Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• • Well they are of course quite welcome to participate in a discussion that I hope will last its full term. However, although previous debates are taken into account by people who are !voting on an afd, the opinions really should be expressed in the relevant debate - not a DRV. Viridae^Talk 03:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC) debate
    • Why does it matter whether they expressed their opinions on the AfD or on the DRV? --bainer (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Simply because of the mess this issue has been. I am not against notifying them, but to avoid more issues with this saga I believe it would be better if the closing admin only takes this debate into account. Viridae^Talk 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • So because the issue has been a "mess", comments should be ignored? I don't seem to understand your reasoning. --bainer (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
          • My reasoning is that given the mess that surrounds this article, taking into account opinions not specifically stated within this afd opens the closer up to accusations of bias (especially if the closure goes against what would likely have occured on the strength of this debate alone). You also can't be sure that the opinions of some in that DRV would not change in th light of arguments here. I have no problem with inviting (all) of them to participate, but beyond that I believe that to settle this once and for all, the debate must be closed on the strength of the opinions expressed on this page. Viridae^Talk 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Given that you have taken it upon yourself to do this, I would suggest that you contact everyone who expressed an opinion at the first AfD and the first DRV then, as I suggested above. It is not fair that their comments should be disregarded. --bainer (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
              • If you want everyone contacted, I suggest yopu ask someone that runs AWB. As I said, I am not averse to people being contacted. Viridae^Talk 04:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)I would also like it noted that one of the kickers that brought this article to a third deletion review and now this afd was that the admin the closed the second afd, thought that all the other discussion added up was enough discussion for the one article, invalidating the need for further discussion (also invalidating the DRV result apparently). It would therefore be logical, that to avoid a repeat of that situation we have a clean debate, where everyone that wants to participates on the appropriate page. Viridae^Talk 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why in god's name was this closed out of process again?! The only way to stop this stupid argument is to let the AFD go through in full. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 12:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That was pretty much my point. Viridae^Talk 16:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's the end

Let it drop. That disgraceful article is dead and any attempt recreate it will be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Who do you think you are, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone with a clue. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a DRV here but I have a feeling someone will. If we could just have a debate that seems fair, I'm sure this would really end. Mangojuice^talk 13:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've opened an ArbCom case about the whole thing. Enough playing around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but not I suspect for the same reasons. About time our troll-friendly culture was curbed. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete disgrace

I can't believe we've degenerated into flip-flop full wheel warring over the closure or not closure of this article. I have protected the page now. Complaints that I protected meta:The wrong version will be ignored. Closing the debate early was maybe a big mistake. Repeated reversion of the closure is NOT HELPING. Mangojuice^talk 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)