Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions

Wikipedians engaged in a full and open discussion of an AfD.

Editors are encouraged to fully discuss all sides of the issues surrounding articles considered for deletion. If one editor brings up an argument, another editor should be allowed to respond to it in good faith.

Example:

• Delete Violates WP:BIO, WP:IINFO, WP:N, and WP:V. DeleteItBaby 4:01, 4 April 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, that's a lot of points. I'll address them:

1. WP:BIO: meets the standards set here because ...
2. WP:IINFO: Does not violate because ...
3. WP:N: meets the standards set here because ...
4. WP:V: meets the standards set here because ...
5. Conclusion: Hope that clears everything up! SirTalksALot 04:15, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

• Response Stop responding to a 6-word argument with 100 words, you're wasting time and efforts. DeleteItBaby 4:01, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

If one editor has a position in an articles for deletion discussion (or any other discussion for that matter), any editor of opposing viewpoint should be allowed to respond to it in good faith. Making an argument to either delete or keep an article, and then dismissing the opportunity for response is not only one-sided but may be considered uncivil and perhaps even disruptive.

Even without the consideration of disruptiveness and uncivility, the purpose of discussions of articles for deletion is to get to the bottom of the idea: should an article be kept or deleted (or any of the other options available through the conclusion of an AfD such as merge). Ridiculing other editors who respond to your arguments does not add to the value of the discussion but instead takes away from it.

See also

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
• Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator
• Arbitration Committee discussion on Bludgeoning as a principle