Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog)

Well that`s seven days, looks like a keep as there is no clear consensus to either merge or delete mark nutley (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are evidently not familiar with how AfD works. It's not a vote, so the numbers don't mean anything - the arguments for and against are what counts. Neither you nor any of the other keep !voters have refuted (or indeed even addressed - you've studiously ignored it) the central problem: that this blog is not the subject of multiple non-trivial reliably sourced published works. Instead, you have been trying to puff up the blog's notability by stuffing the article with trivial passing mentions. When you take out all the passing mentions you are literally left with only two lines, as I demonstrated earlier. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in your POV, AFD says seven days, it`s been seven days. There is no consensus for either a delete or a merge. That`s how this AFD stands mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "my POV", it's policy. Go and read Deletion guidelines for administrators. An AfD could run 99-1 in favour of a particular decision, but if that 1 !voter makes an irrefutably compelling argument, the strength of that argument guides the final decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not what it says Here If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept mark nutley (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. AfD has never been about raw numbers. I patrolled AfD for years and closed numerous AfDs, so I've got first-hand knowledge of this. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, an uninvolved admin will come along and close this within the next couple of days. Although it's not strictly about numbers, it is one factor that is considered by the closing admin. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Electroshoxcure
Note that is a banned sock William M. Connolley (talk)