Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Diana Burbano

Edit summaries are not meant for comments other than a summary of your actual edit
I am just addressing an accusation saying that my edit summary did not summarize my comment correctly. This is what my edit summary said (excuse the misspelling of YES):
 * [→‎Diana Burbano: Yeas nominator is WAY too aggressive]

and this is what my message said:
 * [*Comment This article was created at 19:02. Only seven  minutes later while the creator was  obviously working on improving the article user:Reddogsix nominated it for CSD-A7: No indication of importance Take a look at the article and tell do you agree? Just that in itself indicates to me that the nominator has not done his homework and is way too aggressive. It was very fortunate that the admin who rejected the speedy happened to be there. I have seen other admins who just could not be bothered to do even a minimal check.


 * Instead of taking a deep breath and doing some checking what does Reddogsix do — proceeds directly to AfD, Sigh... would you do that if you are seriously considering what is best for wikipedia? Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me]

I believe my summary captures the essence of my comment. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me


 * I agree that your edit summary appropriately summarized your edit. I disagree with your edit which, as reddogsix noted, would have involved a fair amount of mindreading on your part. How do you know how much homework reddogsix did? If he's like me, he did his Google analysis before even posting the A7 request. So there's no reason why there needed to be much time between its rejection and his Afd submission. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of the reasons i believe the nominator was too aggressive:
 * They ignored “Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later.”
 * A7 No indication of importance was obviously not appropriate in this case. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me