Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Exposed: The Climate of Fear (second nomination)

I'm baffled again by the process. I dont care at all about this article, really. But as for the process, wow. 4 persons voted delete saying it is not notable, and 3 voted keep saying that a second AfD should wait longer. Then some admin comes by, closes the AfD, says the result is delete giving no reasons, and leaves. Totally pathetic. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment is puzzling, since you know this isn't a vote. Of the three keeps, one was "there are articles on less notable topics", which is a well-recongised not-a-reason; the second was based on personal policy; and the third was "too soon" which was probably not considered very convincing William M. Connolley 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You read different than I do... --Childhood&#39;s End 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read what? Do you assert that it is a vote? As for the reasons, I'm quoting from the voters William M. Connolley 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that you cited as voting based on "personal policy". This means that you failed to read what I originally said, and you also failed to read when I pointed out (in the discussion) what the actual reason was.  Since you failed to read or chose to ignore it the first two times, I'm not going to restate it here.  I'll just note that you are totally incorrect in your summary of why I made my decision. &mdash; Val42 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Additionally, I have a personal policy: If it has not been at least six months since the last nomination for deletion, I will automatically vote against the deletion isn't part of your reasonning, you shouldn't have put it on the page - its not a place for general chit chat William M. Connolley 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * C'mon, dont force us to explain (again) that the reason why Val42 has this personal policy is because he/she also thinks that two AfDs in a 5-ish months span is one too many for any article. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in peoples personal policy, and more to the point (which is my original point) its unlikely that the closing admin was either. You can have a personal policy of voting to keep things unless they mention the word "cheese" if you like, but its yours alone William M. Connolley 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* If you have a personal policy because of X, and you vote "3" because of your personal policy, it is pretty likely that you voted 3 because of X. You thus can look further than the mere "personal policy" thing if you need to look for his voting reasons. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, the personal policy is irrelevant and shouldn't have been mentioned. So now you know why the three keep "votes" didn't weigh very heavily William M. Connolley 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since someone keeps not reading what I wrote before, I will attempt to explain it again, in simpler terms. However, I won't be surprised if said person fails to get it again.  I voted against the delete for both reasons X and Y.  Said person keeps saying that because he considers reason Y invalid, that my entire vote is invalid.  Said person acts as if reason X does not exist and never did.  Said person should again read why I cast my vote. &mdash; Val42 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to jump in, but this begs the question: what is the appropriate timespan for a second AfD, then? 6 months? A year? Bear in mind that the prior AfD failed to achieve consensus. To me, 5 months is an acceptable time frame for a second AfD even if the first closes with a definite result - it's far beyond adequate for a second AfD when the first was a "no consensus". I've spent a lot of time around AfD's, and my sense is that standard practice backs me up here. MastCell Talk 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that I made my personal policy is because on one article that I monitor, after it failed the first article for deletion it was nominated about a month later. Then after it failed again, it was nominated for deletion again about a month later.  I chose an arbitrary (but I still consider it reasonable) minimum of six months.  This seems reasonable for consensus moves as well as deletions.
 * However, all that we can decide here is personal policies, which a certain editor considers invalid. If we want to attempt to make it anything more than that, then this discussion would have to take place somewhere else.  &mdash; Val42 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. So since this article was re-nominated five months after the prior AfD, rather than six months, you felt that it was premature? MastCell Talk 04:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)