Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2

2 December 2013

 * Out of 9 people, 5 said no to a merger (in varying degrees), 3 had no comment, and only 1 proposed a merger and didn't really want it anyway. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know if this comment by Smerus counts as WP:CANVAS but it was obviously designed to instill sympathy for keeping the article amongst the Wikiproject Opera community, it wasn't a "neutrally worded" notification. One can notify, but not try to influence ("canvas") for a particular outcome, this was possibly an influential post. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing in favour of overturning the original decision because of the article's creator's undoubtedly influential remark? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not place this comment on WP Opera, therefore did not notify or canvass the project. I made a comment on the report by Voceditenore, and made it perfectly clear where I was coming from. Frankly I resent the accusation of Green Cardamom that I sought to canvass. But I am of course always open to apologies. I am flattered that MichaelBednarek considers my opinions 'undoubtedly influential' :-}, not that they seem to have brought any landslide of support, so perhaps my evil ability to get people to agree with me has been over-rated.--Smerus (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to flatter; I only quoted Green Cardamom, omitting any smileys or quotes which you, illuminating my intention, now provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested in encyclopedic articles, rather than venting hot air, I have added material and a secondary source to the article.--Smerus (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Montanabw (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }