examples worksheets) mantra
For Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, see, wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. For other arguments to avoid, see. This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep "delete" or some other objective. Some of the infirm arguments covered are those that are irrelevant or at best side issues, do not address the merits of the reason to keep or delete, are based in anecdote rather than evidence, engage in classic logical fallacies and more—and almost all share. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant wikipedia estate policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, what wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, no original research and biographies of living people. The arguments covered in this page are far from exhaustive. If an argument you were planning on using is listed here, you might want to reconsider using. However, just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid.