Wikipedia:Arguments to use in deletion discussions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
remove less relevant links |
Humor |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Humor}} |
|||
{{essay|[[WP:AUDD]]</br>[[WP:ATU]]}} |
{{essay|[[WP:AUDD]]</br>[[WP:ATU]]}} |
||
{{nutshell|Don't kid yourself.}} |
{{nutshell|Don't kid yourself.}} |
||
Revision as of 10:56, 12 February 2008
 | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't kid yourself. |
The following is a list of arguments which when used properly, can sway the opinion of other deletion debate participants who've already made their minds up, and/or sway the result away from being a strict vote count.
Further reading
Further listening
- "G-Spot Tornado" by Frank Zappa
- "The Misinterpretation of Silence and its Disastrous Consequences" by Type O Negative
- "The Ten Coolest Things About New Jersey" by The Bloodhound Gang
- "4'33"" by John Cage
See also
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- Alternative outlets to recreating deleted articles
- Deletion debates
- Deletion policy
- Deletion precedents
- Deletion process
- Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
- Guide to deletion
- Introduction to deletion process
- Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions