| Revision as of 13:01, 9 November 2008 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 48h) to User talk:Black Kite/Archive 18.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:22, 9 November 2008 edit undo71.196.85.253 (talk) →Blocking: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Well, it was a PROD, not an AfD, but I still think should be discussed where people will know what they are talking about. i.e. at AfD. Unless ANI got over-run by plant experts when I wasn't looking. If you can bear to read the whole thread, see ]. I wonder, though, since being able to PROD a suspected hoax bypassed the whole AfD process. How likely is it that those reading AfD (who might be able to tell a real hoax from a genuine article) will also be checking PROD? ] (]) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | Well, it was a PROD, not an AfD, but I still think should be discussed where people will know what they are talking about. i.e. at AfD. Unless ANI got over-run by plant experts when I wasn't looking. If you can bear to read the whole thread, see ]. I wonder, though, since being able to PROD a suspected hoax bypassed the whole AfD process. How likely is it that those reading AfD (who might be able to tell a real hoax from a genuine article) will also be checking PROD? ] (]) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Blocking == | |||
| Just so you know... Blocks don't work on me so don't try to be slick or I will include you in my report to the ARB committee aswell ] (]) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:22, 9 November 2008
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stafford Leys Primary School
Hi, I wonder if you would be good enough to look again at this close, please? The first point to make is that the only remaining delete view was made before the article was improved and still refers to its former state. The keepers asserted that the sources met WP:N. No-one in the discussion argued against that assertion. The fact that coverage is from a regional newspaper in no way invalidates it for the purposes of WP:N. Also, notability is an absolute standard - there is no requirement that any member of a class of articles (no pun intended) is distinctive from other members of that class. In my view, a merge is a version of keep, and that that was the appropriate close but I wouldn't argue if the article should survive as a no consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy PROD
Well, it was a PROD, not an AfD, but I still think suspected hoaxes should be discussed where people will know what they are talking about. i.e. at AfD. Unless ANI got over-run by plant experts when I wasn't looking. If you can bear to read the whole thread, see here. I wonder, though, since being able to PROD a suspected hoax bypassed the whole AfD process. How likely is it that those reading AfD (who might be able to tell a real hoax from a genuine article) will also be checking PROD? Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocking
Just so you know... Blocks don't work on me so don't try to be slick or I will include you in my report to the ARB committee aswell 71.196.85.253 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)