Summary
In a Deletion discussion, avoid arguments that are non sequiturs, unsupported, or fail to pertain to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. !votes should be followed by a logically correct argument either way. There frequently are logically correct arguments both for and against, and utilizing one of these is generally encouraged and weighted heavier then !votes with no explanation or a simple per above.
Discouraged
- Arguments making blatant emotional appeals will likely be discounted wholesale (i.e. "Children might read this! Please, think of the children!" or "This information could ruin somebodies life if it spread! Just because the newspaper printed it doesn't matter. What if they printed an article on your business?")
- People who simply "vote" with no rationale whatsoever. These can be entirely discounted, as AfD is a debate, rather then a vote.
Encouraged
- Citing specific policies, guidelines or widely accepted essays and explaining (briefly or otherwise) why and how they pertain to the case in question will likely get more thought and mindshare by the closing admin.
- While there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, pointing out previous similar discussions may help closing admins by illustrating other approaches to the discussion proposed.
See Also
Summary
In a Deletion discussion, avoid arguments that are non sequiturs, unsupported, or fail to pertain to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. !votes should be followed by a logically correct argument either way. There frequently are logically correct arguments both for and against, and utilizing one of these is generally encouraged and weighted heavier then !votes with no explanation or a simple per above.
Discouraged
- Arguments making blatant emotional appeals will likely be discounted wholesale (i.e. "Children might read this! Please, think of the children!" or "This information could ruin somebodies life if it spread! Just because the newspaper printed it doesn't matter. What if they printed an article on your business?")
- People who simply "vote" with no rationale whatsoever. These can be entirely discounted, as AfD is a debate, rather then a vote.
Encouraged
- Citing specific policies, guidelines or widely accepted essays and explaining (briefly or otherwise) why and how they pertain to the case in question will likely get more thought and mindshare by the closing admin.
- While there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, pointing out previous similar discussions may help closing admins by illustrating other approaches to the discussion proposed.