Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator
This is an essay on the conduct policy. 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 is an essay on the deletion policy. 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 essay is about the appropriate use of
How not to use WP:BEFORE
- 1. Don't use WP:ATTP.
- 2. Don't use WP:BATTLEGROUNDmake 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
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
As always, however, the effort is to collaboratively improve the encyclopedia, not 'win' or make the other side 'lose' any particular deletion discussion.