Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This essay is about the appropriate use of

WP:Articles for Deletion
discussions based in relevant policies. The core synopsis of which can be summed up as "Don't attack the nominator".

How not to use
WP:BEFORE

  • 1. Don't use
    WP:ATTP
    .
  • 2. Don't use
    WP:BATTLEGROUND
    make this clear.
  • 3. Don't use
    WP:GNG
    .
  • 4. Don't use
    WP:ATTP
    , shame the nominator, become personal attacks, or shift the burden of evidence onto the challenger per above.
  • 5. Don't use
    WP:BURDEN
    .
  • 6. Don't use
    WP:BATTLEGROUND
    . Such demands may be perceived as unreasonable, unproductive, and inappropriately shifting the focus of the AFD nomination to the nominator and not the article nominated.

How to use
WP:BEFORE

1. Follow it when making a nomination

2. When others may not follow it, have a civil conversation about that policy on that individual's talk page.

Alternative View: DO attack the nomination

While editors who inappropriately nominate notable topics for deletion should have

WP:BEFORE
is one way to ensure that obviously encyclopedic topics are not nominated for deletion, since a deletion nomination 1) can be perceived as an attack by the article's author(s), discouraging future contributions, and 2) threatens to remove freely-contributed content that may or may not be within Wikipedia's scope and goals: while widespread disagreement about edge cases exists, poorly attended or poorly argued deletion discussions have resulted in encyclopedic content being removed.

A criticism of the nomination, especially that of a newer nominator, should focus on educating the nominator that their nomination was insufficient, with sound, well-sourced, policy-backed explanation. While we can never assure that the criticism will be taken as a good faith effort to improve the nominating editor's future nominations, the delivery of a critique against the nomination should never be able to be reasonably construed as an attack against the nominator. Some people have very thin skins, but those who rise to criticize a nomination should maintain focus on the nomination, not the nominator, to the greatest extent possible.

Of course, after repeated poorly researched nominations, education may gradually shift to

WP:BATTLEGROUND
mentality about their deletion nominations may simply be incapable of processing appropriate feedback from the 'other' side. Polarization in Wikipedia may regrettably approach that in the real world at times. Repeatedly making inappropriate deletion nominations in good faith is a conduct issue, and should be addressed as such if the nominator persists in inappropriate nominations.
As always, however, the effort is to collaboratively improve the encyclopedia, not 'win' or make the other side 'lose' any particular deletion discussion.

See also