Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction (2nd 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 close. Bad nomination reason, prior AFD closed just the day before and enjoyed a 10 day debate reaching no consensus. Non-admin closure. -- Auto (talk / contribs) 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of tomboys in fiction
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as it is leading to an arguementGeorgiacatcrimson (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of tomboy's is hardly a helpful list. Sources or not, I don't see how this list is wikipedia worthy. Undeath (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & Merge to Tomboy article. --DAJF (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. The previous AfD on the article was closed only 17 hours before this nom. No need to go through it again. Deor (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It even doesn't seem to be a list though it is named as list. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as a procedureal matter. I realize that the prior Afd was closed no consensus, but I simply cannot agree to a new Afd less than 24 hours after the last one closed. There's a finite number of cases we can consider here, and besides, while consensus can change a re-nomination this soon has the air of pushing for a particular outcome no matter what. Xymmax (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be relevant to note that the nominator opposed deletion in the first AfD. The article itself has been cleaned up and transformed significantly since then. --DAJF (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, this is a scorched earth attempt because the editor couldn't prevent the contents of the old list from being challenged and removed on verifiability and original research grounds. --Farix (Talk) 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Leading to an argument" is not a reason to delete an article -- it's a reason to work collaboratively or, if necessary, engage in the dispute resolution process. This seems to be a very pointy nomination. Not to mention, previous AfD was closed less than a day ago, which is not time enough to change consensus. Keep if not speedy keep (I'm not quite sure it qualifies for the latter). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as a WP:POINT violation - if an AfD was closed as no consensus, that's a sign that the article needs to be improved, not immediately nominated again. See WP:DR if you're having conflicts with other editors. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the nominator would appear to be engaged in an edit war, the article just survived AfD, and it seems to be in the process of being rebuilt according to issues outlined in the AfD. Not only do the editors deserve time to work on the article, but the nomination is looking decidedly pointy. - Bilby (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as an attempt to game the system. The previous AFD just closed. KnightLago (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Back so soon? I voted delete in the first discussion, but this is a much improved article, while the previous one was a piece of crap.  The most significant difference is that the author has added a footnote to every name, explaining where the person was described as a "tomboy", thereby setting a visible standard for what goes on here.   If it's someone asking whether this article now meets Wikipedia's standards now, I'd have to say it does.  Strong Keep.  Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (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.