User talk:MrGorman

Hi MrGorman. Wikipedia does not vote on things. Voting is evil. We do have discussions on things, where registered users with a history of good contributions are invited to discuss matters. Because these discussions are not votes, the admin who closes the discussion does not simply tally the "votes" of those that took part. Instead, a balance is taken of the people who contributed in order to find a consensus. This balance remove plain votes, new and unregistered users and anyone that the admin feels is acting as a meat puppet by drumming up "voters" from website or forum.

So, the fact that a talk page has two or three - or two or three thousand - people voting to keep an article is immaterial. The actual question comes down to: does the article meet with Wikipedia's policies?

These policies are public and publicised. For instance, does the article meet WP:WEB? Does the article meet WP:OR? Does the article meet WP:V? Does the article meet WP:NPOV? In other words, is the article about something notable? Is it researched from other sources? Is it verifiable? Is it written from a neutral point of view? If the answer is no, no, no and no... well, then why is it in an encyclopedia?

If the article doesn't meet the criteria above, then our processes switch to a different criteria: namely, does it meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion? So if the article is attacking the subject (CSD-G4) or is about a club or group and makes no assertion of notability (CSD-A7) then it can be speedy deleted without the need for a debate or a meat-infested "vote" somewhere else.

You have to remember that Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, gets thousands of such articles submitted and deleted everyday. In the case of your forum, it wasn't just one experienced editor who thought that the article met the speedy deletion criteria. It was not deleted "on spec", it was deleted because others nominated it for deletion and the closing admin (me) saw that it wasn't linked from anywhere, didn't meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and did meet Wikipedia criteria for exclusion.

I hope this explains Wikipedia policy to you better and provides you with some useful links to read for when you create your next article on a different subject. Happy editing! ➨  ЯEDVERS  19:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Redvers
What I do not understand is that you say this wasn't just yourself, however it was deleted within about 30 minutes. I looked under the deletion log and did not see any others commenting on this. Can you direct me to the discussion where people besides yourself discussed this? Which people are these and how many? MrGorman 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion timeline
All times CET.


 * 18:38, 9 July 2006 . . MrGorman creates article.
 * 18:47, 9 July 2006 . . Another editor nominates it for deletion
 * 18:59, 9 July 2006 . . MrGorman adds hangon template and solicits for "votes" from his friends.
 * 19:22, 9 July 2006 . . Redvers deletes the article, citing "Attack article (or G1 if not an attack); also CSD-A7 concerns"
 * 19:25, 9 July 2006 . . MrGorman recreates article
 * 19:50, 9 July 2006 . . Another admin deletes article, citing "G1, A6, A7, and if you don't agree go to Deletion Review"
 * 19:59, 9 July 2006 . . MrGorman recreates the article
 * 20:01, 9 July 2006 . . A second editor nominates it for deletion
 * 20:02, 9 July 2006 . . A third admin deletes it
 * 20:07, 9 July 2006 . . MrGorman recreates it again
 * 20:08, 9 July 2006 . . A third editor nominates it for deletion
 * 20:08, 9 July 2006 . . Redvers deletes it again and protects the article from being recreated.

I hope this helps. Just so you know, the article is protected from being recreated. If you attempt to recreate it yet again, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. ➨  ЯEDVERS  19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response
The only reason I recreated it was because I had ZERO communication from you about it being deleted despite putting on the HANGON tag and publishing my reasons in the discussion page as requested. Not only did I do so, but also at least three other people. You then deleted even the discussion page as well.

Why would you delete the discussion page?

No I am not going to retry to recreate the article at this time and would have stopped had you have had the courtesy to respond to me after I placed the hangon tage and took the time to publish reasoning on the discussion page (which you apparently deleted). MrGorman 19:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To close this conversation - (1) does not provide an absolute right for an article not to be deleted. An experienced admin will still review the article, the reasons stated, the reasons given by the various new and anonymous editors who appeared and will then make a decision to keep or delete the article. In this case, the experience admin was not convinced by the arguments to hangon, so the deletion nomination was confirmed and the article deleted.


 * (2) I didn't delete the discussion page. It was deleted later by another admin when deleting your recreation of the article. This was, I imagine, done under Criterion for Speedy Deletion G8 - Talk pages of pages that do not exist.


 * (3) It is necessary for you to assume good faith in the actions of others around you. If 3 editors of good standing, plus three admins of both good standing and long service all agreed that the article was a valid deletion, that it violated the publicly available rules and guidelines for inclusion in this not-for-profit, charity-funded open and free encyclopedia and found your reasoning for why it did meet those criteria to be lacking, then you should probably assume that the article was not wanted on Wikipedia. You are not being singled out and no rules have been broken by anybody. You are one of thousands of people with a forum or a website or a MySpace account who want it to be in an encyclopedia. But we don't do that. We're an encyclopedia, not dmoz or MySpace.


 * I hope this helps explain how things work here. Thanks ➨  ЯEDVERS  19:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response 2
The only reason I recreated it was because I had ZERO communication from you about it being deleted despite putting on the HANGON tag and publishing my reasons in the discussion page as requested. Not only did I do so, but also at least three other people. You then deleted even the discussion page as well.

Why would you delete the discussion page?

No I am not going to retry to recreate the article at this time and would have stopped had you have had the courtesy to respond to me after I placed the hangon tage and took the time to publish reasoning on the discussion page (which you apparently deleted).

Regarding soliciting votes, you do not know what you are talking about. I asked people to come and express themselves about it - to educate you - for all I know you have never even seen the site and saw the "bad words" and thought "this isn't real and is a joke". I wanted you to see that it was not a joke.

Regarding the deletion and recreation, please explain again why the discussion page with three other people's comments was deleted? In the Speedy Deletion tag wiki expressly asked that a person who disagree places a "hangon" tag and then discusses it on the discussion page. This was done. However you deleted that too.

It honestly seems to me that Wiki is beginning to look like a circle jerk where there are a few elite members who care nothing about the internet community -- the ones who actually view your content. That you would not have taken the time to at least have discussion with me, a new contributer, after specifically asking for it prior to deleting the page shows this. Likewise you also ignored the people who voiced opposition, not even addressing the concerns. It isn't a vote, no, it appears it is a dictatorship where feedback is not even listened to. I know if I were an admin or such and someone honestly took the time to question Seppedy Deletion and wanted a chance to speak, I would have at least had the courtesy to do so before deleting the article ten minutes later. If nothing else, you appear to have a very significant communication problem here at wiki, but I also suggest ego problems as well. Take care.

Regarding these Deletions, if you will delete comments from well meaning users and my work without discussion, I'm not sure if I will bother working with you. I may just start a digg article and create a more free competitor who actually allows community input and does not legitimate delete articles in 30 minutes without discussion. Thank you. (discussion archived at external sites and on my talk page) MrGorman 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikinfo
Have you seen Wikinfo? It's an encyclopedia that encourages articles written from a specific point of view. They probably have the same views that Wikipedia does when it comes to the type of article you posted here, but it might be worth your while giving them a try. Hope this helps. ➨  ЯEDVERS  20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)