Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Air Napier

Response to Ahunt (ref):

I've thoughtfully analyzed and responded to your comments at Talk:Landing flare and three subsequent AfDs. I've patiently documented Wikipedia notability guidelines. In particular, we made progress when we found out your viewpoint that notability should be determined by "extensive" coverage in sources. And yet my work has not been bringing our viewpoints closer together. Why is that?

That is a creative, even if presumptively flawed, argument that AfD discussions that take place on a "Project page" are not also talk/discussion pages. What policy/guidelines apply to the "Project page" here?

The current focus of your comments regards two comments that I wrote prior to my seeing the closing of the AfD, and that are properly marked as being edit conflicted with the closing of the AfD. I see that you have now removed my comments for the second time, still without citing any guidelines or policies, please see WP:TPOC even if you think that your removal is not covered by WP:TPG, because there might be many editors that disagree with you. Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Once an AfD is closed, additional comments on the AfD are not to be made. Please note the top of the page itself, in italic letters: 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. If you disagree with the result of the AfD, please take it to deletion review. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope it is clear now that there is no relationship between edit conflicts and the template that was quoted. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An edit conflict of 17 minutes? Regardless, once the AfD is closed, the AfD is closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that the AfD is now closed, that is a truism. I spent far more than 17 minutes preparing those comments.  Please state the policy or guidelines upon which you are basing your action.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am basing my action on the statement contained within Afd top. "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."


 * "No further edits" means "no further edits". Full stop. Further comments should be made elsewhere - if you believe the AfD should not have been closed then you should take it to deletion review. The fact you waited 10 days to restore your comments stretches WP:AGF as well and, rightly or wrongly, gives the impression that you were attempting to "sneak" your comments back into the AfD without anyone noticing. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec this response is to a comment that has been modified, please check in the history if there are questions) I did not find that the previous post advanced the conversation. The text quoted is (1) not a policy, (2) not a guideline, and (3) says nothing about edit conflicts.  Nor do you cite any precedent relating an edit conflict and the close of an AfD.  Please see my comment on your talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely your intent is that your comments be considered by whoever makes the decision regarding the fate of the article. If you add comments after the closing of the debate, edit conflict or not, they are not going to have any bearing on the result, because the closing admin is never going to read them. If you want to have them considered, you need to start a deletion review as suggested, not keep adding them to a discussion that isn't going to be read by decision-makers any more. YSSYguy (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not a discussion about deletion review. If you want to change talk page policy/guidelines such that edit conflicts with AfD closings are discussed, this is not the talk page to do so.  Do you agree?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do agree that this is not the place to discuss talk page policy/guidelines, but I am not in any way suggesting that any guidelines be changed. I am merely stating that any comments added after the AfD discussion is closed are both irrelevant to the discussion and pointless, because they will not be read and given any weight in deciding what to do about the article in question; furthermore Ahunt and The Bushranger are in my opinion correct to remove them. What's not to understand about the instruction not to modify the AfD discussion after it is closed, and what is the point of ignoring that instruction, even though an edit conflict is the reason for you missing out on including your latest comments? No admin will read your comments. The only way your last comments will be considered, is by opening a deletion review, and mention that your comments weren't considered due to an edit conflict. No amount of reverting and nothing you say here will change that. What do you actually want to achieve here? YSSYguy (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is interesting is that you are the first editor to state an objective opinion here, your concern is that I "ignored an instruction". Why are you ignoring my comments above that there is no relationship between this template and the edit conflict?  Your concern is what is known as ex post facto, since the AfD was not closed when I began to post the edit and prepared my comments.  I don't disagree with you that it is likely that the comments will have a small audience, but you would have to agree ipso facto that such comments receive attention.  Lincoln thought his Gettysburg address would be little noted nor long remembered.  As I noted to Bushranger on his/her talk page, I have seen an edit conflict at an AfD closing discussed at an RfA, and not a single editor among all of those experts mentioned any surprise.  Defending Ahunt and Bushranger on the grounds that my comments are pointless and irrelevant, is not only far from being a compelling reason, it is unsustainable.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your question, "what do I want to achieve here", reasonable people do things based on reason. I am still replying to Ahunt, who has yet to respond after ten days.  Since silence is consent, he/she seems to be willing to let it pass that the edit being discussed here is routine.  I've responded to your concern, and Bushranger seems to have moved on as per discussion on his/her talk page.  It would be nice to get some confirmation feedback that we are on the same page, but all that really needs to happen is passive agreement that will allow me to restore my comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating: The reason I haven't bothered replying to you here is because this AFD is closed, so the points you are making are not relevant. If you want to appeal the close then go ahead, otherwise there is nothing to discuss here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that I am "defending Ahunt and Bushranger on the grounds that my comments are pointless and irrelevant" shows that you are missing my point. Your comments are pointless and irrelevant because they haven't been considered as part of the debate. I am (to use your phrase) 'defending' Ahunt and The Bushranger because you aren't allowed to restore your comments; furthermore no reasonable person would logically conclude that silence is consent. Look at it from this point of view: if your comments are left in the AfD discussion, then someone looking at the discussion some time in the future would draw the erroneous conclusion that your comments were given due weight and consideration during the closing and the article was deleted anyway, when in fact - as we four know - your comments were not read by the closing admin at all. Is that the impression you want to give, that your comments were considered? If that is the case, then I will wash my hands of you - and that does not constitute silent consent on my part. YSSYguy (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * YSSYguy, without otherwise responding, let me ask a question, are you aware that in this diff, both elements of the diff are marked "(ec with closing)"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)