Content deleted Content added
BarryNorton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 131:
::::Perhaps now that the discussions on deletion and notability (including influence) are closed this discussion should be archived and we can move on with a fresh slate? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm reluctant to continue the debate, but I think it's important to emphasize that no anti-academic bias was at play in the deletion discussion. Nor was this a misunderstanding -- if you read the comments from the deletion debate, there's no evidence of people from the delete side having a lack of knowledge of how peer reviewed journals work. I don't have a problem accepting that you guys disagree with me about the level of notability -- and I haven't accused you of a pro-academic bias, nor of being ignorant of the journal system. Please grant to me and others the same level of respect. (And for the record, I have also been accused of having a pro-academic bias in previous Wikipedia disputes.) --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
== Vandalism ==
Lose a delete argument, wait for the dust to clear then delete all the references that were used to show notability (despite the many votes upholding their relevance and significance). How long until this is marked for deletion again by Jonovision? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||