Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ocean's Thirteen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is remarkable that a "clear consensus" was declared less than ten hours after the nomination. This was NOT a stunt of any sort, but a genuine nomination for deletion. The response was unfair because several who replied failed to assume good faith, and one explicitly claimed "bad faith." On what basis, I'm not sure. This was NOT disruptive, I made no edits anywhere that required any kind of reversion, I didn't campaign for votes, I did nothing out of the ordinary. This was NOT an example of "making a point" per WP:POINT, as I was not responding to any former grievance, or staging any kind of "parody." The nomination was entirely sincere, and I maintain it was entirely appropriate.
The closing admin states "Not certain what 'Test Case for films not yet completed' means," yet I gave very clear reasons why my deletion was relevant to this specific title, and I made it abundantly clear that I hoped the discussion would shed light on the standards to be applied to films not yet completed. I did NOT batch submit hundreds of articles to be deleted all on one basis. Rather, I asked the editors to examine this particular article on its own merits, in the hope that the discussion might set a precident for future discussions of its kind. If the admin truly needs further clarification of what was meant, perhaps he should review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion, which explicity suggests "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group," and the discussion on the AfD page at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Any_way_to_nominate_LOTS_of_articles, where it is suggested "If you want to mass nominate articles, you can a) start with one to set a precedent (make it clear in the AfD nomination that that is the objective, or you'll get 'why did you single out this one' counterarguments) - if theis AfD is successful, nominate the other ones."
I was entirely up front with my motives for discussing this significant issue, which was dismissed out of hand. I gave my reasons why this particular article is of questionable notability and the sources may be unreliable. Even if the ultimate result of the discussion would have been to keep, there would have been room for discussion... as it is, the discussion was terminated prematurely. I'm pretty confident that not much was learned by the majority of participants. As for me, the only things I learned were "Do NOT be bold," and "Wikipedia articles need NOT be notable by any rational standard." Perhaps more could have been learned by all parties had there been time to say more, especially if the topic was approached with an open mind.zadignose 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
