User talk:Renosecond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Archiving
Hi, I made it easier for you and instead of providing an external link like you did, I made an Archive for you. Removing comments is rather frowned upon and archiving is tons better. — The Future 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- No problem, happy to help. :) — The Future 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: AFD/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television
Hmmm, well, you have a point. Basically, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television there were no arguments for keeping, therefore the only possible close was Delete, or to relist. I consider four commentors (including the nominator) to be barely a quorum, if that. I didn't, however, want to relist this particular nomination. I didn't think that any new technical information was likely to arise, and that the low comment total was due to general disinterest, as well as the large amount of articles listed every day (which relisting this nomination would only exaberate). So if I didn't relist (which I arguably should have), the only possible close was Delete.
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television, same deal: I didn't want to relist. The raw vote was 3-1 Delete, but on such low totals that is not as significant as when there are more commentors. One voter said it was original research, but it was not - it was based on material [1]. So I didn't consider that commentor's argument very heavily. That leaves us at 2-1, a point where raw totals are almost meaningless. The Delete arguments, then, were "appears to be a guide, not an article", with which I respectfully disagree - it's formed reasonably well as an article - and the single word "nonencyclopedic", which is probably true enough but not a very well developed argument. On the other hand the one Keep commentor posited that the article would be informative to people interested in television production, which may or may not be true, as I don't know what people interested in television production want or need to know. So I didn't see any great advantage to either side in either numbers or argument, thus No Consensus.
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television before closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia TriStar Television, and I didn't like the idea of keeping one and deleting the other. I considered going back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television and changing that to Delete, but I didn't want to change a close based on what had happened to another article. After all, my original logic still held. (I wasn't aware of the existance or fate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of TriStar Television).
However, you make a very good point. It makes little sense to have one and not have the others. Better if these three articles had been nominated together as a group, as happens often enough. When they are listed in three entirely separate nominations, the nominator can expect them to be treated separately. If, however, you want to take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television to WP:DRV, you would have strong case (based on the fate of the other two articles) and have a good chance of getting it deleted also, which would be fine by me. I think the article is drivel. Herostratus 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Emmanuel Kamber
I would like to encourage you to withdraw your nomination withdrawal in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Kamber. Although I am not prejudiced toward recreation, I would not like to see those who copy-and-paste information rewarded with a "keep". -AED 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
