User:Thesquire/How to convince the AfD editors to delete an article without trying to

The concept of verifiability and the various notability guidelines generally holds sway over the editors who patrol the AfD pages. However, there are a number of user behaviors and, for lack of a better term, tactics that are known to predispose the AfD editors towards giving a Delete vote. As one might imagine, most, if not all, of these behaviors and tactics deal with articles that are most likely vanity articles, or otherwise about things created in school one day. This list is an attempt to catalog such behaviors, but is by no means a set of hard-and-fast rules like CSD. Legit articles may rarely be nominated for AfD and have one or more editors use such strategies, though this is rarer for some tactics compared to others. Also, these strategies are not all on par with each other: Unfamiliarity is much less a gurantee of a Delete vote than, say, Vandalism.

The list

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Further noted behaviors are encouraged to be added, though please make sure that there are no duplicates.

1. Use Anonymous Meatpuppets - Novice editors attempting to save their vanity article often enlist the help of their real-life friends to flood the AfD discussion. This always fails, as AfD is not a vote: while anon comments may be considered by other editors, they are ignored by the admin who closes the discussion.
2. Make Legal Threats - Editors who are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote something of theirs occasionally use this intimidation tactic to try to get the AfD editors to vote Keep or to reverse their Delete votes. This, again, always fails as it violates official Wikipedia policy, and usually lands the threatening editor a suspension to boot.
3. Be Unfamiliar with the Deletion Process - The presence of one or more Don't Delete or Save votes within an AfD discussion usually indicates that the article being voted on is a vanity article. Editors expressing a legitimate reason to keep an article are usually familiar with the Deletion process and enter their votes following deletion guidelines. A typical example, this one involving numerous votes to Undelete before the article had been deleted, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimpo.
4. Complete disregard for notability guidelines, even after they've been linked and pointed out in the deletion discussion. This phenomenon may also be referred to as failure to get a clue, and is a more severe form of unfamiliarity. There seems to be an increasing amount of novice editors who seem to think that, since everything they know of seems to be on Wikipedia, that anything can be on Wikipedia. An example of a novice editor bashing his head against this particular wall is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipornia.
5. Plead - Even after being pointed towards the appropriate notability guidelines, some users will continue to argue for their article's inclusion in Wikipedia, often asking for the subject of the article to be "given a chance." Most AfD editors, quite rightly, recognize this as a request for special treatment, and accordingly vote Delete. There are also those who think it's some sort of free speech issue. Wikipedia is not MySpace, though, and editors insisting despite clear and convincing evidence that their article is non-notable it nonetheless should be kept for whatever reason they thought it was originally worth putting on Wikipedia usually guarantee more votes for deletion, or existing votes for deletion being upgraded to strong or speedy deletes.
6. Point to another crappy article - users who've been around for a short bit may try to defend their article by saying "Look at this crappy-ass article about a supposedly similar thing. It has an article, my thing should too." This fails for two reasons. First, there's usually a good reason for the crappy-ass article to exist, either that its verifiable or is noteworthy. Secondly, the article thus brought to the attention of the AfD editors may soon be tagged {{afd1}} themselves. In either case, such arguments are usually ignored.
7. Vandalism of:

• the nomination page,
• the user page of the nominator,
• the user pages of anyone voting for deletion;
• other actions, such as removing the AfD tag from the article,
• any vandalism warnings placed on the creator's own talk page and
• recreating a previously deleted article,

is wrong in any context. But when done during an ongoing deletion vote, this spiteful temper tantrum will not only ensure more editors vote for deletion, it may well increase the length of the ensuing block. A classic example of vandalism antagonising the AfD editors is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick monster.

Possible means to curb such behavior

A number of such behaviors stem from the novice editor's unfamiliarity with the AfD process, heavily influenced by their inability to not take the deletion nomination personally. Perhaps increased use of {{polite-afd}} in authors' talk pages would remedy this situation. Beyond such polite nudges, though, there's very little else to be done to discourage this type of behavior, which is why it will likely remain a reliable indication of a vanity article.

A note for those coming to this list

This is, mostly, a list of my own biases with regards to user behavior on AfD, which is why it's in the USER namespace. Please don't link to this directly from the AfD pages: the users who engage in these behaviors have already demonstrated themselves to have thin skins, and I don't want to be to blame for biting anyone.

If you are a novice user who came to this list as a result of being on AfD to defend your article, please remember that this is not directed at you specifically. This is, as stated before, a list of my own biases regarding AfD discussions. All the AfD editors have their own list in their heads, I'm merely being honest about mine. If you noticed that you stepped afoul of one of these, keep in mind that the only time I recommend an article be deleted sight unseen is when the title itself breaks one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Articles on AfD are, or at least should be, judged on their merits: poor user behavior usually serves as a red flag or to nudge a Weak Delete vote more firmly into that category.

I'm also in the process of changing around some of the wording at the moment. If grammar/tense/subjects don't agree, that's why.