Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why relist?
- Comment I'm not sure why this is a relist at this point, it seems a keep no consensus to me. What additional input is going to be generated? ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lar also asked this in user space; it was answered at User_talk:Lar#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FOkashina_Okashi. -- Dragonfiend 18:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- This comment does not belong on the talk page, I think it's important that it be visible on the deletion discussion itself, something seems amiss with this churn (I note that the article was closed as no consensus, then changed...), and the answer given on my talk is not very satisfactory, frankly. I see no reason this is not a no consensus. How many comments are needed here? I close stuff with far fewer comments all the time. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- For more info on why some non-consensus discussions are relisted, see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_debates. I've moved this talk about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi since it is talk about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi rather than a discussion of whether the article Okashina Okashi meets our content policies. Does that make sense? This here is the page where we discuss the article-for-deletion page; that over there is the page where we discuss whether the article ought to be deleted. -- Dragonfiend 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't make sense. The fact that it was closed and then relisted is, in my view, quite material to the situation, and your refactoring gives the appearance at least to me that you would like that hidden away. Most people do not read the talk of a deletion discussion, because the deletion discussion itself is "talk". ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please, try to follow WP:AGF. The idea that I tried to hide that this AfD was relisted is silly, considering there's a big orange sentence saying "AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." Also, I'm not sure you're really qualified to talk about what "most people" do, so you should Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and just say "I, Lar, do not read the talk of a deletion discussion." If that's in fact even true; it would seem that it isn't since you seem to be having no difficulty following this talk page conversation. Also, I don't think "refactoring" is the best description of what I did with your comment; instead I simply "moved" it and provided a link to the answer you were seeking (an answer which, at that point, had been given in three different places, including your own talk page. It's now been given in six, I believe). To "refactor" generally involves pruning and summarizing, neither of which I have done. Anyway, you've now made it clear that you don't think this AfD should have been relisted by saying so on the talk page of the admin who relisted it, here on the talk page of the relisted AfD, on the relisted AfD itself, and at Deletion Review. I hope that you can now be happy that you've made your disapproval of this relisted AfD absolutely clear across multiple venues, I hope that you can understand that I moved your comment to talk in a good-faith effort to prevent this type of side-tracked meta-conversation from cluttering an already long and tangent-filled AfD discussion, and I hope we can now concentrate any further discussion of this AfD on deciding the actual issue of whether this is an unverifiable vanity article or whether this meets our content-governing policies. -- Dragonfiend 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
