Template:Archive box collapsible
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Pakistan relations
Seeing how the usual crowd has not yet descended on this AfD (at least as of 7:45 Feb 3, and assuming my removal of Aymatth's comment is not reverted) I was thinking of pro-actively reaching out to those usual suspects and saying "In the interest of getting some outside opinions on the topic and forestalling the usual mayhem the accompanies these AfDs, as an experiment why don't we all refrain from participating in this particular AfD for a few days. Let some new people consider an X-Y relations AfD without all of our chatter, and see if they can do any better at achieving consensus. And then after 3 or 4 days, we can all jump in, and express our opinions. The idea here is not exclude us from participating but rather to try to create a little space for fresh opinions." You think this would be useful for this or a future AfD? Yilloslime TC 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Notability tagging of Armenia–Japan relations
I am very puzzled by this edit of yours to Armenia–Japan relations.
In it, you add "{{notability}}" to the top, despite the assertion (whose veracity you do not question) within the article that an entire book is devoted to the subject, and despite the article's easy success in an earlier AfD -- an AfD that failed to attract a single "delete" vote ("!vote").
Further, although the addition of a "{{notability}}" flag seems a particularly noteworthy edit, you failed to provide an edit summary.
I invite you to remove the "{{notability}}" flag, to explain yourself more fully on the article's talk page, or of course to take the article to a second AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please hold off adding more amateur radio AfDs
Until there is some decision on the basic issue of how to handle national member societies of a notable international organization, please hold off adding any more individual AfDs, it is simply multiplying discussion, with the same arguments needing repetition over and over. AfD is not the place to make this decision, probably. Once the decision is made, then, if it is decided that stubs are not appropriate, many individual AfDs for organizations with minimal independent coverage could be handled with a single AfD. However, Merge is probably a more appropriate response in that case, allowing less cumbersome editorial control, and we could merge many articles quickly. Merges, as well, do not lose the work that may have been done on individual articles.
Please stop for now, and negotiate consensus on this. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at WP talk:Notability (organizations and companies) to gather views on the basic issue the use of stubs in a case like this. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it and commenting. --Abd (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. Based on some discussion at Talk for WP:ORG, I have a suggestion for you that could save some aggravation. Request a speedy close of the AfDs you have filed, pending the formation of consensus on the issue of a proposed intrinsic notability of a (1) national organization that is (2) recognized as a national member of a notable international organization, allowing use of stubs if needed. Under those conditions, the national society meets the literal criteria stated at WP:ORG: national scope and independent source. The basic "independent source" is the international organization, which is independent of the national one, the subject of the stub. If this turns out to be accepted, then debate over notability of these stubs is moot. If not, then you could request that the closing admin, accepting the speedy request from you, re-open, which I would support. I will also, if you desire, make these speedy requests myself, but I would not do that without your permission. Thanks for considering this. The reason for the speedy close would be something like "pending consensus on this class of article, please close without prejudice, allowing re-opening if the discussion doesn't turn out to be moot." --Abd (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Manuelargentina
Since the report, he hadn't edited in almost an hour. Also, I wasn't sure how the talk page edits were vandalism. It wasn't obvious. It is an AIV requirement that the vandalism be recent, ongoing and obvious. Since he has stopped, we need not take action at the moment to protect the encyclopedia. If he resumes this editing, report again. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerning your comments about deleting the article if there are no keep !votes as expired prods. I've proposed that twice. The proposal was rejected both times. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)