On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Nick Wilkins wrote:
Of course, in the interests of accuracy and full disclosure, you were
somewhere going to mention that the second nomination was closed by an
administrator who strenuously argued in that very discussion for
keeping the
article? And that the third nomination was closed as a no consensus?
Hardly convincing evidence that the previous discussions "were
settled on
the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New
York
Times" rather than "because of the Slate article". Or even that
they were
actually settled. This article really isn't the best example for your
proposal.
It was closed with the support of Jimbo, on that exact grounds, so
yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that it has been consistently
kept on those grounds.
Are you going to deal with the argument put forth by
Bwithh and
others that
Farivar is not particularly notable among journalists? Or should
we just
ignore them and speedy keep the article? I happen to disagree with
them
when they say that Farivar is not notable enough for an article, but I
respect their opinions.
Sure - I'm happy to deal with those. My problem is dealing with them
in an AfD that has already been set up with outright falsehoods, and
with people who are "voting" in line with policies that aren't
policies, precedents that don't exist, and facts that aren't true.
Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community
considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late
that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this
function.
-Phil