I'm thinking of taking your recent close to DRV. The grounds might include:
You may have considered these points so your comments would be welcome. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
My summary of the Afd votes:
(It should be noted, especially in the case here where 3 reasons were given in the nomination, that per nom votes are hardly helpful. A couple even acknowledge their laziness.)
6 per nom delete votes: Docg, ChrisO, Jack Merridew, Masterpiece2000, Jauerback, rudget
3 votes on the basis it is disputed: RyanGerbil, Hobbeslover, Tan39
5 invalid delete votes:
4 delete votes based on inability to define Geordie: SheffieldSteel, Katesshortforbob, Darkson, Jayron32
6 keep votes: because Geordie is variously definable using notable reliable sources: Myself, Deacon of Pndapetzim, Klausness; and on the basis content disputes are not for Afd (i.e. invalid nomination): Colonal Warden, Casliber, Firefly322
Based on your sentence for closure, and my view that the disruption opinion is invalid, due to a 120 sock account being involved in this article for a long time, and the talk page histories and Afd not being properly censored as such, I see the valid consensus as 10 votes to 6 regarding delete because Geordie is undefined/undefinable.
It is 10 to 7 if you take into account the third opinion registered right before the nomination. Now, addressing this reason, the article Geordie is very well sourced, the multiple definitions are well sourced, and as all the keep votes acknowledge, dealing with this kind of dispute is for the talk page, not Afd, as clarification is easily done on the article. This is exaclty how it should be per WP:dispute and WP:consensus, and why WP:RS exists.
It should also be said, the only example of an apparent conflict given by the nom, supported by sources as the closing argument asserts, is Paul Collingwood, which I have shown with reliable sources in the Afd is not true, again an example of an argument easily solved outside Afd, and not justification for deletion of every single entry on the list. These arguments rely themselves on WP:SYN, whereby a direct source is being disputed by an indirect one, or generalisation. Not one direct conflict of like for like sources has been produced. Again, for borderline cases, it is for the talk page not Afd.
The Paul Collingwood issue combined with 6 'per nom' lazy votes also makes this closure look shaky, especially as the nom also calls the national press 'lazy' and makes some other very vague claims in his original nomination.
It is bordering on WP:I don't like it if these facts are not addressed in the closing asessment. I see this as a no consensus vote, easily fixed by editing not deletion. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello will you tell MickMacNee to leave me alone? He is harassing me, stalking me, and accusing me of being a sock without evidence, resulting in this [1]. 81.132.214.251 ( talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It is a notable organization. See the newspaper article at http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS01/803180324/1006/news01 and other articles about it at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22United+Cerebral+Palsy%22 -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Dear Un,
Since you appeared to be applauding the actions of Jaysweet deleting most of the Cannabis smoking article, I hope you will note that to some it may appear like selective Censorship, especially since he again placed lengthy directions on how to mix tobacco into the cannabis at the top, and removed any alternative smoking methods except for hot burning overdose. Repeating what I said today on the talk page, Google directs children around the world to this article when they want to find out about how to smoke cannabis, and the title of the article clearly indicates that they may expect to find trust-worthy how-to advice in it, however you interpret his statement about what an encyclopedia is.
From here on if you are interested you can find further discussion on User talk:Jaysweet, and for further "backgo"round, try User talk:tokerdesigner. Tokerdesigner ( talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi. Per this user's talk page, have you noticed that:
It might be less bitey to take the extra time to engage potential editors in dialog rather than whipping out the banhammer.
152.91.9.144 ( talk) 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm thinking of taking your recent close to DRV. The grounds might include:
You may have considered these points so your comments would be welcome. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
My summary of the Afd votes:
(It should be noted, especially in the case here where 3 reasons were given in the nomination, that per nom votes are hardly helpful. A couple even acknowledge their laziness.)
6 per nom delete votes: Docg, ChrisO, Jack Merridew, Masterpiece2000, Jauerback, rudget
3 votes on the basis it is disputed: RyanGerbil, Hobbeslover, Tan39
5 invalid delete votes:
4 delete votes based on inability to define Geordie: SheffieldSteel, Katesshortforbob, Darkson, Jayron32
6 keep votes: because Geordie is variously definable using notable reliable sources: Myself, Deacon of Pndapetzim, Klausness; and on the basis content disputes are not for Afd (i.e. invalid nomination): Colonal Warden, Casliber, Firefly322
Based on your sentence for closure, and my view that the disruption opinion is invalid, due to a 120 sock account being involved in this article for a long time, and the talk page histories and Afd not being properly censored as such, I see the valid consensus as 10 votes to 6 regarding delete because Geordie is undefined/undefinable.
It is 10 to 7 if you take into account the third opinion registered right before the nomination. Now, addressing this reason, the article Geordie is very well sourced, the multiple definitions are well sourced, and as all the keep votes acknowledge, dealing with this kind of dispute is for the talk page, not Afd, as clarification is easily done on the article. This is exaclty how it should be per WP:dispute and WP:consensus, and why WP:RS exists.
It should also be said, the only example of an apparent conflict given by the nom, supported by sources as the closing argument asserts, is Paul Collingwood, which I have shown with reliable sources in the Afd is not true, again an example of an argument easily solved outside Afd, and not justification for deletion of every single entry on the list. These arguments rely themselves on WP:SYN, whereby a direct source is being disputed by an indirect one, or generalisation. Not one direct conflict of like for like sources has been produced. Again, for borderline cases, it is for the talk page not Afd.
The Paul Collingwood issue combined with 6 'per nom' lazy votes also makes this closure look shaky, especially as the nom also calls the national press 'lazy' and makes some other very vague claims in his original nomination.
It is bordering on WP:I don't like it if these facts are not addressed in the closing asessment. I see this as a no consensus vote, easily fixed by editing not deletion. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello will you tell MickMacNee to leave me alone? He is harassing me, stalking me, and accusing me of being a sock without evidence, resulting in this [1]. 81.132.214.251 ( talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It is a notable organization. See the newspaper article at http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS01/803180324/1006/news01 and other articles about it at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22United+Cerebral+Palsy%22 -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Dear Un,
Since you appeared to be applauding the actions of Jaysweet deleting most of the Cannabis smoking article, I hope you will note that to some it may appear like selective Censorship, especially since he again placed lengthy directions on how to mix tobacco into the cannabis at the top, and removed any alternative smoking methods except for hot burning overdose. Repeating what I said today on the talk page, Google directs children around the world to this article when they want to find out about how to smoke cannabis, and the title of the article clearly indicates that they may expect to find trust-worthy how-to advice in it, however you interpret his statement about what an encyclopedia is.
From here on if you are interested you can find further discussion on User talk:Jaysweet, and for further "backgo"round, try User talk:tokerdesigner. Tokerdesigner ( talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi. Per this user's talk page, have you noticed that:
It might be less bitey to take the extra time to engage potential editors in dialog rather than whipping out the banhammer.
152.91.9.144 ( talk) 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply