Renosecond
Archiving
editHi, I made it easier for you and instead of providing an external link like you did, I made an Archive for you. Removing comments is rather frowned upon and archiving is tons better. — The Future 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, happy to help. :) — The Future 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, well, you have a point. Basically, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television there were no arguments for keeping, therefore the only possible close was Delete, or to relist. I consider four commentors (including the nominator) to be barely a quorum, if that. I didn't, however, want to relist this particular nomination. I didn't think that any new technical information was likely to arise, and that the low comment total was due to general disinterest, as well as the large amount of articles listed every day (which relisting this nomination would only exaberate). So if I didn't relist (which I arguably should have), the only possible close was Delete.
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television, same deal: I didn't want to relist. The raw vote was 3-1 Delete, but on such low totals that is not as significant as when there are more commentors. One voter said it was original research, but it was not - it was based on material [1]. So I didn't consider that commentor's argument very heavily. That leaves us at 2-1, a point where raw totals are almost meaningless. The Delete arguments, then, were "appears to be a guide, not an article", with which I respectfully disagree - it's formed reasonably well as an article - and the single word "nonencyclopedic", which is probably true enough but not a very well developed argument. On the other hand the one Keep commentor posited that the article would be informative to people interested in television production, which may or may not be true, as I don't know what people interested in television production want or need to know. So I didn't see any great advantage to either side in either numbers or argument, thus No Consensus.
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television before closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television, and I didn't like the idea of keeping one and deleting the other. I considered going back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television and changing that to Delete, but I didn't want to change a close based on what had happened to another article. After all, my original logic still held. (I wasn't aware of the existance or fate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of TriStar Television).
However, you make a very good point. It makes little sense to have one and not have the others. Better if these three articles had been nominated together as a group, as happens often enough. When they are listed in three entirely separate nominations, the nominator can expect them to be treated separately. If, however, you want to take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television to WP:DRV, you would have strong case (based on the fate of the other two articles) and have a good chance of getting it deleted also, which would be fine by me. I think the article is drivel. Herostratus 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Emmanuel Kamber
editI would like to encourage you to withdraw your nomination withdrawal in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Kamber. Although I am not prejudiced toward recreation, I would not like to see those who copy-and-paste information rewarded with a "keep". -AED 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"Kirk Angel" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Kirk Angel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § Kirk Angel until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)