User:Sebwite/Arguments to avoid in discussions/construction sandbox

In deletion discussions

Favoring keeping

Type	Examples	Explanation	Shortcuts
Just a vote	Keep	This is not an argument at all; it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article (or other) should be kept, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons.	WP:JUSTAVOTE
Per someone else	Keep as per [nominator's] statement. Keep per [other user's] statements.	It is important to realize that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions. If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". 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 hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position.	WP:PERNOM
Is notable	Keep It is clearly notable.	Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "#Just unencyclopedic" and "#Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." 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. Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability.	WP:CLEARLYNOTABLE
Just pointing at a policy or guideline	Keep Meets WP:NOR	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 is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.) Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.	WP:JUSTA
	Keep The Flailing Hairnets are the best rock band in the world right now.	Wikipedia 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. 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 verifiable reliable sources have been written about them, 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. And on the converse (see #I like it, directly above), while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself 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 #Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also #Pointing at policy.) This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. 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 verifiable inclusion.	WP:LIKE
Interesting	Keep Interesting. Keep Stuff and nonsense anyhow.	Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be of interest to some editor somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may be apathetic, or not care, about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.	WP:INTERESTING

Favoring deleting

Type	Examples	Explanation	Shortcuts
Just a vote	Delete	This is not an argument for deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Delete" to "Strong delete" 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 the right reasons.	WP:JUSTAVOTE
Per someone else	Delete as per [nominator's] statement. Delete per [other user's] statements.	It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions. If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". 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 hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position.	WP:PERNOM
Is not notable	Delete It is clearly not notable.	Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "#Just unencyclopedic" and "#Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." 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. Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability.	WP:CLEARLYNOTABLE
Just pointing at a policy or guideline	Delete Does not meets WP:NOR	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 is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy. As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.) Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.	WP:JUSTA
Personal dislike	Delete – The Flailing Hairnets are the worst rock band ever. Delete – It's annoying. Delete as cruft. Delete as trivia. Delete it's offensive for my religion.	Wikipedia 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. 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 verifiable reliable sources have been written about them, 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. And on the converse (see #I like it, directly above), while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself 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 #Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also #Pointing at policy.) This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. 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 verifiable inclusion.	WP:DISLIKE
Unfamiliarity	Delete as an election in a Third-world place.
Not interesting	Delete Not interesting. Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway?	Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be of interest to some editor somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may be apathetic, or not care, about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.	WP:BORING WP:APATHY WP:WHOCARES

In edit wars

Type	Examples	Explanation	Shortcuts
Accusation	"You have broken this rule by saying/doing that." "That is a violation of [this] policy. "If you add that to/remove this from this article, it is vandalism." "You are trying to assert ownership of this article." "This must be a sock puppet account."	Yes, there may be actual behaviorial policies and guidelines around. They can be interpreted however one may wish, and can be twisted to fit the beliefs of the one spouting their side of the argument. This is commonly known as Wikilawyering, is not congruous with the guidelines cited in gaming the system. The act of throwing around such accusations is a lack of assumption of good faith. There is a more civil way of dealing with disputes if you are really concerned about a violation taking place. These concerns may be brought up on various boards, such as Dispute resolution. There are warning templates that can be placed on a user's talk page, but they should be used sparingly, and only when it appears that the user is unfamiliar with such a guideline, or is intentionally breaking it, despite all warning.	WP:ACCUSE
Creator/Contributor	"I created this page." "I have made most of the contributions to this article." "I started this page; please run all proposed changes through me first." "I am Wikipedia's top contributor in this field."	On Wikipedia, articles are not owned. Just because you created an article does not mean it is yours to decide how it should be written in the future. Once you save your initial edit, it is out there for anyone else to edit at will. Being the creator or a major contributor in no way, shape, or form grants any special rights to dictate or otherwise decide its contents.	WP:IMADEIT
Experience/Standing on Wikipedia	"I've been around longer than you." "I have over 10,000 more edits than you do." "I am a registered user; your edits were made by an IP." "I am an autoconfirmed user; you are brand new. "I have written these guidelines myself. "I am an administrator."	There are no vested contributors. No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers. As for titles, these grant only the ability to use certain types of features, not to have any say over which version is more correct.	WP:MOREX
Expertise in the field (seealso:Wikipedia:Amnesia test)	"I am an expert on this topic." "I have done some professional writing about that." "I was the inventor/designer/producer of this." "I have been to this place and seen it myself." "I met that person and s/he told me that him/herself."	You may have a Ph.D. in the subject. You may work in the field. But your own personal knowledge cannot be published unless it can be verified. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of sourced material, not indiscriminate information. Unverified contribution of material in a subject of one's own so-called expertise may be original research. If one has direct involvement with a company or organization that the article is about, this may violate conflict of interest guidelines.	WP:EXPERTISE WP:IKNOW
Prior discussion	"It's been discussed already." "There is a longstanding consensus about how to treat this issue."	Yes, certain conclusions may have been reached some time back via a discussion. But consensus can change. The surrounding world constantly changes, thereby affecting the standing of material on Wikipedia. A prior agreement or decision may have worked back then. But things are different now. Nothing is ever in stone. Discussions are never standing policy. They address immediate situations and do not make permanent decisions. Any discussions that have been held a significant amount of time ago may be out of date, based on changes that have taken place either on Wikipedia or in the outside world. The more time that has passed since that discussion, the less likely it is to be applicable.	WP:PRIOR WP:DISCUSSED
Threats and intimidation	"If you do that again, I will report you." "Don't do that or you will be blocked." "Anyone changing this will be violating [this] policy." "Do this and you will lose some privileges."	On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether.	WP:THREATEN WP:INTIM
Three revert rule	"The three-plus reverts I made have been stretched beyond 24 hours"	The Three revert rule is just a general guideline to draw the line somewhere. But making edits in a manner that just barely dodges this time frame does not make one immune from the consequences. An administrator still reserves the right to block an editor if it is obvious s/he is being disruptive with such constant reverts. If an editor were to make four reverts, say, on January 26 at 9:45 AM, 1:35 PM, and 7:22 PM, and then one on January 27 at 10:31 AM, technically there have not been more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. But it is still a sign of edit-warring.	WP:STRETCH