Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

9370:, in addition to their primary function, also summarize positions, opinions and arguments. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" or "only a proposal" may be misleading. It also essentially suggests that the opinion of the person citing the page (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay or proposal" is not one of them. 5570:

notability be denied based on the subject's newness, inexperience, or youth. The criteria for notability include evidence of the non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources. Assertions based on age or evidence of age are, by themselves, as meaningless as those based on personal knowledge or on dislike of the subject matter. Certainly what is old has had more chance to be noted, and what is new generally has not. But we do not decide which articles to keep and which to delete based on chances, we base it on the quality and nature of its citations.

143: 1668:). Self-promoting wannabes have, for example, tried to get themselves into Knowledge by falsely claiming to pass a notability criterion that they did not actually pass — musicians claiming charting hits that never really charted, writers claiming award nominations they were never really given, etc. — so the notability test is not passed just by stating passage of a notability criterion, but rather requires reliably sourced verification that the claim to passing a notability criterion is true. Additionally, the subject may possibly pass 8640:); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. 8644:

Wikipedias may apply different notability standards to certain classes of topic — so the existence of an article on the French or Swedish or Urdu Wikipedias is not in and of itself an automatic exemption from the topic still having to clear the English Knowledge's existing standards of sourcing and notability. Again, it may be that the other-language article needs to be deleted as well, and just hasn't been noticed by that Knowledge's responsible editors yet.

14389: 8659:? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However, such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on 319:– 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 on anecdote rather than evidence, engage in classic logical fallacies and more—and almost all share the trait of not being based upon the issues listed at 8735:

to "Other similar category schemes don't – and shouldn't – exist" may be an appropriate argument for arguing for deletion of a category. There are no hard and fast rules here, and there are cases where existence (or non-existence) of one scheme does not have much bearing on whether a similar scheme should be created in a different tree, but it should be noted that OSE/OCE arguments tend to apply differently in category space than they do in article space.

1307:, 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, 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. 5190:, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X; the 8606:; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as 8824:. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of 8376: 7030:

into Knowledge, because the notability claim is strong enough that the geographic range of coverage does not matter, but purely local coverage is not necessarily enough to get a city councillor or school board trustee in the same city, or the mayor of a small town, through the notability door — these people may still qualify for articles if something truly substantial, and referenced to a

4996:. But it goes beyond that. If we wrote articles for everything that existed, we would end up writing about you, or your computer, or that leaf that fell in your pool the other day, or even that rock that keeps tripping you up on your morning walks. The last one was kind of ridiculous, but hopefully you understand what we are trying to say here: existence does not always yield notability! 7054:

the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Knowledge can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own.

9666:. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found. 42: 5719:. The continuing existence of an article does not depend on the continuing existence of its subject. Even if it is a thing of the past, if sources can display its notability in the same way as a subject that exists today, then it qualifies no less for an article. It does not matter if the cessation of the subject occurred before or after the creation of the article. Even if 109: 5723:, if the writer(s) of the article do the best possible job of documenting what they are, the article shall meet the standards for reliable sources. Knowledge's goal is not merely to be a directory of things and people that currently exist today – defunct corporations and ghost towns and dead people can still be notable, and can still have legitimate and 6141:, even by their creator, and they are not judged based on who created them, how active that creator is or was on Knowledge, or how many people besides themselves are interested in editing them. It is not uncommon for an individual to create or edit a single article in their lifetime, all while providing valuable information, and then never edit again. 354:, 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 essay. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the 4502:, which means that it is not finished nor will it ever be. As in a paper encyclopedia, information on Knowledge will often become inaccurate because it is simply out of date. But unlike a paper encyclopedia, in which a new edition is printed maybe every year or so, Knowledge can be updated anytime. There is a very simple solution to all that: 7061:". Local could mean limited to a city or town. But others may view a state, province, or other similar region as being local. And such divisions vary in size throughout the world. And though the boundaries of a jurisdiction are legally defined, determining a distance from that location in which coverage would be non-local is not possible. 2293:

gets media coverage is a valid notability claim, while a regional, local or special interest award that lacks media coverage and can only be referenced to its own self-published primary source content is not. For some prominent awards that curate and announce shortlists of nominees in advance of announcing the final winner, such as the

10356:. All Knowledge policies are necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficient. If the article meets one condition, it does not mean that it does not violate other policies: original research may be verifiable; articles that seem to be notable may be original research; notable biographies may be a violation of 10123:

Used effectively, this page can be used to point out common types of fallacious reasoning. However, participants must still give a valid rationale in support of their position, rather than merely exposing the flaws in their opponents' reasoning. Moreover, they are not always bad arguments to make. If

9114:

It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Knowledge policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put

8828:

from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Knowledge category or similarity to other articles. Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. That

8628:

Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists

8267:

it with dozens of footnotes that aren't actually building notability at all: social media posts, directory entries, blogs, sources that tangentially verify stray facts without actually mentioning the article subject at all, and so forth. The article's sources need to be measured for their quality and

6458:

And keep in mind that while sources such as blogs aren't usually suitable for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be perfectly suitable for verifying information within an article whose notability has already been established by other means. In other words, removing information sourced

4290:

is typically thought of to oppose a creator's rights to have it their own way. It can also be extended to say that once an article has been created and it meets inclusion guidelines, the creator has no obligation thereafter to maintain the article. Therefore, if one creates an article that appears to

2304:

However, there have still been some instances of award nominees and winners who were deleted because of an inability to locate enough solid sources to actually support an article. For example, it may be much harder to actually write and properly source articles about a film's sound technician(s) than

9588:

A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD

9201:

Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called "trivia" or "in popular culture" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in

8361:

On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted. It may be the case that nobody has yet written an article on another language's Knowledge or that it just hasn't been linked to from the English language article. It may also be the case that

8038:

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is

7053:

The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Knowledge is not limited to subjects that everyone in

7009:

requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage. Having sources that under all circumstances meet this guideline means that it is notable, and therefore, worthy of an article.

2518:

In Knowledge, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Knowledge does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if

2312:

generally require holding a notable office rather than just running for one and losing, and non-winning competitors in reality shows are not automatically notable just because they were on a reality show. Note losing in one competition/event does not preclude being notable for other reasons, such as

8734:

nominations regularly point out, for a new scheme, that "Other stuff doesn't exist" – in other words, this is a new scheme that would imply creation of many hundreds or thousands of new categories if expanded globally, and there may not be consensus for expanding it more broadly. As such, an appeal

6852:

coverage, such as locally reported crime, community issues, regularly scheduled sports events, trivial matters, and other topics that are found in the daily paper. It is not here to take the place of the newspaper, regular broadcasts, or other forms of media that are to be expected. Some events are

5569:

These arguments are analogous to those above with regard to article age. Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it. Neither can

5015:

standards. However, Knowledge's role is not to be about everything, or to help under-covered topics create their media presence. We are not a free public relations platform to advertise topics that haven't already received media attention — our role here is to follow media coverage, not to lead it.

4250:

editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not

4086:

in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion. This will only occur with definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious, and not based simply on a hunch. As with the offline sources themselves, online proof that they do not

3926:

By the same token, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate

2246:

Yes, it's true that subjects winning notable awards or landing on "best of" year-end lists by independent publications can significantly impact their notability. However, arguments which base notability or lack thereof upon winning, wins, success or popularity make no use of policies or guidelines.

10188:

is an effective summary of how deletion discussions on Knowledge tend to be resolved, but using it as the only argument for keeping or deleting an article can lead to circular reasoning. Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions.

9900:

Editors sometimes issue ultimatums to get their way, threatening to quit editing. Or they will claim that current or future editors will be driven off by the wrong outcome. Similarly, an editor's desired outcome is tied to some outside criticism of Knowledge, often in connection with statistics on

9608:

and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence

9206:

articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as "use in fiction" or "cultural influences", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Knowledge. Either incorporate the material in

7068:

If so, this is not because Knowledge is ever intended to be this way. Numbers of articles are not written in direct proportion with the population distribution of the world. Each article is written because just one person living wherever chooses to write that article. And some areas just happen to

5981:

is frequently taken into consideration when closing the discussion of an article's deletion, and although consensus is not identical to voting, indication of consensus as demonstrated by a large proportion of well-argued votes on one side or the other of a discussion is likely to factor heavily in

5730:

The only way a subject can be truly declared "no longer notable" is if the actual notability guidelines change to exclude the subject. Many of Knowledge's notability standards are stricter now than they were a decade ago, so some articles that were formerly accepted as notable do fail contemporary

3550:

Knowledge is not a repository of humor. Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor are they outright disqualified because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective nature of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an

2930:

It does sometimes happen, of course, that a user will nominate an article for deletion out of a desire to censor or hide the content, but one should be able to respond to these nominations with reliable sources and policy-based arguments. If the deletion rationale really is that thin, it should be

2534:

In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as

2292:

Further, awards do not necessarily confer inherent notability on their winners. It is necessary to establish that the award itself is notable in the first place, by virtue of being broadly reported upon by the media as a news story. For instance, a major national film, literary or music award that

2144:

and others should not rush to delete the page unless it is obvious that it can never meet inclusion guidelines. If one is uncertain of this, or if it appears no progress has been made in a reasonable amount of time, the creator should be contacted regarding their intentions, and given a reasonable

8002:

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the

7029:

to garner coverage. Rather, the question of whether local coverage is enough or not depends on variables like the strength of the basic notability claim and the volume of coverage that can be shown. For example, predominantly or purely local coverage may be enough to get the mayor of a major city

6450:

On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites

4282:

Not all articles on Knowledge look perfect. Most readers on Knowledge already know they won't get all the information they are looking for from Knowledge alone. Even if an article is not the best, even if it remains that way for many years, it can still provide some readers with just what they're

1807:

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

1204:

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

4798:

merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be

3050:

Knowledge editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care

7981:

is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. This is usually phrased as "All ____ are notable", for example, "all high schools are notable" or "no elementary schools are notable".

7435:

on Knowledge. To avoid this systemic bias, Knowledge should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even

5170:

can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not

8255:

are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject, rather than a

6629:

that involves extracting information is not needed. Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline. Once notability has been established, some of these sources may be useful in verifying additional

6446:

and personal pages that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these

6152:

process directly address notability. Experienced editors at both projects may notice a notability issue, and certainly the expectation is that a notability issue will be noticed in both places, but that isn't one of the areas either process directly addresses. In the case of GA, only a single

4234:

Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Knowledge; it may be that the topic is obscure or

3914:

be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to

8643:

Note that this criterion also applies to the argument that an article has to be kept because it's a straight translation of an article that already exists in another language Knowledge. All Wikipedias are vulnerable to the creation of articles about non-notable topics, and different-language

5376:

Conversely, being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Knowledge it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is. Remember that

5361:

that lasted for more than eight years before getting discovered and deleted. Having survived a long time on Knowledge does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age either because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently, or because the

1415:, 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 3262:. All of this project's notability criteria imply that knowledge about a subject that meets them is useful. Whether it's through substantial coverage in reliable sources, receipt of major awards, winning international competitions, or writing oft-cited scientific papers, we can infer that 1300:

AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. 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

6868:

arguments (or other similar guidelines) to support keeping or deleting an article, it is important to be familiar with the guidelines to be sure what news belongs and what news does not. It may also help to get a sense of what types of events either do or don't customarily have articles.

3183:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia, so it should include encyclopedic content. All encyclopedic content should be useful to someone, but not all content useful to someone is encyclopedic. Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its encyclopedic value. You need to say

7636:

taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of why people did not take notice in the past. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not. Note however that articles have been deleted under

8967:: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is 4193:

This is not the first, not the second, but the tenth time I put this up for deletion, all because the problems were not solved. Each time, User:WantItKept promised they would improve it after the discussion was closed. But that never happened. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his

4078:

are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Knowledge is written

5010:

A related phenomenon is the fallacy of entitlement: the notion that mere existence automatically entitles someone or something to a Knowledge article, and thus the need to create an article is so important that any form of sourcing is acceptable regardless of whether or not it meets

3551:

encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Knowledge, as the

3681:

While it is certainly a good thing for Knowledge articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Knowledge.

5976:

Many AfDs in the past have had a outcome that contradicts the numbers, and many will in the future. It is possible for an AfD that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa) if that single argument is really good and the remainder are just votes. However, community

4793:

is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against

8675:

Though a lot of Knowledge's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.

8629:

does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. For this very reason, WAX arguments in AFD discussions sometimes backfire, by directly

9768:), arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted 6825:—articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Due to its popularity, Knowledge is many people's first port of call to find out more about a breaking story or other current event they've just heard about. Knowledge does have articles that cover 8030:

allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability"

4506:! All you have to do is to click "edit", make the necessary changes, and save the changes, writing in the edit summary that you are updating the information. If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place 1974:. 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 8054:

Donations of significant amounts of money naturally are reciprocated by a certain amount of publicity, including press releases and even naming of buildings or entire academic departments. The mere giving of money in and of itself does not make the donor notable, and

7547:, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. 9790:

If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.

9794:

Repeated nominations for deletion do not necessarily indicate that the article is problematic. No extra weight is given to the rationales offered by nominators over rationales offered, whether for or against deletion, by other discussion participants. An article's

4270:

but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process.

347:. The arguments covered on this page are far from exhaustive. If an argument you were planning on using is listed here, you might want to reconsider using it. However, just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid. 3799:: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and gives editors a clean slate. This in itself is a controversial maxim, as essays such as 2530:

have been written about them that are relevant to the scope of the article, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient.

2088:

Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.

4819:(that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete then redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion ( 2754:

directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see

2305:

it is about the film's actors or director. Just as with winners, a nomination for a major award of this type is generally sufficient if the article can be reliably sourced, but may not be sufficient if you have to depend exclusively on primary sources.

8971:. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established 1839:– 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. 12878: 2506:

Knowledge editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content.

7025:, which do require wider regionalized coverage, and non-winning candidates for political office are not accepted as notable just because local coverage of the election campaign exists in the local media where that campaign would have been simply 5969:, not a simple headcount. If you comment on the basis of the numbers already seen as in the above examples, you are just adding a vote to those numbers and not contributing usefully to the discussion. And drawing others to cast such votes may be 10042:– do not view the discussion as being "symbolically" about settling right from wrong for the whole website. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the site unrelated to the discussion you find yourself in, you should use venues such as the 7430:

Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a

8357:

was first posted on the Dutch Knowledge and then translated into several other languages, including English. Of course, if the other Knowledge articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Knowledge article, they can be added to it.

7049:

forms of living things, space bodies, or scientific concepts, and few people will ever know about them in the first place in order to even desire to read about them. Yet there is sourced information about them, so they qualify to be included.

1087:" 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 cogent reasons. 1196:

If the rationale provided in a comment includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of that argument may be sufficient. (Example:

9589:

nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise,

3239:

are meant to provide information of direct utility for the reader. In addition, one must consider utility as relating to the rest of the site: e.g. "this list brings together related topics in X, and is useful for navigating that subject."

10918: 2790:. For example, while the "cruft" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential for 3455:

debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when

12079: 4421:

who are not familiar with the need to add references or to create incoming links. Some subjects are just very hard to link from anything. If reliable sources can be provided, even if incoming links can't, it is still notable.

4291:

meet guidelines for a standalone article, but abandons any effort to complete or update it thereafter, regardless of whether that editor has been actively editing on Knowledge, the article cannot be deleted on these grounds.

5830:. Conversely, just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope, although article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. 8671:

has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.

5735:, so such articles do not stay "grandfathered" in Knowledge just because they used to be acceptable, but are deleted (or redirected to a related topic) if they cannot be improved to meet contemporary notability standards. 1193:, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions. 14486: 4414:(having few or no incoming links) can pose some problems. But it does not imply a lack of notability, and therefore is not a valid reason for exclusion. An orphan is still capable of having reliable sources, and many do. 200: 7988:

notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with

3234:

Usefulness is subjective, and a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why? One has to consider the number of people that are likely to find utility in the information. In particular,

8353:. Many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Knowledge articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. The hoax article 11483: 10464: 1954:(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 4274:

In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that

6249:. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong, and if none of it belongs, neither does the article. 3266:

has found the subject to be of substantial interest. Therefore, if information about a subject is genuinely of no use here, the better bet is to argue against inclusion on the grounds of a lack of notability.

455: 4331: 4128: 8597:

The nature of Knowledge means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This

2387:

Such arguments make no use of policies or guidelines to substantiate claims of non-notability. A thing that is never built may still be historically significant as a proposal, with enough coverage to clear

1062:

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

7999:. This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence. They are only mere personal opinion as in the examples above. 4079:

collaboratively, it is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the article.

3934:. There is a simple solution to this: rename it! If you are not able to move the article yourself for one reason or another, request someone else do it rather than nominate the whole article for deletion. 10026:

with Knowledge. Pointing out bias and abusive user behavior is not wrong, but doing nothing beside that does not contribute to consensus-building. Even if the outcome of a discussion could be considered

9799:

of multiple AFDs indicates that the reasons given by the nominators, along with those given by others in favor of deletion, repeatedly didn't prevail over the arguments given by those who were opposed.

2392:

regardless of the plan's failure to ever actually come to fruition, and people ten or twenty years from now may very well still be looking for information about what the proposal was and why it failed.

12214: 10948: 3440:

The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles

8820:

The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or

8074:. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass 2103:, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Knowledge's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space. 4689:. Sock puppets and canvassers can be traced. Templates can be placed on a page to let readers and editors know how it has to be fixed. If inaccurate information is frequently added erroneously but 10124:

five people have voted to delete per nom and you're the only person considering whether to keep the article, maybe the nominator has laid out the case so well that no more needs to be said. Also,

12765: 350:

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

5201:

of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at

12174: 4087:

exist is not needed. Good faith is assumed just as much if the editor seeking deletion knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the source does not exist or does not state what is in the article.

12645: 11817: 6459:

to a blog is not the same as arguing for the deletion of an article – these are separate acts with different sets of criteria for performing them and should not be conflated.

3270:

Knowledge is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Knowledge's requirements of

14502: 12326: 10963: 8805: 8787: 251: 11983: 11578: 8487: 5289: 13018: 7002:

Notability is not about assigning an elite status to a select group of subjects. It is about having the ability to write neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic-style information about them.

1653:

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.

13294: 12958: 3437:

But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable.

2285:

We have articles rather because they are notable and have verifiable and reliable sources. If a celebrity or organization is "failing", then the content can mention that failure in a

15570: 13028: 7723:

policy page, all BLP articles must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. See also

4815:, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in 2899:, directly above), while some editors may feel that deleting a page would be playing into the hands of a certain group, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be kept. 2106:

Over the years, several templates have been created to be placed on top of pages indicating that they are new and may take time to complete to Knowledge's standards. These include

13289: 12580: 11285: 7617:

Subject did not get the media coverage it deserved at the time because reasons, so Knowledge should waive its reliable sourcing requirements in order to rectify that unfairness. –

5016:

Before addressing "how can this topic get into Knowledge if it doesn't have media coverage yet?", the question "why does this topic have to get into Knowledge?" must be answered.

3600:

Knowledge is not a place for you to judge other people's humor. Articles cannot be deleted because of your view on humor, nor can they usually be created as such, even under the

13083: 12818: 12705: 9202:

the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Knowledge is not a trivia repository.

14456: 10630: 9207:

the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Knowledge.

185: 8679:

When an editor introduces a novel type of article in Knowledge, it may be necessary to consider whether such organization of material is compliant with core policies such as

7010:

On the contrary, being spread out around a greater region, such as a country or the whole world, without satisfying notability requirements does not make a subject notable.

3224: 15106: 12770: 11383: 11358: 10539: 5358: 3411:

about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it

210: 10190: 13068: 6263:

As in a paper encyclopedia, some articles will be several pages long, others just a line or two. There is no minimum or maximum length that qualifies an article, just the

5834:

is an exception to this provision; a redirect is more likely to be deleted if it receives very few hits, on the grounds that it is implausible, than if it receives many.

4314:

While these sorts of arguments may not be good arguments for deletion, they are excellent arguments for a merge in cases where an excessive number of subarticles exists.

15494: 14864: 11681: 711: 11882: 9624: 11413: 11110: 7668: 1676:

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 it.

919: 7559:

take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

6455:

to an independent professional writer with a record of reliable publishing. News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper.

15756: 14481: 13088: 12495: 11135: 11058: 10640: 8406: 4972:

This slipped through the cracks and never got media coverage at all, so using its own self-published documentation is the only way we can rescue it from obscurity. –

587: 577: 205: 5520:

This company has been teaching people to dance like a sandhill crane since before I was born. A tradition of so many years becomes an institution after this long. –

15351: 12535: 12515: 11478: 11448: 11260: 1660:

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

630: 620: 526: 516: 9431:

particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for departing from their guidance.

8647:

Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every

6126:

The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in the subject, but it does not measure the notability, the number of reliable sources, or its

3192:

encyclopedic according to Knowledge's policies. Arguments of something's usefulness, uselessness, or value devoid of further context are not valid or persuasive.

2424: 14512: 13233: 11180: 10760: 246: 10038:

If you believe the opposing side in a discussion is an example of one of Knowledge's greater issues, explain this to them in relation to the article itself and

7272:

that articles on actual numbers over a certain size need to establish several reasons why that particular number is notable, which is a well-defined threshold.

15089: 11772: 11498: 10848: 10775: 10715: 10690: 10680: 10434: 9126:

does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion when material has been merged, as all contribution information may be lost, invalidating the

3769:

is not cleanup". Consider that Knowledge is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up

15084: 14758: 14451: 12540: 10444: 8696: 5354: 4719:

The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it.

859: 493: 476: 180: 6271:, articles can grow, shrink, merge, split, and change in all different ways over time. But once the subject becomes clearly notable, they do not disappear. 3787:

The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies

3434:), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.) 15766: 14859: 12620: 12575: 12485: 11701: 11428: 1982:, 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 5537:

Any performer who hasn't been doing stage shows for at least six months can't possibly have achieved notability yet. She has no fan base, and no agent. –

15518: 15235: 14507: 14466: 13128: 11418: 11053: 11038: 10973: 10418: 7034:

volume of media coverage about them, can be shown, but are not guaranteed articles just because one or two pieces of purely local media coverage exist.

3468: 241: 195: 15210: 15079: 12455: 12331: 12244: 11333: 11018: 10968: 6447:

details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Knowledge article.

2275: 827: 822: 602: 272: 7641:

even when the subject's earlier actions were reported in the press (at a much later date) as a result of later actions (and in the context of those).

14874: 13342: 12610: 12525: 12219: 12164: 12149: 11641: 11493: 11398: 11013: 10983: 10828: 10474: 9593:

and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions.

8955:

Yes, Knowledge is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" does

8354: 1849:

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g.

8730:

The accepted practice around OSE applies differently to categories, because in some cases consistency is a desired trait of categorization schemes.

1508:

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

15442: 14812: 14476: 14446: 13238: 11842: 11583: 11408: 11068: 11043: 10750: 10580: 4398:. This is a group of articles that has no relation to anything else on Knowledge, so Knowledge has no place for them. We should delete them all. – 748: 559: 549: 398: 215: 175: 6256:

can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be a

4208:

We've been waiting 10 long years for this article to improve. By now we know it'll never happen, and we can all agree this article doesn't belong.

15150: 14869: 14854: 12665: 12615: 12470: 12179: 11762: 11100: 10863: 9389:

to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

817: 531: 267: 8263:

By the same token, do not base a keep argument solely on how many footnotes are present in the article. It is possible to generate footnotes by

3467:. This normally centres around harm (or lack of) to the encyclopedia, e.g. from a redirect being misleading or in the way of other content. See 15334: 15101: 13506: 13198: 11827: 11573: 11310: 11235: 10805: 6149: 4298:

the article, or redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article, are better choices than deleting.

1842:

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

7931:

They've given millions of dollars to a notable charity/school/hospital, which named a building after them. Here's a link to a press release! -

3200: 2099:

If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request

15029: 14545: 13511: 13093: 12745: 12590: 12510: 12209: 12204: 11928: 11857: 11711: 11008: 4886: 3927:

its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility.

2145:

amount of time to reply. It is recommended for one who is considering putting it up for deletion to consider userfication as an alternative.

28: 4999:

As for the lack of existence, there are rare cases when this can be notable. There have, for example, been hoaxes which attained notability

4417:

De-orphaning articles and providing incoming links is a goal in improving the encyclopedia, not a requirement. Many orphans were created by

323:. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Knowledge policies and guidelines, such as 14800: 14425: 13138: 12695: 11902: 11393: 11280: 11270: 11160: 11063: 11048: 8964: 8010:

imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for

6145: 837: 8960: 1419:

why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question,

15295: 15255: 15188: 12948: 12823: 12680: 12650: 12460: 11741: 11190: 11145: 11075: 10843: 9783:

nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute

6153:

reviewer is generally needed, so even when a reviewer does consider the question of notability, it represents a single person's opinion.

3403:. Just because an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean the article should be kept. For example, if there has not been any 699: 597: 7095: 1423:

An example of a well-specified deletion nomination is "The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and therefore violates

653: 15751: 15260: 15240: 15198: 14933: 12993: 12184: 11887: 11807: 11438: 10813: 10526: 8636:

Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the

877: 774: 592: 362:

arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section

11792: 9423:

fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you

4915:

There is no doubt that the band exists...there are 3 local newspaper articles about their show dates, plus they have a MySpace page. –

1412: 1357: 14461: 12710: 12425: 11822: 11611: 11508: 11290: 11275: 11120: 11033: 10650: 10635: 4499: 2289:, provided there are reliable sources. In short: Just because a celebrity or organization is "losing" doesn't mean it's not notable! 658: 190: 61:

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of

7080:

on the other hand does specify locality of coverage, recommending notable events more often have a national or international scope.

5995: 15746: 15602: 15230: 15074: 13299: 13218: 12600: 12560: 12274: 12239: 12154: 11943: 11897: 11323: 11225: 11155: 10943: 10625: 9046: 8097: 6573:

Splatter Road has been the site of 3 homicides in the past 10 years that have all received news coverage mentioning this location –

5554:

This ink in this book isn't even dry yet— shouldn't we give it more of a chance to prove itself before we have an article on it? –

1951: 7066:

does it not make sense that one part of the world has more articles on its local interests than another with a greater population?

4984:

Existence is important. The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information drawn from identifiable sources (

663: 413: 15373: 14849: 13078: 12963: 12440: 12189: 12144: 12139: 11877: 11623: 11473: 11115: 10795: 10655: 10459: 9787:, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. 9134: 8502: 7720: 3777:. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is 3208: 2523:

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other

681: 554: 5366:, and an article that was once accepted under Knowledge's guidelines or just by de facto practice could be put up for deletion. 15484: 15265: 15111: 15051: 14679: 12908: 12828: 12301: 12109: 11691: 11568: 10785: 10745: 10552: 8991:

of anything verifiable. So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

8113: 5232:

such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that an article should be kept or deleted.

882: 672: 635: 9954:

This discussion is a prime example of the inherent fooism and barism of online communities. Let's not reinforce such things. —

9415:

Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines

7798: 7017:

require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet

5194:

process, unlike articles for deletion, will often hinge on matters such as plausibility and numbers of search engine results.

4958:

He has 10,000 subscribers on YouTube, so we don't need reliable sources because a lot of people want to know more about him. –

4627:

An article about this will never meet Knowledge's neutrality guidelines because there is so much controversy surrounding it. –

15250: 15181: 15172: 15126: 14983: 14948: 14795: 14785: 13223: 13193: 13188: 12983: 12760: 12520: 11948: 11832: 11736: 11185: 11130: 11105: 11085: 11023: 10993: 10898: 10888: 10660: 5084: 4308: 146: 15427: 8687:. Other editors may argue that a certain type of article doesn't exist because of inherent violations of core policies; see 6114:

The only editor who ever contributed to this article has not made any edits in 3 years, so if deleted, it'll not be missed –

15639: 15361: 15245: 13889: 13158: 13033: 12883: 12605: 12505: 12134: 11988: 11837: 11433: 11255: 11205: 10479: 9772:

deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all,

8362:

the topic is notable in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa.

4882: 1438: 926: 395:, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. 225: 17: 8124:

grounds for deletion; subjects can still be notable by other means and even when they are not, often such articles can be

2308:

Note as well that some of our subject-specific notability criteria do in fact take winning into account. For example, our

15469: 15344: 15121: 14896: 14728: 13546: 13388: 13173: 13113: 13038: 12530: 12500: 12420: 12249: 12114: 11220: 11210: 11175: 10988: 10893: 10615: 5921:

This nomination has made the news and been heavily criticized. It would be an embarrassment for Knowledge to delete it. –

3941:

in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like

1189:). Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of 568: 498: 298: 4294:

When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field, removing unverifiable content and

3255:, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. 15634: 15474: 15459: 15220: 15116: 14790: 14780: 14770: 14674: 14669: 13183: 13048: 13023: 13003: 12903: 12798: 12675: 12229: 12159: 12043: 12003: 11907: 11721: 11563: 11548: 11423: 11028: 10878: 10833: 10790: 10765: 10725: 10575: 10454: 10439: 10353: 9662:

As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow

9141:

on request to an administrator. It is also usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a

4681:

Knowledge has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues. Vandals, sock puppets, and edit warriors can be

4311:; less unambiguous cases might well be deleted at articles for deletion, if there is little to no content worth saving. 3464: 2278: 2272: 611: 582: 507: 15555: 3604:. Some articles can be created because of someone's view of humor, but these are usually created as sarcastic essays. 15622: 15582: 15523: 15506: 15479: 14901: 14841: 14659: 14538: 13700: 13325: 13153: 13133: 13058: 13053: 12953: 12625: 12194: 12104: 11757: 11666: 11528: 11503: 11463: 11373: 11363: 11338: 11300: 11295: 11230: 10998: 10958: 10903: 8585:

You guys forced me to delete the article on a CEO, so you have to allow me to delete the article on this activist. –

8244:

and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable

7403:

in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is

4246:

The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would

3916: 3691: 2585: 2420: 891: 739: 644: 625: 521: 430: 62: 6681: 5369:

However, note that the fact that an article has not been edited in a long time is also not grounds for deletion, as

15285: 15177: 15143: 15012: 14891: 14649: 14617: 14418: 13347: 13213: 12750: 12234: 12199: 12124: 12094: 12038: 12023: 11938: 11513: 10858: 10605: 10600: 9337: 8345:

Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Knowledge. Notability requires coverage in

5999: 5080: 847: 13261: 8963:, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Knowledge. Imagine how large 4328:– the related fallacy that the article must not be sourceable or otherwise fixable if it hasn't been done already. 15560: 15454: 15402: 15380: 15000: 14884: 14738: 14664: 14644: 13143: 12923: 12888: 12715: 12224: 12119: 12084: 12018: 11661: 11631: 10913: 10685: 9906: 9488:

Creator has a history of writing some really good articles, therefore this one must be good and should be kept. –

8048: 7825: 7283: 7045:, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. For example, few people are aware or interested in some 6810:

No one talks about this any more -- it was in the news a long time ago but you never see anything about it now. –

3766: 3171:: The government of Utopistan notes that military information on this article helps insurgents to plan attacks. – 1059: 467: 220: 12405: 8667:, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in 6853:

indeed notable and worthy of inclusion. The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion.

4516:

on the top of the page or section. To consider a page for deletion on the basis that it is not up to date is to

2919:, etc. In addition, if such an argument is used against the nominator specifically, it constitutes a failure to 1986:

significance for its topic is not germane when notability is at issue at an AfD discussion; what matters is the

15592: 15545: 15464: 15412: 15329: 15193: 14723: 13309: 13178: 13008: 12735: 12635: 12445: 12321: 11958: 11782: 11731: 11656: 11558: 11543: 11468: 11240: 11090: 10933: 10720: 10665: 10590: 10519: 9270: 8655: 7821: 7070: 4240: 3774: 2261: 1835:: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation" or "Does not meet 1361: 868: 767: 540: 11892: 9659:

the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban).

1647:"The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability" 15761: 15597: 15390: 15385: 15160: 14308: 13516: 13284: 13098: 13013: 12775: 12720: 12640: 12595: 12550: 12545: 12430: 12264: 12099: 12059: 11767: 11588: 11368: 11343: 11250: 11245: 11125: 10838: 10755: 10670: 10585: 9344:. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than 9264: 9119: 8622: 8245: 8035:, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums. 7975: 900: 66: 9530:

Creator has previously created many articles that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. –

7411:, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Knowledge. Everything in Knowledge needs to be 5503:

This fence post has been standing for more than two hundred years— anything this old is certainly notable. –

5389:

before moving it into mainspace, to avoid it being nominated for deletion in an obviously unfinished state.

3143:: This article is for a really good cause...it is about a charitable group that is trying to save children – 2002:

of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article.

15725: 15715: 15678: 15661: 15646: 15565: 15339: 14733: 14718: 14710: 14691: 14684: 14606: 14531: 14344: 14320: 13909: 13335: 13108: 12988: 12868: 12843: 12670: 12306: 12269: 12259: 11862: 11802: 11651: 10953: 10928: 10883: 10780: 10735: 10710: 10700: 10675: 10449: 10423: 9516:

Nominator has previously nominated a lot of articles that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. –

8023: 8019: 8015: 7037:

Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the

6689: 6685: 5202: 3463:

Whether something is harmful or harmless are also valid arguments for and against deletion of redirects at

3236: 832: 9965: 8312:

given the six interwiki links (de:Foo, es:Foo, fr:Foo, it:Foo, la:Foo, pt:Foo). They can't all be wrong. –

6841:, not a news service, and keep arguments must take this into account. Knowledge even has a sister project 5811: 3460:

clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

15489: 15437: 15407: 15290: 15155: 15133: 14953: 14915: 14411: 13921: 13665: 13228: 13043: 12928: 12853: 12740: 12660: 12630: 12490: 12480: 12465: 12069: 12033: 11923: 11787: 11706: 11488: 11353: 11318: 11165: 10923: 10873: 10868: 10595: 10484: 9926: 9764:

If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even

9576:

indefinitely from editing Knowledge. And even though this page was created before their block, even so! –

9461: 8477: 7817: 7576: 7423:. If the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community, it's likely ( 6696:); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available. 6234:

Article provides so little information, you can easily recreate it should more information be available –

4929:

It is common household vocabulary what a spray stick is. Of course there should be an article about it. –

1824: 1256: 735: 704: 690: 7069:

have more dedicated writers. Anyone, including you, can be devoted to writing about your hometown. (See

4332:

WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

4129:

WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

3733: 15656: 15397: 15356: 15167: 15019: 14995: 14824: 14753: 14566: 13931: 13330: 13279: 12918: 12913: 12873: 12858: 12848: 12725: 12570: 12475: 12169: 12129: 11978: 11968: 11867: 11676: 11538: 10823: 10695: 10489: 10469: 10108: 10023: 9944:

The fact that this is marked for deletion while Foo isn't says a lot about the state of this website. —

9301: 8607: 7254: 6072:

Surely if this many people have contributed to the subject, someone should know where to find sources –

5704:

FunHouse is out of business now. It is a safe bet that an article about them is not an advertisement. -

3556: 3243:

There are some pages within Knowledge that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—

2255: 1505:

Don't just claim that there must be sources out there somewhere. Instead, prove it, by providing them.

730: 486: 10152: 3740: 15607: 15501: 15417: 15368: 15024: 14960: 14339: 13896: 13792: 13304: 13073: 12938: 12838: 12755: 12700: 12690: 12655: 12450: 12291: 12013: 11953: 11686: 11523: 11458: 11453: 11443: 11195: 10818: 10570: 10512: 10429: 9978:

Nonsense like this is exactly why we're losing editors! Do the site a favor and close this already. —

9363: 8557:

You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. –

8543:

Look, if we have an article on Pokémon species, we should be able to have an article on this band. –

7813: 7724: 7407:

enough for a Knowledge article. As is mentioned in one of the official Knowledge policies, Knowledge

6132:

if no reliable sources exist at all, then no matter how many editors they are, they will not be found

5381:, and this is not by itself reason to keep an article. It is recommended to work on a new article in 3968: 2353: 2301:, the nomination itself can be a sufficient notability claim for a nominee, whether or not they win. 799: 760: 725: 441: 320: 54: 12685: 8700: 8470: 7131: 6545:

Of course this church is notable. This is where the city council always meets every Tuesday night. –

5392:

However, note also that the current low quality of an article is also not a reason to delete it, as

2429:

This section covers deletion arguments based on personal biases rather than policies or guidelines.

15690: 15673: 15668: 15317: 15096: 15061: 14938: 14765: 14595: 14334: 14174: 13642: 13478: 13434: 12978: 12933: 12296: 11933: 11671: 11200: 10978: 10645: 10185: 10170: 10006:

Knowledge and related projects has a lot of problems, both proven and alleged, both big and small.

9902: 9352:

of why it applies). If someone links to an essay, proposal or guideline, they are not suggesting "

8988: 8870: 7399:

Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. A person may be considered the greatest

6826: 6490: 6246: 5282: 4537: 3843: 3726: 3279: 3248: 2321:), or accomplishing separate notable achievements beyond appearing in a reality show (for example, 1557: 1466: 15549: 10223: 9245: 8721: 7875:

It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. –

2983: 1326: 15225: 15007: 14629: 14354: 14169: 13685: 13381: 13208: 13148: 13123: 13063: 12973: 12968: 12555: 12372: 12089: 12074: 12064: 11852: 11847: 11265: 10938: 10908: 10740: 10145: 9238: 9029: 8398: 8342:; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. 8171: 7658: 7250: 5991: 5759: 5594: 4710: 3719: 3333: 3297: 3051:

about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

2511: 1836: 1828: 1509: 1452: 1071:" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing " 315:

that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should

291: 9231: 8752: 8164: 7774: 7735:, for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.) 7117: 6713: 5990:"WP:INVOLVE" redirects here. For policies, guidelines and guidance about users involvement, see 5468: 3705: 3095: 3081: 1459: 1347: 1237: 1106: 15651: 15322: 15066: 14923: 14654: 14276: 14266: 14216: 14190: 13966: 13840: 13807: 13708: 13690: 13590: 13439: 13421: 13168: 13118: 12898: 12893: 12863: 12352: 12316: 12311: 12008: 11812: 11646: 11170: 11003: 10853: 10620: 10391: 10386: 10381: 10202: 9905:. It may be valid to argue that a decision will move the encyclopedia closer to, or away from, 9697: 8611: 8498: 8386: 7462: 7318: 7311: 6661: 5752: 5033: 4863: 4736: 4544: 4252: 3931: 3572: 2955: 2568: 1695: 1543: 8863: 8621:

From the logical perspective, this argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as the

8463: 8449: 8285: 7788: 5648:

Rapid Racers went out of business more than 20 years ago. Why then should we have an article -

5454: 5440: 5426: 5272: 5265: 5251: 5140:

Zero Google hits, so even if she is a tenured professor at Harvard, she must be non-notable. –

5040: 4558: 3930:

Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the

3836: 3747: 2026: 1716: 1550: 15044: 14978: 14970: 14836: 14807: 14775: 14634: 14314: 14302: 14282: 14271: 14186: 13999: 13975: 13797: 13753: 13605: 13531: 13444: 13163: 12730: 12585: 11998: 11993: 11777: 11696: 11553: 11215: 10279: 9824: 9765: 9349: 9345: 9224: 9050: 8442: 7767: 7297: 7138: 7124: 7038: 6830: 6295: 6184: 5447: 5047: 4118: 3982: 3628: 3400: 2948: 2900: 2162: 2120: 1999: 1854: 1709: 1356:"WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC" and "WP:BELONG" redirect here. For policy on unencyclopedic content, see 1206: 1005: 351: 9690: 9683: 9623:

However, pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be

9115:

into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines.

9036: 9008: 7257:. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in 6886: 6517:

In all the publicity this school has received, they mention this particular honors student –

6021: 5258: 5054: 4849: 4446: 4439: 4235:

difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic

4165:

I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. –

4104: 3490: 3415:

true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

3319: 3102: 2976: 2575: 2346: 2169: 1230: 998: 15720: 15039: 15034: 14639: 14329: 14233: 14197: 14112: 14068: 13904: 13835: 13625: 13454: 13429: 13103: 12565: 12362: 12286: 11150: 11095: 11080: 10610: 10216: 10015: 8494: 8143: 8071: 7781: 7531:

This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year. –

7304: 6893: 6740:

I came here to find out more about the arrest and court case...should be kept and updated –

6483: 6476: 6014: 5851: 5616:

IntraState Airlines just went belly-up. Therefore, we should delete the article about it. -

5587: 4856: 4641:

So many people hate this person that a fair article free of BLP violations is impossible. –

4111: 3822: 3712: 3419: 3347: 3283: 2467: 2282: 1876: 1857:), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above. 1611: 1333: 481: 156: 10071: 10028: 9738:

Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. –

9022: 6559:

I always hear on the 5 o'clock news that the police have been called to this gas station –

6177: 5461: 5433: 3621: 3326: 3312: 3088: 2969: 2962: 1651:"The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." 1340: 1288:

Most people are saying it should be deleted, and it looks like that is what will happen. –

1113: 961: 8: 15612: 15533: 15449: 15312: 15302: 15138: 14612: 14574: 14554: 14207: 14106: 14053: 14029: 13952: 13855: 13787: 13713: 13526: 13521: 13498: 13473: 13203: 12813: 12382: 12357: 12336: 11716: 11348: 11140: 10705: 10297: 9817: 8691:

for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate.

8456: 8394: 8257: 8085:

apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently

7419:

before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered

7018: 6834: 6665: 6452: 5978: 5769: 5397: 5061: 4353: 3942: 2460: 2019: 1995: 1820: 1702: 912: 425: 10372:

which describe various relevance fallacies, which should also be avoided in discussions.

9454: 9162: 9015: 8006:

In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not

7760: 7753: 6288: 4551: 3829: 3497: 3340: 2813: 2561: 2453: 2410: 2176: 2048:

I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? –

1978:, which is a much faster and simpler process than nomination at Articles for Deletion. 1120: 91: 15617: 15307: 14943: 14928: 14706: 14392: 14325: 14139: 14024: 14009: 13956: 13916: 13865: 13802: 13761: 13738: 13718: 13621: 13465: 13449: 13374: 12377: 12367: 12281: 12254: 11518: 10770: 10396: 10208: 10137: 10063: 9918: 9809: 9675: 9646: 9446: 9393: 9367: 9216: 9154: 9123: 9000: 8984: 8940: 8855: 8830: 8759: 8744: 8713: 8435: 8427: 8402: 8339: 8277: 8156: 8056: 8011: 7745: 7650: 7568: 7454: 7289: 7110: 7102: 7077: 7022: 6878: 6705: 6468: 6280: 6170: 6162: 6006: 5843: 5744: 5579: 5418: 5290:

WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Unchallenged material (or content age)

5243: 5025: 4841: 4728: 4702: 4529: 4517: 4431: 4345: 4295: 4096: 3989: 3974: 3950: 3814: 3697: 3613: 3482: 3304: 3244: 3073: 2940: 2805: 2554: 2546: 2446: 2438: 2402: 2338: 2154: 2011: 1868: 1687: 1536: 1521: 1512:, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable. 1444: 1318: 1222: 1098: 983: 970:

This section is about deletion arguments that do not seem to make sense, and otherwise

953: 446: 284: 142: 84: 76: 9419:

explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it

9189:

If this article is deleted then the stuff in it will end up back in the main article –

7436:

completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

6130:. An article can be made into a good article, either by one person or by a dozen. And 5826:

Simply because a page is not of interest to Knowledge readers does not mean it is not

4599:

Has such a long history of vandalism that has made it an embarrassment to Knowledge. –

3258:

Building a solid case for deletion on the basis of uselessness is unlikely because of

3188:

something is useful or useless. This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful

1529: 991: 127:

Explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies

14990: 14879: 14211: 14048: 14038: 14014: 13991: 13947: 13873: 13825: 13783: 13743: 13585: 13580: 13402: 12879:

Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith

12833: 11797: 11636: 11533: 10730: 10407:

Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative

10401: 10376: 10341: 10333: 10323: 10305: 10287: 10269: 10255: 10178: 10116: 10098: 10032: 9893: 9879: 9861: 9847: 9784: 9757: 9743: 9729: 9597: 9581: 9563: 9549: 9535: 9521: 9507: 9493: 9374: 9357: 9353: 9326: 9309: 9292: 9284: 9194: 9107: 9093: 9079: 8948: 8930: 8916: 8902: 8849: 8813: 8795: 8649: 8615: 8590: 8576: 8562: 8548: 8534: 8331: 8317: 8264: 8252: 8233: 8215: 8130: 7968: 7954: 7936: 7922: 7908: 7894: 7880: 7866: 7852: 7696: 7622: 7608: 7544: 7536: 7522: 7508: 7494: 7489:

This movement may be unknown now, but it is going to be really important very soon. –

7392: 7378: 7364: 7350: 7226: 7208: 7182: 7046: 6995: 6981: 6967: 6962:

No one from outside this establishment's hometown has ever heard of it or ever will –

6953: 6939: 6925: 6865: 6815: 6801: 6787: 6773: 6759: 6745: 6610: 6592: 6587:

One source saying she won the Nobel Prize only mentions her once. That's not SIGCOV.

6578: 6564: 6550: 6536: 6522: 6419: 6401: 6387: 6369: 6355: 6341: 6327: 6239: 6225: 6211: 6119: 6105: 6091: 6077: 6063: 6049: 5954: 5940: 5926: 5912: 5898: 5884: 5819: 5801: 5720: 5709: 5695: 5681: 5667: 5653: 5639: 5621: 5561: 5544: 5527: 5510: 5493: 5346: 5332: 5317: 5281:"WP:NEWARTICLE" redirects here. For a step-by-step process to create an article, see 5229: 5177:

Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)

5159: 5145: 5131: 5117: 5103: 4977: 4963: 4949: 4934: 4920: 4905: 4782: 4768: 4686: 4674: 4660: 4646: 4632: 4618: 4604: 4590: 4492: 4478: 4403: 4385: 4227: 4213: 4199: 4184: 4170: 4156: 4075: 4060: 4042: 4034: 4024: 4016: 3903: 3889: 3875: 3674: 3660: 3543: 3529: 3393: 3379: 3176: 3162: 3148: 3134: 3043: 3029: 3015: 2888: 2874: 2860: 2855:. The Fooians don't want anyone to know this, we shouldn't bow to Fooian interests. – 2846: 2743: 2729: 2715: 2701: 2687: 2673: 2659: 2641: 2627: 2613: 2499: 2380: 2239: 2221: 2203: 2093: 2081: 2067: 2053: 1942: 1927: 1908: 1850: 1800: 1782: 1752: 1603: 1589: 1498: 1404: 1390: 1293: 1279: 1260: 1210: 1170: 1152: 1051: 1037: 8240:

Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are

5727:

reasons why readers might be looking for information about who and what they were.

4655:

Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating the article if it's deleted. –

2783: 1424: 69:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. 15537: 14911: 14624: 14361: 14202: 14101: 14043: 13981: 13776: 13655: 13650: 13635: 13600: 13560: 13488: 13483: 11973: 11963: 11872: 10535: 10406: 10315: 10125: 10090: 10039: 9871: 9663: 9605: 9590: 9138: 8980: 8825: 8688: 8260:. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites. 7712: 7269: 7089: 7013:

At the same time, subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour

6693: 6411: 6131: 5970: 5382: 4820: 4503: 4418: 4411: 3954: 3800: 2281:. We do not have articles only because people and/or organizations are successful; 2231: 2130: 2110: 2100: 1661: 1301:

contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.

50: 9377:

is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us

7603:

None of the source coverage would have occurred had the one event not occurred. –

6822: 6451:

including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or

5965:. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to 3441: 15702: 15697: 14748: 14743: 14585: 14118: 14082: 14058: 13878: 13850: 13830: 13678: 13646: 13630: 13595: 11726: 10499: 10494: 10369: 10349: 10250:

It does not matter if it is original research, or non verifiable. It's notable. –

10019: 10011: 9856:

This is the last straw. If we keep this Knowledge isn't worth my time any more. —

9573: 8637: 8207: 8040: 7638: 7408: 7058: 6861: 6855:

There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event

6854: 6838: 6630:

information, but they should not be used as a reason why the subject is notable.

6268: 5716: 4682: 4510: 4380:

Is an orphan. No articles link to this one, and probably none ever can or will. –

4263: 3552: 2787: 2651: 2326: 2318: 2249: 2198:

The person lost in the competition/event, so they couldn't possibly be notable. –

2137: 1201:

per nom. I find their argument that such and such policy is not met compelling")

7732: 7427:) that those sources are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion in Knowledge. 7359:

Who outside of (name locality) has ever even heard of this person/place/thing? –

6434:

In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the

5370: 3792: 3788: 3445: 15685: 15629: 14819: 14696: 14600: 14019: 14004: 13926: 13845: 13771: 13411: 12998: 12943: 12028: 11328: 10465:

Knowledge:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument

10051: 10043: 10007: 9634: 9333: 8680: 8139: 7996: 7218: 7192: 7166: 6650: 6646: 6257: 5962: 5690:

Victorianville has been wiped off the map and is now the site of a strip mine -

5386: 5213: 4722: 4395: 4083: 3946: 3601: 3271: 2912: 2779: 2309: 2294: 2286: 1774: 336: 8078:. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar. 6857:, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD. 2869:. We can't get rid of an article just because it makes people uncomfortable. – 15740: 14144: 14034: 13766: 13729: 13673: 13541: 13536: 10357: 10047: 9773: 9617: 9613: 9601: 9318: 9142: 8976: 8821: 8731: 8684: 8603: 8203: 8125: 8109: 8075: 8064: 7432: 7420: 7006: 6621:

stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article,

6618: 6427: 6253: 6138: 6127: 5831: 5732: 5378: 5363: 5191: 5172: 4989: 4824: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4690: 4287: 4256: 4068: 3796: 3568: 3457: 3452: 3196: 2924: 2920: 2775: 2389: 2314: 2298: 2141: 1991: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1792: 1744: 1673: 1665: 1304: 1182: 1178: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 344: 340: 332: 9045:"WP:LOSE" redirects here. For Knowledge is not about losing or winning, see 8653:

character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on

8571:

We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –

7719:, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. However, note that per the 4239:

for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that

2535:

weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions.

2062:

You would be doing me a big favor if you changed your "deletes" to "keeps" –

14156: 13575: 12080:

Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack

10337: 10319: 10301: 10283: 10265: 10251: 10174: 10112: 10094: 10022:. But a deletion discussion is about a specific article and not a place to 9999: 9989: 9979: 9969: 9955: 9945: 9889: 9875: 9857: 9843: 9753: 9739: 9725: 9577: 9559: 9545: 9531: 9517: 9503: 9489: 9373:

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "

9322: 9305: 9288: 9190: 9103: 9089: 9075: 8944: 8926: 8912: 8898: 8809: 8791: 8586: 8572: 8558: 8544: 8530: 8350: 8327: 8313: 8241: 8229: 8225: 8211: 8199: 8105: 8101: 7964: 7950: 7932: 7918: 7904: 7890: 7876: 7862: 7848: 7692: 7618: 7604: 7532: 7518: 7504: 7490: 7416: 7388: 7374: 7360: 7346: 7241:, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's 7222: 7204: 7178: 6991: 6977: 6963: 6949: 6935: 6921: 6811: 6797: 6783: 6782:

Huge media interest in this celeb romance...so we should keep the article –

6769: 6755: 6741: 6658: 6626: 6602: 6588: 6574: 6560: 6546: 6532: 6518: 6435: 6415: 6397: 6383: 6365: 6351: 6337: 6323: 6264: 6235: 6221: 6207: 6115: 6101: 6087: 6073: 6059: 6058:

This is a huge project that many editors care about and work on every day –

6045: 5966: 5950: 5936: 5922: 5908: 5894: 5880: 5815: 5797: 5724: 5705: 5691: 5677: 5663: 5649: 5635: 5617: 5555: 5538: 5521: 5504: 5487: 5342: 5328: 5313: 5221: 5209: 5155: 5141: 5127: 5113: 5112:

She's the first Google result for her name, so obviously she's important. –

5099: 5012: 5004: 4973: 4959: 4945: 4930: 4916: 4901: 4778: 4764: 4670: 4656: 4642: 4628: 4614: 4600: 4586: 4488: 4474: 4399: 4381: 4223: 4209: 4195: 4180: 4166: 4152: 4056: 4038: 4020: 3899: 3885: 3871: 3670: 3656: 3593: 3539: 3525: 3431: 3408: 3389: 3375: 3172: 3158: 3144: 3130: 3039: 3025: 3011: 2916: 2884: 2870: 2856: 2842: 2739: 2725: 2711: 2697: 2683: 2669: 2655: 2637: 2623: 2609: 2527: 2519:

you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

2495: 2376: 2322: 2235: 2217: 2199: 2077: 2063: 2049: 1963: 1959: 1938: 1923: 1904: 1832: 1796: 1778: 1770: 1766: 1748: 1636: 1599: 1585: 1494: 1400: 1386: 1289: 1275: 1166: 1148: 1047: 1033: 312: 13366: 6430:

requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by

4799:

exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on

4669:

The canvassing campaign has made it impossible to get consensus on this. –

4090: 3559:

are welcome. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as

1937:

The article's content asserts importance and significance for the topic. –

974:

point at or even make correct usage of policies or guidelines whatsoever.

14349: 14126: 14063: 9968:) don't think this is notable, they just can't see female perspectives. — 9127: 8972: 8968: 8897:

I thought Knowledge's purpose was to provide information on everything. –

8486:

For an essay that discusses precedents outside deletion discussions, see

8044: 7629: 7548: 7412: 7404: 7200: 7174: 7042: 6637:

doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material

6439: 5827: 5228:

search. However, since an article can be verified as notable entirely by

5217: 4993: 4985: 4816: 4800: 4790: 4222:

I really promise I'll improve it, I just have no time now to explain how.

3564: 3560: 3427: 3423: 3404: 3275: 3259: 3252: 2908: 2904: 2791: 2524: 2267: 1979: 1762: 1669: 1640: 328: 324: 7861:

This poet is notable, so all his individual poems must be notable too. –

5180: 4990:

mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion

3571:– not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are 3216: 2216:, something this horrid album deserves instead of a Knowledge article. — 1058:

This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As

14259: 14253: 14180: 14092: 10504: 9440: 8664: 8090: 8089:

a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national

8060: 6976:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just Woodsville –

5793: 4992:. There are various other guidelines that must be met, mostly found in 3228: 3212: 14523: 9988:

This article has long been an insult to Knowledge and our standards. —

9888:

A media pundit criticized Knowledge for having this kind of article. —

8120:

make the subject notable. Also, notability not being inherited is not

7632:

is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources

7551:

is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources

5814:

read it every day, making it Knowledge's 163rd most popular article. –

2494:

The Angry Young Popes are the best rock band in the world right now. –

2271:, are significantly important and covered in several reliable sources 14403: 14366: 14150: 14134: 13817: 11484:

Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument

10551: 10035:

and individual cases will usually not set an example for the future.

9752:

It's already had a bunch of AFDs, obviously people want it deleted. –

9397: 8668: 8100:(significance is a lower standard than notability, used for sections 6442:

some information, but surely not to establish notability. Sites like

14296: 10173:

says that we keep secondary schools so this article should be kept —

7669:

WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Inaction by editors

7555:

taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people

7503:

Of course this unreleased single is notable. It's by The Scrotums. –

6676:

that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write

6625:

that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that

5676:

The Big Banger has not had a hit record for more than 10 years now -

5398:

Articles should be judged on their potential, not just current state

4487:

Information changes so often, it is impossible to keep up to date. –

4073:

There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources.

3469:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect?

14572:

For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the

14244: 9909:

but a relevant argument should focus on the merits of the article.

8072:

not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article

7387:

Is the only elementary school on Clubbington Street in Eastgrove. –

7196: 7170: 6842: 6768:

When I saw this I immediately looked it/them up here, as did many –

5208:

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as

3388:

This article is very harmful to many people. Get rid of this now! –

2883:. Baz supporters want to delete it because it makes Baz look bad. – 2213: 14564:

For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the

9404:

why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an

9366:, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. 9356:

says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this,

9118:

In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or

7903:: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. – 7057:

Another question is where to draw the line on a subject as being "

6260:

waiting for expansion. Being "short" is not grounds for deletion.

6252:

On the other hand, even a small amount of information meeting the

13398: 10949:

Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability

7990: 7400: 6379: 5362:

collective interpretation of our inclusion criteria has evolved.

5224:

that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google

3655:

Very nice format and design, esp. the use of multicolour layout –

3592:

What does this joke even mean? I can't understand modern humor. -

2096:

before you solicit "votes" one way or the other in a discussion.

130:

Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions

10237: