- I was going to shut up and let you guys discuss in this deletion review, but I'm done holding my tongue with you, Sephy. You are blatantly standing in my way by ignoring WP:NPASR. You are also delaying the inevitable outcome, which is ultimately deletion. You are complaining how fast I am with relisting articles, yet you have done nothing to improve the article yourself. Not during the 3 weeks of the entire AFD process, and certainly not now. Absolutely nothing. 3 weeks is more than enough time to gather any sources that might have helped with asserting notability. But bear this in mind - if good sources don't exist, they don't. It doesn't matter if we waited for 2 more months. The outcome will still be the same. That's why I'm saying that I really do not appreciate obstructers that are getting in my way of applying proper procedures. In this case, it would be getting rid of articles that don't have any encyclopedic value. It has become apparent to me that editors like Knowledge and Sephy seem to have a problem with that. That is unacceptable. That, and an AFD that barely had any participation that was closed with no consensus with WP:NPASR attached means I could renom it without having to run through a discussion, first. Since when is a closed AFD that barely even had any participation in the first place an acceptable outcome (even more so with WP:NPASR attached)? You're just making junk up by stating that such an outcome is an "objection/rejection" to my nom, which is not. I think you seem to be forgetting that this AFD ever existed, in which your words have practically been torn apart due to your blatant lack of knowledge of existing guidelines. It's a fact that you paid no mind to said existing guideline, WP:NPASR. What makes you above that guideline, huh? I'm not making my own guidelines up, I'm just following them to the letter. And that's supposed to be a problem? Since when? Just because you don't like me? That's biased to the core. In other words, you have zero grounds to criticize my methods, as I still have WP:NPASR to use as valid reasoning to renom. Ignore that guideline all you want, but you're just getting offended over nothing just because you don't like how I deal with things on a much higher efficiency level. You're also encouraging that articles that obviously fail the notability guidelines be kept just because I was the one that nomed them. Again, you're better not participating in my AFDs if you can't prove to be helpful, but instead act as a major obstacle. I have no objections with relisting the article after two months at this stage, but I'm 99% confident that there's absolutely nothing any of you could have done to save the article, given that even Admin Joe himself has failed to find any sources to assert the subject's notability. 2 months later, this article will see to its ultimate deletion, and if it does, it will prove true to what I've said - you're intentionally obstructing my path and my objectives instead of focusing on the actual notability on the subject herself. You're not doing anyone any favors; you are, again, just delaying the entire process. Please. Stop getting in my way if an article was closed with WP:NPASR. You could try and get good ol' Joe to gang up on me again, but I know now better on how to handle with obstructers like you. The right way. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you on policy, but rants like this just aren't helpful to anything. You're _really_ mad, and frankly this article existing for 2 more months isn't something worth getting that mad about. When I get that mad about something here (and I have) I know it's time for a break. Hobit (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The main concern here isn't a credits dump that pretends to be an article existing for two more months, it's more so about particular editors that intentionally obstruct my path just because they don't agree with my methods, rather than analyzing the actual notability of the subject. All I see as of this moment are repeated usage of WP:MUSTBESOURCES (repeatedly claiming that I should be giving them time to look for sources, when it is as clear as day that such a task cannot possibly be achieved because said sources are non-existent) and WP:PPOV (it's clear that those users don't like me, and they use it as a reason to disrupt my AFDs). In other words, those users (Knowledge and Sephy) have violated another guideline - WP:NPOV. And frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not I have their approval. How dare they have the audacity to call me disruptive when they themselves are ignoring existing policies and guidelines in the first place. I find that to be extremely outrageous. I don't think it's a lot to ask for them to stay off of my AFDs if they can't be bothered to present a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Otherwise, I see it as a serious violation of that guideline, since it is very obvious that the aforementioned users have a beef with the way I conduct things. It doesn't matter what I do, or whether or not I follow the guidelines. If I'm the one nomming the article, I automatically get flaked for it. That is the impression I'm getting, and I'm displeased. Luckily, Misplaced Pages does not consist solely of only those users, so I am still able to erase unneeded articles off of our encyclopedia thanks to much more diligent and helpful wikipals. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you should realise that perhaps not all of your nominations are made in the most neutral approach possible. You can do it, but there are just as many, if not more examples of AFD's that fail basic tests or where you become antagonistic for no reason. I can accept that perhaps my reactions are not always ideal and have said as much, but there has been no such attempts to back down from you. I'm more than happy to start again, but it won't work unless you can see that there are reasons why some of us react and to adapt. You need to leave your opinions about the article at the nomination, not continue to tell us that you are forcing through a decision. You can see that these instant renominations attract controversy, policy or not. Policy should not be used as an excuse to chase after desired outcomes, they are to assist not as an ends to a means. I'll be very happy to engage in an afd for this article if some time has passed and it can be presented without stigma or negative connotations. As it stands you have proven why the time is needed. Again, I'll work with you if you can work with the rest of us. It needs both "sides" to accept this.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The opening statements of my noms have always been constructed with info I've found about the subject, before proceeding to explain why I think they are not notable. Instant renoms are perfectly applicable when WP:NPASR is in place. It is a policy, and none of your opinions are above that guideline. Simple as that. I'm here to erase articles using existing guidelines, as opposed to arguing whether or not I need your approval. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sk8erPrince is skating towards an XfD nominations topic ban. Being right is not a justification of disruption. If another editor asks you to stop or slow down, you don't get to ignore that based on your conclusion that they are wrong. This is a collaborative project, and if he cannot work collaboratively .... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- AFD 2 is done with the correct procedures. What you think doesn't matter. You're not above that guideline, WP:NPASR. None of us are. The end. Nothing more, nothing less. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is where WP:IAR comes in, and that is a wikipedia policy. Every case is different, the WP:NPASR guideline can easily apply to a neutral nominator, and not the same one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nowhere does it say that WP:NPASR cannot be applied by the same nominator. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|