Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenestrocryptophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, nonsense. RickK 07:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- And...? Mikkalai
- And what? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. RickK 08:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- And your vote is...? Sorry, but I've already witnessed playing on this formality. From your language it is reasonable to assume that you vote for deletion, but you have to say it, to avoid surprise decisions. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. My vote is assumed. RickK 08:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Heh JFW | T@lk 14:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to know according to which policy this chad-like issue is to be resolved. In a similar situation my vote was disregarded by one bureaucrat-minded admin. Mikkalai 22:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Based on a review of the log pages of closed discussions, deciding admins seem to be split - some assuming that any nomination is a "delete" vote unless explicitly noted otherwise and others assuming that a nomination is an "abstain" unless an intent to "delete" is explicitly expressed. While you can argue for hours about how they should be interpreting your nomination, it's easy to say "delete" and remove the ambiguity. Rossami (talk) 00:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. However, it rather appears at this writing that it might be possible to judge rough consensus for deletion without having to resolve the inscrutable mystery of what RickK might mean when he calls an article "nonsense." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If mikkalai thinks that all of a sudden, without discussion, the nominator must explicity say delete on their nomination, he needs to take it to Talk, because this is a change in policy. RickK 22:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely. Current policy says you have to state why you are nominating an article for deletion. Current policy does not say you have to explicitly claim "delete". If anything, it would suggest to me that it is the responsibility of the nominator to exclude themselves if they are fixing someone else's incomplete nomination. Chris 21:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If mikkalai thinks that all of a sudden, without discussion, the nominator must explicity say delete on their nomination, he needs to take it to Talk, because this is a change in policy. RickK 22:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. However, it rather appears at this writing that it might be possible to judge rough consensus for deletion without having to resolve the inscrutable mystery of what RickK might mean when he calls an article "nonsense." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Based on a review of the log pages of closed discussions, deciding admins seem to be split - some assuming that any nomination is a "delete" vote unless explicitly noted otherwise and others assuming that a nomination is an "abstain" unless an intent to "delete" is explicitly expressed. While you can argue for hours about how they should be interpreting your nomination, it's easy to say "delete" and remove the ambiguity. Rossami (talk) 00:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. My vote is assumed. RickK 08:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- And your vote is...? Sorry, but I've already witnessed playing on this formality. From your language it is reasonable to assume that you vote for deletion, but you have to say it, to avoid surprise decisions. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- And what? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. RickK 08:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. neologism. Mikkalai 08:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- one word: OMFG!!! What an awesome article. well done whoever wrote it. THE KING 13:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- oh yeah and just for you mikkalai, my vote is keep.!THE KING 13:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- THE KING (talk · contributions) has made a string of vandalising edits, and virtually nothing else. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, fenestrocryptocruft. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Feco 19:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, of course. Josh Cherry 00:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. THE KING is this close to being run up on the VIP page. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Add to Talk:-phobia, then delete — RJH 20:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.