Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Moved from votes page as it's irrelevant.


 * Keep. Hope I don't get accused of sockpuppetry... ugen64 01:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Above user may be a Sockpuppet. Only has 2000+ edits. -Vina 07:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ugen64 has not provided any reason to keep. According to some interpretations that vote should not be counted. I leave it to ugen64 to count how many votes on the previous VfD for this article were by voters who were new then and have done nothing since on Wikipedia. Jallan 15:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As a general information for wikipedians, could you tell us where to find the rule saying that you have to write articles to be considered a user and have the right to vote? Btw, Ugen64, seems quite a cooperative and dedicated wikipedia citizen, being the first to enter a vote. As for not giving reasons, remember that Geogr tried to impose his rule of no discussion at all. I'm a bit puzzled by all this, wondering if it is the wikipedia SOP. --Pgreenfinch 16:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is the case that anonymous and new accounts do not get to vote. Why are you answering every vote?  Why are you being so shrill?  Let people just vote as they wish, please.  If you wish to change the policy that states that newly created accounts don't get to vote, then propose it, but it is the policy here on VfD and has been.  If you looked over the debates consistently, you'd see that.  Let's just vote, please, and not flame. Flaming is disruptive.  Geogre 18:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You still didn't show the rules that says that, just accused me of flaming for asking, or for answering comments. Trying everything to destroy an article that was maintained is not flaming? Of course, I understand that you prefer I shut up. I wonder why after each title of article in vfd there is written "add to discussion". --Pgreenfinch 19:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There is an "Add to this discussion?" Really?  By the way, my renomination was quite clear in explaining its motives.  I could have simply deleted the article based on the previous vote.  I wanted to get a clear vote, without illegal votes coming in and without any of us trying to argue incessantly.  Just the community's views so that we could proceed rationally.  I have asked nicely.  Please do not make any more personal attacks.  Geogre 00:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No, you could not have done it after it was kept, seems to me you are inventing rules again. It is your problem, although a bit "disruptive". --Pgreenfinch 07:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pgreenfinch, please discuss the article, and not the voters. I understand that you believe very strongly that this article must be saved at all costs, for whatever reason, but argue ad rem and not ad hominem please.  That is what is disruptive. Geogre 13:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought that some of your remarks like "shrill* or accusing my comments of "flame" were "ad hominem". Certainly my mistake ;-) --Pgreenfinch 14:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Since my nomination was procedural to answer user questions, it had no vote implied. For what it's worth, I still vote delete. Geogre 01:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)