Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Speedy keep Nom clearly admits WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Habari
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't like it. And the consensus needs to be taken again anyway since there is evidence  to believe that it has changed Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I am yet to see a real reason for this nomination. Whether WP:CCC is a valid reason for nominations or not, I doubt that you would expect any votes based on that. I should mention that I think this nomination is quite far from being subjective and clearly targets the subject of the article and not the article itself. Is it just about having as much afDs as possible? What are you trying to accomplish here? dmondark (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "real" reasons (insofar as you seem to define them) don't matter when they can be trumped by invalid reasons. i used to think like User:Tarc - that "[keep votes that don't address the point] should be disregarded in the final considerations" - but i was wrong. so now i try with a new set of reasons. really, habari should thank me. two failed afds (the 2nd and the 3rd ones) will give habari supporters lots of invalid reasons with which to fend off subsequent afds. what's one more? (which is what this 4th one is; i won't start a 5th). that said, i likely would not have started a fourth afd had i realized that the previous closure was not a non-admin closure. User:Llywrch's user page gives no indication that they are an admin and so my response was not taken in stride Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination. The previous AfD was just closed today. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and a friendly reminder to read through WP:POINT. --Karnesky (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.