| Revision as of 06:19, 13 August 2008 editBecky Sayles (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,452 edits talkpage← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:23, 13 August 2008 edit undoBecky Sayles (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,452 edits →regarding POIINTNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Best, ] ] 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | Best, ] ] 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Someone raising the point of ] isn't a valid defense for article deletion. If someone does attempt to do this, and the article truly falls in to the same vein as one up for deletion, there is no reason it shouldn't be nominated if the reason given for nomination is valid. Its quite possible the nominator didn't realize a similar article existed for a previous olympics and thus nominated feeling as though it too was inappropriate. You should spend some time reading ], regardless of the language used to indicate that they would nominate that article as well. As well you and several other editors might want to take a long look at ] as ''useful'' is a pretty poor reason to attempt to keep an article, but seems to be the only rallying cry that exists.--] (]) 09:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | :Someone raising the point of ] isn't a valid defense for article deletion. If someone does attempt to do this, and the article truly falls in to the same vein as one up for deletion, there is no reason it shouldn't be nominated if the reason given for nomination is valid. Its quite possible the nominator didn't realize a similar article existed for a previous olympics and thus nominated feeling as though it too was inappropriate. You should spend some time reading ], regardless of the language used to indicate that they would nominate that article as well. As well you and several other editors might want to take a long look at ] as ''useful'' is a pretty poor reason to attempt to keep an article, but seems to be the only rallying cry that exists.--] (]) 09:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Perhaps I have not been clear enough in my comments. But yes I was unaware of the second article, as was indicated in my nomination. And I did believe that since the first should be deleted, then the second was in the same boat. Thanks. ] (]) 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:23, 13 August 2008
regarding POIINT
Becky,
It is correct that a discussion within the confines of AfD has no effect on articles (or the encyclopedia). But, as you yourself said, you would nominate another article for AfD because of someone else's comments. This is going beyond the discussion and verging on WP:POINT. I did not accuse you of disruption, rather I pointed towards that guideline as something to be mindful of. I think, IMHO, that it would have been entirely appropriate to argue that the outcome of the AfD for the article in question should be used as a precedent for the other equivalent articles (from previous Olympics) but actually listing them at this point is premature. Wait until after the closure of this AfD and apply that result to the others.
However, I think you're fighting a losing battle with this one - at least for the moment. If you wait until after the Olympics are over then there is more objectivity but right now many people, including myself, find this page very useful - this is how I'm following what's happening at the Olympics. It's faster to update than my television. Surely this is pretty encyclopedic, valuable, useful and also good PR for WP!
You will note that I'm not trying to pick on you - I also warned another commenter against attacking you (in a lighthearted way I'm sure) rather than dealing with the argument at hand. I disagree with your AfD nomination but it does deserve to be discussed without ad homenim attacks even if it does get Snowed.
Best, Witty Lama 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Someone raising the point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid defense for article deletion. If someone does attempt to do this, and the article truly falls in to the same vein as one up for deletion, there is no reason it shouldn't be nominated if the reason given for nomination is valid. Its quite possible the nominator didn't realize a similar article existed for a previous olympics and thus nominated feeling as though it too was inappropriate. You should spend some time reading WP:AGF, regardless of the language used to indicate that they would nominate that article as well. As well you and several other editors might want to take a long look at WP:ILIKEIT as useful is a pretty poor reason to attempt to keep an article, but seems to be the only rallying cry that exists.--Crossmr (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have not been clear enough in my comments. But yes I was unaware of the second article, as was indicated in my nomination. And I did believe that since the first should be deleted, then the second was in the same boat. Thanks. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)