The result was delete. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Train talk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The consensus was to delete -- "clearly" as the closer described it. I realize using other stuff is mostly frowned upon (and rightly so) but this negates editor opinion that there is "precedent" to keep these quote farms. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and loosely synthing routine reactions that weren't important enough for the actual article doesn't change that. I do not advocate for a merge because the article on the attack summarizes the world's condolences in an orderly manner. Really, there is no policy based reason to keep this: notability isn't inherited to the attack and individual reactions must be judged individually so WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*Keep &
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - The previous AfD was closed just a month ago. What happened at AfD for other article has no business here. This easily passes
WP:GNG. See:
CBC News,
Ottawa Citizen,
CBC News,
Catholic Herald,
Daily Bruin,
DAWN,
Metro News,
PCP. -
Mfarazbaig (
talk)
16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time. Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion. |
The result was delete. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Train talk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The consensus was to delete -- "clearly" as the closer described it. I realize using other stuff is mostly frowned upon (and rightly so) but this negates editor opinion that there is "precedent" to keep these quote farms. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and loosely synthing routine reactions that weren't important enough for the actual article doesn't change that. I do not advocate for a merge because the article on the attack summarizes the world's condolences in an orderly manner. Really, there is no policy based reason to keep this: notability isn't inherited to the attack and individual reactions must be judged individually so WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*Keep &
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - The previous AfD was closed just a month ago. What happened at AfD for other article has no business here. This easily passes
WP:GNG. See:
CBC News,
Ottawa Citizen,
CBC News,
Catholic Herald,
Daily Bruin,
DAWN,
Metro News,
PCP. -
Mfarazbaig (
talk)
16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time. Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion. |