Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in RfD discussions

Some arguments should not be in RfD discussions, this will list such arguments

please refute things instead of attacking editors

Arguments without arguments

change

Just notable

change

Examples:

To provide a proper notability claim, it must state policies and guidelines.

Just a vote

change

Examples:

The discussion is not a vote, you should state what action to take instead of just voting.

It must be notable!

change

Examples:

There has to be proof of sources, not assumption of sources, you have to give proof of reliable sources, base your statements on fact, not assumption.

Just unencyclopedic/encyclopedic

change

Examples:

The claim of being encyclopedic is simply not a good claim.

Begging for mercy

change

Examples:

Another unacceptable argument that does not state policy. There is no such thing as "mercy" on wikipedia

Personal interest

change

I like it/I do not like it

change

Examples:

Such claims don't make any arguments about policies and guidelines, and so are useless arguments because arguments of personal interest are invalid

They don't like it

change

Examples:

Wikipedia is not censored, but that by itself is not enough to be a reason for deletion

Notability fallacies

change

Existence

change

Examples:

Wikipedia is not about everything in existence, nobody could imagine how big an encyclopedia of everything would be.

Inherited notability

change

Examples:

Notability is not transferred by generation, and rarely is.

Crystal ball

change

Examples:

This is obvious per WP:CRYSTAL

Ad hominem

change

Examples:

Arguments should not be made to the person, but to the page's quality. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments with jargon, idioms, weasel words, or excessively complex words

change

Examples:

Such arguments will not be understood, and be considered invalid.

change