Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:40, 5 August 2006

Revision as of 20:42, 5 August 2006

Line 132:

**Less than fifty edits, third in ten weeks. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' ^{([[User_talk:Sceptre|Take me down to the]] [[Paradise City]])} 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

***'''Comment''' What are we doing now then, discrediting every relative new user that is not addicted to Wikipedia? The user above has not many edits, but he certainly is not biased towards this article or created as a sockpuppet for this. Please remember that this is a discussion rather than a vote, as is stated above. If [[User:Edogy|Edogy]] wants to give us his 50 cents on the matter (although not stated very neutrally, he brings up a valid point, that of possible bad faith in the nomination), he should not be reacted upon like this. [[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::::*'''Comment''' I take exception to the accusation (or pondering aloud, or whatever) of the nomination being in bad faith. Both previous times the article was kept because there was '''no consensus''', because the discussions were absolutely inundated with sockpuppets and/or "single purpose accounts". It is ''not'' as if the Wikipedia community unianimouslyunanimously decided to keep it. The bottom line is that the article is of circumspect validity, and ''that'' is why I nominated it. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)