Logic, where art thou? |
|||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
*::::What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
*::::What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
*:::::Some may have, some might not have. The forum thread [http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/tavern-blue-hand/5287-defense-all-muds-our-genres-noteworthiness-being-questioned.html] was generated 2 days before the blog post, so that would probably give you some idea. I've never said his opinion isn't reliable, but there has been no evidence provided that it would confer any notability, and with threshold only being mentioned in the context of an attack on wikipedia, there is no reason for the community to reward that. Bartle was showing an obvious bias in his blog post, so any comments he makes about how reliable, notable, etc a site is really have to be taken with a grain of salt.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
*:::::Some may have, some might not have. The forum thread [http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/tavern-blue-hand/5287-defense-all-muds-our-genres-noteworthiness-being-questioned.html] was generated 2 days before the blog post, so that would probably give you some idea. I've never said his opinion isn't reliable, but there has been no evidence provided that it would confer any notability, and with threshold only being mentioned in the context of an attack on wikipedia, there is no reason for the community to reward that. Bartle was showing an obvious bias in his blog post, so any comments he makes about how reliable, notable, etc a site is really have to be taken with a grain of salt.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
*:::::: Unbelievable. The link from the AfD to the TMS forum post was made by [[User:Black Kite]] - the ban happy admin who voted DELETE, and who banned all the people that went there to discuss the issue because they were UTTERLY UNABLE to discuss it on the Wiki. The circular logic that has been used all along here is absolutely bizzarro world type stuff. A delete voting admin links to an external forum post, and the people voting KEEP are blamed for canvassing? [[User:Cambios|Cambios]] ([[User talk:Cambios|talk]]) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Available for review by non-admins at [[User:Cambios/Threshold]]. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
*Available for review by non-admins at [[User:Cambios/Threshold]]. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*I would endorse the userification of the article (as done above) if it can be substantially improved. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
:*I would endorse the userification of the article (as done above) if it can be substantially improved. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:44, 7 January 2009
7 January 2009
Jean sutton
Jean sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
The author wrote books that were purchased by public libraries. That makes the author notable. The rest of the problems are not reasons to delete. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: Biographical information needs to contain something more than: "Jeff and Jean Sutton were married and wrote from 1950-1975.; Jefferson Howard SUTTON (1913-1979)". In addition, there were no reliable sources or even citations, for that matter. Having books published -- which has not been verified, does not make an individual notable. seicer | talk | contribs 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Threshold (online game)
Threshold (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
The deleting editor failed to understand the debate and did not follow deletion policy. Theblog (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason for deletion by the deleting Admin was given as:
"The result was delete. Regarding Threshold (online game), there is a of reliable and verifiable sources. In addition, there seems to be little notability to this particular game, and no major notability was established. The article also suffers from overuse of peacock terms which has the effect of promoting the game without parting with any useful information. As such, the article is not written from a neutral standpoint. Regarding Frogdice, it is entirely unsourced sans one magazine mention -- which has not been verified. There is not much else content on this article to really make it notable. In addition, excessive canvassing from various Internet forums has muddled the AFD process. After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources."
For these reasons I believe the deletion of the threshold article should be overturned (<- my vote):
- In the deletion notice, the deleting editor mentions that the concept of "major notability" while novel, there is only notable or not notable, no categories of notability.
- The deleting Admin also comments that the current quality (peacock terms, neutral tone) of the article (as determined by him) is poor. The article quality does not have a bearing on the deletion and was not mentioned as a reason the article should be deleted in the nomination, this reasons for deletion are described in WP:DEL#REASON and this reason is clearly not in there.
- The deleting Admin also makes the statement: "After careful consideration of the comments, few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article" this is a new standard and it is not known if those not in support of the article were treated similarly.
- There was definately no clear consensus as required to delete: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." While the deleting Admin claims that some arguments were discounted due to canvassing, there were still many arguments from established editors to keep the article that had not been addressed.
- The AFD was also closed one day (correct if wrong) before the required (by WP:DELETE) 5 days had passed.
I have attempted to engage the deleting editor in conversation about these points, but he has not offered explanation, only repetition of his argument. Thank you for your consideration. --Theblog (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am only posting this for the Threshold entry. I believe Frogdice should be separately considered. --Theblog
UPDATE: I have tallied the comments (feel free to correct me if I counted wrong) and they come out to 18 Editors for delete, 17 editors for keeps, and only 4 editors with the tag indicating they have posted on few or no other articles than this one (these editors were not counted by me nor were 2 people banned for being sockpuppets). While I understand it is not a vote, I think this clearly shows that no consensus was reached and thus deletion was inappropriate. (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse Close massive attempts at AfD disruption through off-site canvassing. As far as major notability, the admin was I believe referring to the fact that Threshold may be notable within a group, but it has no real notability to the outside world which is what this encyclopedia is intended for. This is an often cited argument. In the case of meat/sockpupets which were clearly a problem in this case, closing admins are free to completely disregard their statements and give them zero weight. Consensus is not a vote which is why disrupting the afd through off-site canvassing was a waste of everyone's time. There is zero reason to reward disruption of wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse close as the closing administrator for the AFD. As noted on the AFD and on my talk page, the articles featured little to no verifiable or reliable sources, and contains borderline original research along with the usage of peacock terms that slants the article. In addition, there was widespread canvassing, and such comments were widely discounted or ignored, per deletion policy and alternate account policies. Such extensive canvassing led to the original indefinite block of Cambios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and the indefinite block of several others during the run of the AFD and prior. seicer | talk | contribs 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps as a busy administrator (1,370 pages deleted! Impressive!), Seicer did not have time to read the actual information about my blocks, the timeline of the supposed "canvassing", or the AfD itself. I was blocked for reverting edits without discussing them on the talk page. This was my mistake as I did not understand this convention of Wikipedia. I was making WP:GOODFAITH edits at the time and did not notice edits I was overwriting while working assiduously on the entry. The person who banned me did not, as required, assume WP:GOODFAITH, nor did he warn or try to help me understand what I was doing incorrectly. Furthermore, the timing of that block was highly suspect. Once I and all other active contributors were blocked, that is the precise moment that was chosen to move forward with the AfD.
- The indefinite block was placed due to an ERRONEOUS accusation of sock/meatpuppetry. Those accusations were not only a violation of WP:BITE, but they turned out to be FALSE. This was verified by User:J.delanoy, another admin of Wikipedia. After this verification, User:Black Kite reversed the block. You cannot use a wrongful block as evidence against someone or against an article.
- The "canvassing" that is claimed to have occurred happened when the people involved were inappropriately banned from Wikipedia by User:Black Kite for sock/meatpuppetry. Again, these accusations were total violations of WP:BITE (don't accuse new people of being sock/meatpuppets), and also turned out to be FALSE. Once these people verified their unique identities, they were unbanned. The people who discussed the issue on Top Mud Sites did so only after they were INCORRECTLY BANNED and had absolutely no recourse. If you ban people from your site, you really don't have any business getting mad at them for discussing things on a different site. That's all they have left.
- The large number of people that participated in the AfD did not do so because of Top Mud Sites. Unless some of the DELETE-voters want to admit TMS is such a notable site that 1 thread there can result in one of the biggest AfDs in the history of Wikipedia. The people that participated did so because of the merits of the case, and the news it attracted from experts in the field. The fact that this issue attracted so much attention is evidence of Threshold's NOTABILITY, and yet somehow the closing admin misinterpreted this in the reverse.
- Finally, there was an enormous amount of #irc and email canvassing done by the editors and admins voting DELETE. This was discovered in multiple places. But apparently, it is ok to canvass if you have enough administrator friends to sweep it under the carpet. Cambios (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response What evidence do you have of this 'massive' and 'extensive' canvassing? All I see is a forum thread. Other people interested in MUDs picked up the story as a result of that post and shared their opinions. It was made clear their opinions count for nothing here unless they are regular and long standing Wikipedia editors so they shared their opinions on their blogs. Are you stating that a subject of interest to a niche community should not be mentioned on a forum dedicated to that community? If I AfD the 'Corvette' page and that gets posted about on a Corvette forum does that then lend weight to the deletion itself when members of that forum, who are naturally passionate about the subject, want to add their opinion to the subject? A subject on which, by the way, they know infinitely more than the person posting the AFD (which would, in that case, be me). Aardlasher (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is one point that I requested clarified on the deleting Admin's talk page, but he (or she) didn't respond. It would be nice to know the breakdown of whose arguments were actually considered and whose were dismissed. As I noted above, only 4 editors were tagged as being new with few other edits with 2 editors banned for sockpuppetry (their comments were struckout anyway), the rest voting Keep I can only assume were long standing editors, as from personal experience I can say everyone was being heavily scrutinized. --Theblog (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion While I am not enthused about the closer's rationale, since it mentions as reasons for deletion some problems that could be fixed by rewriting, the offsite promotional campaign certainly interfered with any chance of holding on to a marginal article like this one. Occasionally a deletion debate will scour up lots of previously unknown sources and lead to an improvement of the article. It did not happen in this case. When the supporters of this article decided to fight rather than cooperate, it hurt their chances. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- COMMENT: Excuse me, but the only "canvassing" that happened was the result of abusive administrators banning everyone who was either an original article contributor or voting KEEP on the AfD. Once they were all banned, what were they supposed to do? Just shut up and quietly go away and never speak of the matter anywhere? That's absurd. Furthermore, the admins and pro-DELETE people were canvassing like mad via email and #irc channel discussions. Some of them were even caught setting up such discussions on their Talk pages. You guys need to seriously get over yourselves with some of these insanely insular policies. Most people in the world do not consider Wikipedia their primary social community, and frankly, discussing things by editing the same web page over and over again has to be the most cumbersome way to communicate ever invented. Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Any evidence of that? I see one user asking another to speak with them on IRC about a private matter. I see no evidence of canvassing. and with your obvious bias you don't want to get in to a conversation of people telling other people what they should do.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- OVERTURN and KEEP: The closing admin abused his discretion and substituted his own personal preferences for actual Wikipedia policy. The AfD was closed 2 days early, and it it ignored the clearly spelled out requirements of WP:DP: "If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." Cambios (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- comment some of the outside attention was legitimate. Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both clued in on this during or nearly during the debate. As such their readers wandered over. This is distinct from forum threads where offsite individuals plot to overturn consensus (the scenario we envision usually). I really wish this could have waited a bit before being listed here, but I suppose there was little choice. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Richard Bartle might have talked about Threshold in his blog but only after the AfD was being massively disrupted by sock/meat puppets due to off-site canvassing. He even states blatantly in the blog entry that it was generated in an attempt to establish notability of the subject. It was only mentioned in the same breath as an attack on wikipedia and its processes. In his attempt to try and generate a source to save something from deletion, he also tries to make the claim about some other sites and their notability/reliability. There is nothing about that that screams legitimate. The only legitimate source was a trivial mention in a print magazine.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note, of course, that a chicken-and-egg problem exists. Experts in fields will take information sources for granted, and often assume that their audience knows certain things. The smaller and more niche the field of study, the newer or the harder to locate sources for due to age, the less will be directly written. The issue of academic usefulness was actually raised in the AfD, and subsequently ignored, it seems (except by myself). We see similar issues with matters of pseudoscience - mainstream science takes so for granted the quackery of it that rarely are any formal disproofs ever made. LinaMishima (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I repeatedly asked for some genuine evidence that either of those sites were considered reliable (the only evidence given that Richard Bartle used the site academically was a game site interview where he namedrops one of the sites twice). No one was able to provide any genuine evidence of reliable sources citing them, any academic papers citing them, etc. What we did have was at least one of the pages about page basically describing the site as a hobbyist site. Those have traditionally never been considered reliable on wikipedia. In addition to that I asked for evidence that even if some of the sources were considered reliable (Bartle's blog is reliable to his opinion) was there any evidence that they were in fact notable and would confer notability to the subject. Wikipedia asks for well known awards. No one demonstrated the awards were well known. No one would provide any evidence to the viewership of these sites or expert blogs (even discounting the fact that they were generated in an attempt to subvert AfD) so that the community could try to establish whether or not those sites would actually confer notability. Even if expert in field Y writes about subject Z, but does it on a napkin in a restaurant, does it confer notability? I don't think so. It might be reliable as to his opinion if you can verify its origin, but that is it. We don't know if Bartle gets 10 viewers or 100,000 viewers on his blog and given the already obvious attempt at source generation any numbers generated now would be viewed with suspicion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that Raph's blog can be traced as the source for several widely reported stories on MMOs, and has also had his direct opinions expressed there expressed widely, I don't think you can make claim as to his blog not being significant. You might also want to take a look at WP:FICT, which makes allowances for the use of less mainstream sources. A similar problem as to that which WP:FICT is trying to address exists for any niche field - publications regarding it are typically made within a small circle only, and are often supported more by community projects than by the major press. If attempting to document a field properly, this poses a problem. What's worse, any measure of notability for a source would be subjective not just over people, but also over time. Many 'zines grow large, become highly respected, but then their readership and original editing team moves on. Your use of 'subvert AfD' was also unnecessarily loaded, I feel, and ties in with the fact that you mainly made a call to notability (which never really impresses me) rather than actually debate the questions I raised directly. LinaMishima (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ignoring that fact that Threshold isn't a book or movie, WP:FICT clearly states In all cases, if a subject relating to a work or element of fiction meets the requirement of the general notability guideline,it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. and also states All articles must meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, where every statement is backed by research from reliable sources. However, a verifiable article is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards and merely being verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion; the general notability guideline requires the use of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For fictional subjects, terms such as reliability and independence have specialized meanings. I don't see anything there that would allow for less than usual sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that Raph's blog can be traced as the source for several widely reported stories on MMOs, and has also had his direct opinions expressed there expressed widely, I don't think you can make claim as to his blog not being significant. You might also want to take a look at WP:FICT, which makes allowances for the use of less mainstream sources. A similar problem as to that which WP:FICT is trying to address exists for any niche field - publications regarding it are typically made within a small circle only, and are often supported more by community projects than by the major press. If attempting to document a field properly, this poses a problem. What's worse, any measure of notability for a source would be subjective not just over people, but also over time. Many 'zines grow large, become highly respected, but then their readership and original editing team moves on. Your use of 'subvert AfD' was also unnecessarily loaded, I feel, and ties in with the fact that you mainly made a call to notability (which never really impresses me) rather than actually debate the questions I raised directly. LinaMishima (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I repeatedly asked for some genuine evidence that either of those sites were considered reliable (the only evidence given that Richard Bartle used the site academically was a game site interview where he namedrops one of the sites twice). No one was able to provide any genuine evidence of reliable sources citing them, any academic papers citing them, etc. What we did have was at least one of the pages about page basically describing the site as a hobbyist site. Those have traditionally never been considered reliable on wikipedia. In addition to that I asked for evidence that even if some of the sources were considered reliable (Bartle's blog is reliable to his opinion) was there any evidence that they were in fact notable and would confer notability to the subject. Wikipedia asks for well known awards. No one demonstrated the awards were well known. No one would provide any evidence to the viewership of these sites or expert blogs (even discounting the fact that they were generated in an attempt to subvert AfD) so that the community could try to establish whether or not those sites would actually confer notability. Even if expert in field Y writes about subject Z, but does it on a napkin in a restaurant, does it confer notability? I don't think so. It might be reliable as to his opinion if you can verify its origin, but that is it. We don't know if Bartle gets 10 viewers or 100,000 viewers on his blog and given the already obvious attempt at source generation any numbers generated now would be viewed with suspicion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- NB: As an aside, you have to wonder what it means when many of the major figures in a field all blog against an article being up for deletion. There seems to a belief amongst some wikipedia editors that "content is free", that there is no harm in deletion, since someone else can rewrite it all. I really hope I don't need to point out the patent absurdity in that. LinaMishima (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused by this. Richard Bartle is a nice guy and an expert on gaming, muds and MMO's. Obviously we shouldn't take his blog post as sufficient evidence that Threshold is notable (I didn't say that), but it would be bizarre to dismiss his interest in the subject as illegitimate. I'm only saying that people who read his blog or correspond with him otherwise have a right to come to wikipedia and join the discussion. This is manifestly different from a WP user going to an outside forum known to be biased and pointing people toward a discussion with instructions. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Except there was a post at an outside forum, and it was linked from the AfD. The sock/meat puppeting started before Bartle and the other bloggers came in.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some may have, some might not have. The forum thread [1] was generated 2 days before the blog post, so that would probably give you some idea. I've never said his opinion isn't reliable, but there has been no evidence provided that it would confer any notability, and with threshold only being mentioned in the context of an attack on wikipedia, there is no reason for the community to reward that. Bartle was showing an obvious bias in his blog post, so any comments he makes about how reliable, notable, etc a site is really have to be taken with a grain of salt.--Crossmr (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- What does that mean? All I'm saying is that some of the new users at the discussion may have come in good faith. We will probably never know how many or which ones, but it behooves us to behave as though some were, given the evidence. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Except there was a post at an outside forum, and it was linked from the AfD. The sock/meat puppeting started before Bartle and the other bloggers came in.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note, of course, that a chicken-and-egg problem exists. Experts in fields will take information sources for granted, and often assume that their audience knows certain things. The smaller and more niche the field of study, the newer or the harder to locate sources for due to age, the less will be directly written. The issue of academic usefulness was actually raised in the AfD, and subsequently ignored, it seems (except by myself). We see similar issues with matters of pseudoscience - mainstream science takes so for granted the quackery of it that rarely are any formal disproofs ever made. LinaMishima (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Richard Bartle might have talked about Threshold in his blog but only after the AfD was being massively disrupted by sock/meat puppets due to off-site canvassing. He even states blatantly in the blog entry that it was generated in an attempt to establish notability of the subject. It was only mentioned in the same breath as an attack on wikipedia and its processes. In his attempt to try and generate a source to save something from deletion, he also tries to make the claim about some other sites and their notability/reliability. There is nothing about that that screams legitimate. The only legitimate source was a trivial mention in a print magazine.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. The link from the AfD to the TMS forum post was made by User:Black Kite - the ban happy admin who voted DELETE, and who banned all the people that went there to discuss the issue because they were UTTERLY UNABLE to discuss it on the Wiki. The circular logic that has been used all along here is absolutely bizzarro world type stuff. A delete voting admin links to an external forum post, and the people voting KEEP are blamed for canvassing? Cambios (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Available for review by non-admins at User:Cambios/Threshold. Protonk (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would endorse the userification of the article (as done above) if it can be substantially improved. seicer | talk | contribs 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Userification is not something you need to endorse or not - it is common practice for articles in progress to live in userspace, and separate deletion policies exist for these. LinaMishima (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would endorse the userification of the article (as done above) if it can be substantially improved. seicer | talk | contribs 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Overturn reason for deletion, however I am undecided on if the verdict itself should be overturned. To put it frankly, Seicer screwed up bigtime. On a heavily debated AfD, which has became popularised off wikipedia, any verdict must seem calm, free of bias, and understanding of all positions (despite having to side with one). Yet Seicer chose instead to:
- Criticised the content of the article as a reason for deletion. These appear to be entirely new arguments in the discussion. In formal debate, one does not ever raise new points in their closing arguments, especially when one is doing it as judge & jury, and in a manner which displays clear bias.
- Fall down to notability, a matter highly disputed in the discussion, when WP:V was, in their opinion, also an issue.
- Make a critical typing mistake "there is a of reliable and verifiable sources". Under normal circumstances this would be ignored by all, but in this case the opening reason manages to have a typing mistake which makes its meaning completely ambiguous.
- Fell foul of recentism and internetism by declaring a better reference for the article 'unverified'. In this case, the reference was certainly verifiable, and indeed most of the discussion regarding this reference seemed to focus on if that made the MUD notable, rather than on if the magazine even existed.
- Seemingly cited canvassing and a muddled AfD as a reason for deletion. I can't see how, when presented in that matter after already reaching a conclusion, that statement could be intended as anything but "canvassing & muddled AfD = autodelete". This statement of issue should have really came first in his summing up prior to conclusion.
- "few if anyone in support of the article actually improved the article or located additional reliable and verifiable sources" Here Seicer sets a dangerous precident - that keep-voters are required to work heavily to improve an article and to locate sources to the peculiar tastes of those arguing for deletion. To make matters even worse, there have been allegations that attempts to do just this were actually blocked and reverted.
- In conclusion, I feel Seicer maked a grave error in the reasons they gave as to why they closed this AfD. LinaMishima (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)
Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
There was an ongoing merge discussion here; therefore it was "useful to the project" and did not meet criterion "G8". NE2 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Was deleted as a result of showing up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages. Talk page of an article that has never existed. JPG-GR (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, yet it was a rare exception to those pages being useless. --NE2 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)