Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination)

Canvassing

 * I just noticed the following string of edits from the nominator of this article:
 * 11:02, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Bali ultimate ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 11:01, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Robofish ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 11:01, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Dlabtot ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section)
 * 11:00, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Hiding ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 11:00, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:EEMIV ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Stifle ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Orangemike ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:OlYeller21 ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:58, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BryanG ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:58, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Doctorfluffy ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Gtstricky ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Cameron Scott ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Sceptre ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * 10:56, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Pd THOR ‎ (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
 * Looking at Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars, the above editors with the talk page messages were all those who said to "Delete" in that previous discussion. The nominator as of the time that I am typing this post has apparently not contacted User:Sf46, User:Jwray, User:Hobit, User:HJ Mitchell, User:DHowell, User:Cumbrowski, User:Dlohcierekim, User:Dream Focus, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Colonel Warden, User:jc37, User:Cube lurker, User:SoWhy, User:DGG, User:Firestorm, and User:JJL, i.e. the sixteen editors who said to "keep" in the previous discussion.  My understanding per WP:CANVASS is that we must notify ALL participants of a previous discussion if we are going to do so and not just those who argued that way we agreed with last time.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified everyone from the previous discussion that had not already gotten notice from either another editor or a bot about this discussion. I'm not convinced inviting everyone from a previous discussion that failed to achieve consensus will make us any better off, but the circumstances left me little choice.--chaser (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This kind of canvassing is severely discouraged. I only found out about this through the note on my talk page, and probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise; to avoid stacking the vote, those who argued to keep previously must be notified as well. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

78.34.241.98's !vote
Regarding this !vote, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme. With a discussion this large, I don't think a single !vote will make any difference, but it is something of which the closing administrator should be aware.--chaser (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't need to make a difference, what with almost all of the keeps being either policy-free rhetoric or boilerplate from editors who reject WP:N. The socking, SPAs and canvassing will probably lead to a no consensus close anyway, sadly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't we try to start a fight, then? Because surely that will make the situation better.--chaser (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "start a fight". FWIW I think your contribution to the AfD is one of the few comments for keeping worth listening to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)