| Revision as of 05:20, 25 January 2008 editRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 edits Another editor agreed with the "delete" nomination in good faith. This was not eligible for Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep. Reopening the debate.← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:23, 25 January 2008 edit undoRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 editsm also noting the relistingNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| *'''Speedy keep'''. User is pissed off his own articles got nominated so he's going on a ] rampage.--<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep'''. User is pissed off his own articles got nominated so he's going on a ] rampage.--<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment'''. If the issue here is merely RightGot's behaviour, I'm more than happy to renominate this article without (I hope) appearing to have an ulterior motive. The "Keep" opinions in the 3rd AfD (the last genuine debate, held eighteen months ago when our standards were much laxer) very frequently mention the article's "potential for improvement"; I see no evidence of such improvement having occurred, or, indeed, for the existence of the potential in the first place. ] (]) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | **'''Comment'''. If the issue here is merely RightGot's behaviour, I'm more than happy to renominate this article without (I hope) appearing to have an ulterior motive. The "Keep" opinions in the 3rd AfD (the last genuine debate, held eighteen months ago when our standards were much laxer) very frequently mention the article's "potential for improvement"; I see no evidence of such improvement having occurred, or, indeed, for the existence of the potential in the first place. ] (]) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| * Comment: At this point in the discussion, ] closed the debate as "speedy-keep". However, because another user had commented in apparent good faith agreeing with the nomination, this was not eligible for closure under the ] rules. |
* Comment: At this point in the discussion, ] closed the debate as "speedy-keep". However, because another user had commented in apparent good faith agreeing with the nomination, this was not eligible for closure under the ] rules. I have reopened the debate and relisted it to the current day to correct for the premature closure. ] <small>]</small> 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:23, 25 January 2008
Girlfriend
Prior deletion discussions for this article:- Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Girlfriend - 28 Nov 2004
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (2nd nomination) - 25 Mar 2005
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (3rd nomination) - 11 Apr 2006
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (4th nomination) - 4 May 2006
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (5th nomination) - 19 Jun 2006
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (6th nomination) - 12 Aug 2006
Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Should be turned into a dab page, or rather the dab page should be moved here. RightGot (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Survived 6 nominations. Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:POINTy nom due to user's own recent deletion history. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Encyclopedic, I don't see how it is a dictionary entry. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- It discusses the etymology of the word. Etymologies are for dictionaries. RightGot (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - spurious nomination by troll. See User_talk:RightGot, User_talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and WP:ANI#RightGot andy (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't see how this can be a _spurious_ nomination if it's already been round six times. RightGot, whatever his motives, is _not_ the first editor to doubt the notability of this article. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This article _is_ just a dicdef. Tevildo (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep- It is more than a dicdef, but this point is not even relevant. It's notable, and if you think it is just a dicdef, then expand it. SeanMD80 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep; encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Chris Cunningham. Jonathan 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. User is pissed off his own articles got nominated so he's going on a WP:POINT rampage.--Oni Ookami Alfador 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. If the issue here is merely RightGot's behaviour, I'm more than happy to renominate this article without (I hope) appearing to have an ulterior motive. The "Keep" opinions in the 3rd AfD (the last genuine debate, held eighteen months ago when our standards were much laxer) very frequently mention the article's "potential for improvement"; I see no evidence of such improvement having occurred, or, indeed, for the existence of the potential in the first place. Tevildo (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: At this point in the discussion, user:Canley closed the debate as "speedy-keep". However, because another user had commented in apparent good faith agreeing with the nomination, this was not eligible for closure under the speedy keep rules. I have reopened the debate and relisted it to the current day to correct for the premature closure. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)