Content deleted Content added
Another Believer (talk | contribs) +neutral |
TheDracologist (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:::: Sorry for getting defensive. For some reason, I read your comment to me as accusatory. [[User:TheDracologist|TheDracologist]] ([[User talk:TheDracologist|talk]]) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
:::: Sorry for getting defensive. For some reason, I read your comment to me as accusatory. [[User:TheDracologist|TheDracologist]] ([[User talk:TheDracologist|talk]]) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::: Oh, then my apologies as well, as that was not my intent. I genuinely want to know why someone would want to merge this article. I see this as a quality article about a notable event that is accurate, neutral, well-written, and reliably sourced by more than enough secondary coverage. Let's keep the article (hell, let's even promote it to Good article status!), and move on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
::::: Oh, then my apologies as well, as that was not my intent. I genuinely want to know why someone would want to merge this article. I see this as a quality article about a notable event that is accurate, neutral, well-written, and reliably sourced by more than enough secondary coverage. Let's keep the article (hell, let's even promote it to Good article status!), and move on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I think the event is not likely to have enough lasting impact to be notable enough for its own article and is therefore better off as a subsection of a broader article. [[User:TheDracologist|TheDracologist]] ([[User talk:TheDracologist|talk]]) 02:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:08, 24 March 2017
24 March 2017
Not_My_Presidents_Day
- Not_My_Presidents_Day (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Listing for the page creator, who believes that the discussion and consensus were premature, but refuses to open a discussion to overturn it. TheDracologist (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I personally Endorse the original consensus, per the discussion. TheDracologist (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep article: I'm tired of trying to explain my actions on so many different pages, but I will just reiterate here that I strongly disagree with the merge vote and strongly vote to keep this article, which is very close to being nominated for Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheDracologist: Do you care to explain why you'd like to merge a near-complete article with 100+ reliable sources into an (arguably already too) long article, Protests against Donald Trump? User:Megalibrarygirl and I will be nominating this article for Good status very soon, so we're in this odd state of limbo re: merge vs. Good article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think the reasons laid out in the AfD by users far better at articulating themselves than me still stand. Also, @Another Believer:, do you care to explain why you were trying to ignore/undermine the result of an AfD with no attempt to create a discussion to overturn the current consensus? TheDracologist (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, can we please keep the chastising to a minimum? Everyone has been acting in good faith throughout this article's history. Can we focus on the future of this article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting defensive. For some reason, I read your comment to me as accusatory. TheDracologist (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, then my apologies as well, as that was not my intent. I genuinely want to know why someone would want to merge this article. I see this as a quality article about a notable event that is accurate, neutral, well-written, and reliably sourced by more than enough secondary coverage. Let's keep the article (hell, let's even promote it to Good article status!), and move on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think the event is not likely to have enough lasting impact to be notable enough for its own article and is therefore better off as a subsection of a broader article. TheDracologist (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, then my apologies as well, as that was not my intent. I genuinely want to know why someone would want to merge this article. I see this as a quality article about a notable event that is accurate, neutral, well-written, and reliably sourced by more than enough secondary coverage. Let's keep the article (hell, let's even promote it to Good article status!), and move on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting defensive. For some reason, I read your comment to me as accusatory. TheDracologist (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, can we please keep the chastising to a minimum? Everyone has been acting in good faith throughout this article's history. Can we focus on the future of this article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think the reasons laid out in the AfD by users far better at articulating themselves than me still stand. Also, @Another Believer:, do you care to explain why you were trying to ignore/undermine the result of an AfD with no attempt to create a discussion to overturn the current consensus? TheDracologist (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)