Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out

This makes no sense. It was three to two in favor of KEEPING it, then two people swearing at each other. What is the wikipedia equivalent of a mistrial? Sheesh. Lots42 (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that myself. I come back, see "delete unless Zephyrad finds sources", which would make it an even three to three, then it gets deleted before I even have a chance to find any, and WHILE THE VOTE IS STILL AN EVEN ONE. If you check the history, Schuym1 did say he was prepared to back down, but then erased the comment. I'm crying FOUL, here... not to mention NONSENSE. Zephyrad (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD isn't a vote, folks. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what would you call the "keep" or "delete" comments, if they are not votes for or against, with all due respect? (BTW, I re-read Lots42's comment, and would like to point out I did NOT swear at any point.) Zephyrad (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whenever you think a close is in doubt, do not hesitate to take it to Deltion review as consensus can change and it is after all humans who close AfDs and all of us as humans can make mistakes. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. I think this article got railroaded, personally. Zephyrad (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well; instead of swearing, how about 'two people behaving very poorly'. I think -that- concept should have been considered in the whole mess. Lots42 (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I almost forgot an important bit. Silly me. I talked with a nuetral Wiki-Power, user name 'Emperor', and he agreed that, apart from the fighting, it was a fair thing to delete the article because it lacked the sources and such.Lots42 (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened to leaving an article up, until such sources can be obtained? Seen that done, more than once, while the debate was left open for weeks, not a few days. Zephyrad (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You had plenty of time to find sources during the AFD. Also, the article got created in 2005. You should have knowm that it needed sources because there is a reminder every time you create a page. It's your fault that it got deleted because you left it unsourced for three years. Schuym1 (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought you weren't following this discussion anymore. Uhh, I have a job, and have to go to work every day, and prepare for work in between days... so when was I supposed to go do this? I trusted the debate to stay open, not get deleted while the discussion was still going on, and the vote (for lack of a better word) still even. And you're right; the article sat for three years, with no problems, until it was challenged... by someone who later admitted he didn't know about the topic. Meanwhile... I was sworn at, called a "jerk", someone (not me) ran to sysops again and again... yet I'm accused now of "behaving very poorly". Meanwhile you backed down... and have now reversed yourself, again, since you appear to have gotten your way on the matter. Mm-hm. Zephyrad (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article was sourced in the first place, it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. It doesn't matter how old it is. It only matters if it's notable or not. Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which it's obviously non-notable because the deletion review didn't go well. Schuym1 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope someday you study "fallacies"; you've just made a non-sequitor one, and you've reversed yourself yet again. First you mention the article being here for three years; now you say "it doesn't matter how old it is". (So which is it?) I haven't even read the deletion review page, since I posted the request. And I'll say it again: a non-Littles book by the creator of The Littles is certainly notable, whatever the relevant degree, and I've seen articles by others on far trivial matters remain.
 * Admins, I do not wish to waste any more of my time or yours on this matter (much less be accused further of "behaving very poorly", for continuing to point out flawed arguments and railroading)... which I am quite willing to drop if the article can be restored, once I am able to obtain these sources, if it cannot be restored pending my obtaining such sources. (I would need time to visit a library, as I've previously mentioned. My free time is limited, and so are library hours, and this has already been more hassle than necessary, for anyone, especially anyone who has to work.) I do not wish to deal further with someone else's attempts at wikilawyering, or personal knife-twisting. Zephyrad (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that is it can be nominated for AFD no matter how old it is. The author of The Littles is notable, but notable authors usually don't make the book notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)