| Revision as of 23:28, 3 July 2008 editSeresin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,029 editsm Reverted to revision 215751907 by J Readings. using TW← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:55, 28 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with <nowiki>{{spa}}</nowiki>, if applicable. -] (]) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | :I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with <nowiki>{{spa}}</nowiki>, if applicable. -] (]) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: Especially since not all IPs are new or incompetent. Only considering established users goes against the core spirit of the site. ] (]) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | :: Especially since not all IPs are new or incompetent. Only considering established users goes against the core spirit of the site. ] (]) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::While it's true that not all IPs are incompetent, one of the downsides to IP editing is that it's difficult for IP users to have a say in RFDs, as there's no way to tell of hand whether or not they are individual editors, or if the IPs are being used by editors who have voted with their accounts as a means of double voting. So votes from IP editors are generally not counted.--] ] 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | :::While it's true that not all IPs are incompetent, one of the downsides to IP editing is that it's difficult for IP users to have a say in RFDs, as there's no way to tell of hand whether or not they are individual editors, or if the IPs are being used by editors who have voted with their accounts as a means of double voting. So votes from IP editors are generally not counted.--] ] 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I was specifically referring to the suggestion of indenting/marking the comments and arguments. Whoever the editor may be, the argument is what matters - and since AFD is not a vote, it shouldn't make much difference even if the actual votes were included/left unindented. I voted abstain in any case. ] (]) 17:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | ::::I was specifically referring to the suggestion of indenting/marking the comments and arguments. Whoever the editor may be, the argument is what matters - and since AFD is not a vote, it shouldn't make much difference even if the actual votes were included/left unindented. I voted abstain in any case. ] (]) 17:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --] (]) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --] (]) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :If you think it's sourcing is not up to snuff, re-nom it citing this fact. <span style="font-variant:small-caps |
:If you think it's sourcing is not up to snuff, re-nom it citing this fact. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#800080;">] § ]/]</span> 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::So nominated. < |
::So nominated. ] ] 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::And it seems some of the same people who voted "Delete" for ED on the grounds of non-notability, self-reference, lack of interest from anybody outside our little wiki-universe, etc., are voting "keep" there, despite it ranking worse on these criteria all around. ] (]) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | :::And it seems some of the same people who voted "Delete" for ED on the grounds of non-notability, self-reference, lack of interest from anybody outside our little wiki-universe, etc., are voting "keep" there, despite it ranking worse on these criteria all around. ] (]) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I believe you. Regardless of whether or not anyone is willing to admit this, the only real reason the ED article is listed at afd (and probably will be again soon after this one is closed) is because of what it is about. It may or may not meet the notability criteria, but regardless of whether it does or not, it is a fact, yes a fact, that the only reason people are getting this passionate about it possibly not meeting WP's notability criteria is because of its subject matter. If this article were about any subject in the world other than ED, no one would give a damn about deleting it, notable or not. And we also wouldn't have users like ] voting delete and practically (if not entirely) admitting that they're voting delete just because they dislike the article's subject. But I'm just stating the obvious, aren't I?--] ] 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ::::I believe you. Regardless of whether or not anyone is willing to admit this, the only real reason the ED article is listed at afd (and probably will be again soon after this one is closed) is because of what it is about. It may or may not meet the notability criteria, but regardless of whether it does or not, it is a fact, yes a fact, that the only reason people are getting this passionate about it possibly not meeting WP's notability criteria is because of its subject matter. If this article were about any subject in the world other than ED, no one would give a damn about deleting it, notable or not. And we also wouldn't have users like ] voting delete and practically (if not entirely) admitting that they're voting delete just because they dislike the article's subject. But I'm just stating the obvious, aren't I?--] ] 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Nominating this was based on notability (a valid policy based argument), which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines. I've never been apart of any ED debate other than this. If the depth of coverage wasn't "trivial", I wouldn't have nominated it. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", ''outside our "wiki-universe" this topic is '''not notable'''''. Choosing to keep or delete things based on "likability" are arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, are logically fallacious and frequently discounted.--] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | :::::Nominating this was based on notability (a valid policy based argument), which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines. I've never been apart of any ED debate other than this. If the depth of coverage wasn't "trivial", I wouldn't have nominated it. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", ''outside our "wiki-universe" this topic is '''not notable'''''. Choosing to keep or delete things based on "likability" are arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, are logically fallacious and frequently discounted.--] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Yet in your own nom, you cite ] (which isn't policy) and mention the attacks the site makes against Wikipedians as reasons for the deletion. If you're only true concern was the site's notability, you should have mentioned just that, as whether or not the site attacks Wikipedians is '''totally irrelevant''' to whether or not it should stay in the encyclopedia, and mentioning that it does only makes it seem that your true motive behind nominating the article for deletion is a dislike for the site that the article is about, and that the "not notable" argument that you're now using is such a facade used to conceal your true motives. In short, you made a mistake and probably caused a lot of unneeded drama by mentioning that the site attacks Wikipedians in your nom.--] ] 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ::::::Yet in your own nom, you cite ] (which isn't policy) and mention the attacks the site makes against Wikipedians as reasons for the deletion. If you're only true concern was the site's notability, you should have mentioned just that, as whether or not the site attacks Wikipedians is '''totally irrelevant''' to whether or not it should stay in the encyclopedia, and mentioning that it does only makes it seem that your true motive behind nominating the article for deletion is a dislike for the site that the article is about, and that the "not notable" argument that you're now using is such a facade used to conceal your true motives. In short, you made a mistake and probably caused a lot of unneeded drama by mentioning that the site attacks Wikipedians in your nom.--] ] 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Those things are true... and so what.. the policy based argument was made. Its quite dishonest to interperate your version of ''my'' reasoning when i've explained that reasoning above. --] (]) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | :::::::Those things are true... and so what.. the policy based argument was made. Its quite dishonest to interperate your version of ''my'' reasoning when i've explained that reasoning above. --] (]) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::<nowiki>*FACEPALM*</nowiki> - For the record, it was '''NOT''' my intent to have this deleted, otherwise I would have nominated it. I am disappointed in those who felt the need to do this. As an inclusionist, it is my belief that we have room for both ED and wikinfo. --] (]) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | ::<nowiki>*FACEPALM*</nowiki> - For the record, it was '''NOT''' my intent to have this deleted, otherwise I would have nominated it. I am disappointed in those who felt the need to do this. As an inclusionist, it is my belief that we have room for both ED and wikinfo. --] (]) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:55, 28 February 2023
kind of stupid question
why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.")
- If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --Have a nice day. Running 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. Most of the delete arguments are based on ED's lacking notability, on the basic question of the number and strength of reliable sources. If it were deleted and one or two new articles appeared giving it substantial coverage in major publications those arguments become irrelevant - anyone could recreate the article and there would be no basis in policy for deleting it again.Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy myself with one more source like the one at ninemsn. With two more, the article would pass any AfD comfortably --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. Most of the delete arguments are based on ED's lacking notability, on the basic question of the number and strength of reliable sources. If it were deleted and one or two new articles appeared giving it substantial coverage in major publications those arguments become irrelevant - anyone could recreate the article and there would be no basis in policy for deleting it again.Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to TELL THE WIKITRUTH! We're doin' it for the lulz! Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly how is this comment relevant or helpful to the discussion? Acalamari 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- To point out how the rapid nomination for deletion almost immediately after a DrV discussion and re-creation makes everyone here look like process wonk circle jerks. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the DRV recommended to relist at AfD, which means that re-creating and inmediately nominating for deletion was exactly what had to be done. No lulz for you today --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you must be looking at an entirely different DRV close. What part of "Regarding listing this on AFD, I don't see a clear consensus here that this needs to be done immediately, but nor is there a consensus that AFD should not be used. I am leaving that matter up to individual editors." says to you "IMMEDIATELY LIST IT FOR DELETION! SO IT IS WRITTEN SO SHALL IT BE DONE!"? Howa0082 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the DRV recommended to relist at AfD, which means that re-creating and inmediately nominating for deletion was exactly what had to be done. No lulz for you today --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- To point out how the rapid nomination for deletion almost immediately after a DrV discussion and re-creation makes everyone here look like process wonk circle jerks. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
SPAs
Would it be possible to indent the comments by IPs and new SPA accounts? its rather difficult to tell them apart from established editor comments at present. MBisanz 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with {{spa}}, if applicable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Especially since not all IPs are new or incompetent. Only considering established users goes against the core spirit of the site. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- While it's true that not all IPs are incompetent, one of the downsides to IP editing is that it's difficult for IP users to have a say in RFDs, as there's no way to tell of hand whether or not they are individual editors, or if the IPs are being used by editors who have voted with their accounts as a means of double voting. So votes from IP editors are generally not counted.--Urban Rose 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was specifically referring to the suggestion of indenting/marking the comments and arguments. Whoever the editor may be, the argument is what matters - and since AFD is not a vote, it shouldn't make much difference even if the actual votes were included/left unindented. I voted abstain in any case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- While it's true that not all IPs are incompetent, one of the downsides to IP editing is that it's difficult for IP users to have a say in RFDs, as there's no way to tell of hand whether or not they are individual editors, or if the IPs are being used by editors who have voted with their accounts as a means of double voting. So votes from IP editors are generally not counted.--Urban Rose 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Especially since not all IPs are new or incompetent. Only considering established users goes against the core spirit of the site. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
comment moved
I moved a comment that had been placed at the very top of the afd page, down to the end where it should have been placed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The wikinfo precedent
I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you think it's sourcing is not up to snuff, re-nom it citing this fact. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- So nominated. Celarnor 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- And it seems some of the same people who voted "Delete" for ED on the grounds of non-notability, self-reference, lack of interest from anybody outside our little wiki-universe, etc., are voting "keep" there, despite it ranking worse on these criteria all around. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you. Regardless of whether or not anyone is willing to admit this, the only real reason the ED article is listed at afd (and probably will be again soon after this one is closed) is because of what it is about. It may or may not meet the notability criteria, but regardless of whether it does or not, it is a fact, yes a fact, that the only reason people are getting this passionate about it possibly not meeting WP's notability criteria is because of its subject matter. If this article were about any subject in the world other than ED, no one would give a damn about deleting it, notable or not. And we also wouldn't have users like The Voice of Your Heart voting delete and practically (if not entirely) admitting that they're voting delete just because they dislike the article's subject. But I'm just stating the obvious, aren't I?--Urban Rose 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nominating this was based on notability (a valid policy based argument), which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines. I've never been apart of any ED debate other than this. If the depth of coverage wasn't "trivial", I wouldn't have nominated it. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", outside our "wiki-universe" this topic is not notable. Choosing to keep or delete things based on "likability" are arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, are logically fallacious and frequently discounted.--Hu12 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yet in your own nom, you cite WP:DENY (which isn't policy) and mention the attacks the site makes against Wikipedians as reasons for the deletion. If you're only true concern was the site's notability, you should have mentioned just that, as whether or not the site attacks Wikipedians is totally irrelevant to whether or not it should stay in the encyclopedia, and mentioning that it does only makes it seem that your true motive behind nominating the article for deletion is a dislike for the site that the article is about, and that the "not notable" argument that you're now using is such a facade used to conceal your true motives. In short, you made a mistake and probably caused a lot of unneeded drama by mentioning that the site attacks Wikipedians in your nom.--Urban Rose 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Those things are true... and so what.. the policy based argument was made. Its quite dishonest to interperate your version of my reasoning when i've explained that reasoning above. --Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yet in your own nom, you cite WP:DENY (which isn't policy) and mention the attacks the site makes against Wikipedians as reasons for the deletion. If you're only true concern was the site's notability, you should have mentioned just that, as whether or not the site attacks Wikipedians is totally irrelevant to whether or not it should stay in the encyclopedia, and mentioning that it does only makes it seem that your true motive behind nominating the article for deletion is a dislike for the site that the article is about, and that the "not notable" argument that you're now using is such a facade used to conceal your true motives. In short, you made a mistake and probably caused a lot of unneeded drama by mentioning that the site attacks Wikipedians in your nom.--Urban Rose 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nominating this was based on notability (a valid policy based argument), which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines. I've never been apart of any ED debate other than this. If the depth of coverage wasn't "trivial", I wouldn't have nominated it. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", outside our "wiki-universe" this topic is not notable. Choosing to keep or delete things based on "likability" are arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, are logically fallacious and frequently discounted.--Hu12 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you. Regardless of whether or not anyone is willing to admit this, the only real reason the ED article is listed at afd (and probably will be again soon after this one is closed) is because of what it is about. It may or may not meet the notability criteria, but regardless of whether it does or not, it is a fact, yes a fact, that the only reason people are getting this passionate about it possibly not meeting WP's notability criteria is because of its subject matter. If this article were about any subject in the world other than ED, no one would give a damn about deleting it, notable or not. And we also wouldn't have users like The Voice of Your Heart voting delete and practically (if not entirely) admitting that they're voting delete just because they dislike the article's subject. But I'm just stating the obvious, aren't I?--Urban Rose 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- And it seems some of the same people who voted "Delete" for ED on the grounds of non-notability, self-reference, lack of interest from anybody outside our little wiki-universe, etc., are voting "keep" there, despite it ranking worse on these criteria all around. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- *FACEPALM* - For the record, it was NOT my intent to have this deleted, otherwise I would have nominated it. I am disappointed in those who felt the need to do this. As an inclusionist, it is my belief that we have room for both ED and wikinfo. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- So nominated. Celarnor 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)