Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Instituto Serrano de Conservação da Natureza

Comments refactored from main page
I have moved the following discussion here since it is off-topic for the nomination discussion (or at least Unscintillating asserts that it is). Begin quote:


 * Speedy keep  Procedural close  Deletion spree.  Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Unscintillating, there is no need to be like that. I've given clear reasons for my nomination. Can you please comment on the article and its notability, not the editor. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of commenting on other users? Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, of course you are. You offered no reason for a Keep, much less a Speedy Keep, except to question the good faith of the nominator. You made exactly this same comment at ten AfDs in a row, but it is not helpful to the discussion. If you have a valid reason for keeping this article, please give it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your post can make bad-faith hypotheses, but it does not mean that I agree with them or that I disagree with them. As for the assertion that my !vote is without reason, if so, why are you motivated to follow me around?  As for your push that the editors in this AfD get on task, how about you do the WP:BEFORE analysis, including the WP:ATD analysis, report the WP:BEFORE D1 search results, and report on any content policies that would be reasons to delete this article.  Proper preparation of the community for a deletion discussion moots my !vote.  Then do the same WP:BEFORE on the dozens of related AfDs.  Since you are skilled in making scientific measurements, time each of the WP:BEFOREs and post your research results.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

End of quote. My reply:
 * User:Unscintillating, I have no intention of commenting on the validity or not of this nomination, because I do not feel qualified to judge it. I can't search in Portuguese. However, I did feel that your cut-and-paste "speedy deletion" comment (invalid, as it turned out), and then your cut-and-paste "who, me?" reply each place where it was pointed out that you were commenting on the editor and not the article, deserved to be replied to with an equally cut-and-paste answer. You put yours everyplace; I put mine everyplace. MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that (having realized that SK#2 doesn't apply) you are now calling for a "procedural close". Here is the link to WP:procedural close; which of those four circumstances do you think applies here? --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have objected on another page that I have not responded to this question. From my viewpoint I have responded several times.  You have said words to the effect that you had not studied WP:Procedural close before yesterday.  After you ignored my initial hints that maybe there was something you missed, I specifically politely requested that you proof your work in reading this guideline.  I will do so again.  Please look again at WP:Deletion process.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a question for you, not for me. I will try to make it even more specific. You asked me to "look again" at that guideline; OK, let's look at it together. Here is the guideline for a procedural deletion procedural closure, quote:

In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require a "procedural closure"—a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed. Situations where a procedural closure may be appropriate include:
 * The nominated page was not tagged with a corresponding deletion notice. The best course of action is to add the tag and note that you've done so - the time you place the tag would then be treated as the nomination time.
 * The nominated page is currently linked from the Main Page. (If there are legitimate concerns, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to have the link removed before nominating the article.)
 * A subsequent deletion discussion which immediately challenges the outcome of the prior deletion discussion, where a deletion review clearly would be more appropriate. List it at deletion review on the nominator's behalf first, then close the deletion discussion.
 * The deletion discussion is listed at the incorrect venue, e.g., a discussion for a file that is hosted on Commons, or for a category listed at Redirects for discussion. This includes discussions that the chosen venue is unable to address.
 * End of quote. I ask again: which of these criteria do you think applies to this case? That was partly a rhetorical question on my part, since it seems obvious to me that none of them apply. But maybe you can explain it to me: what criterion were you applying? Was the nominated page not tagged? Is it currently linked to the Main Page? Is this nomination a challenge to a prior deletion discussion? Or is it listed at the incorrect venue? Please refer specifically to the language of the guideline. Or instead of "hinting" that there "maybe" was "something I missed", please state clearly and unambiguously what you think I "missed". --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. This statement - You have said words to the effect that you had not studied WP:Procedural close before yesterday. - is false. I have said nothing of the sort. In fact, I am the one who is quoting WP:Procedural close. You are the one who is invoking it without apparently having read it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added bold to a word that was not hidden, "include". I have also struck "procedural deletion" and inserted "procedural closure".  You are free to revert if you object.  Do you agree that the list of four is composed of examples, and that the guideline also applies to cases not listed among the four?  IMO, none of the five questions you have asked above need a response, so please repeat any that you feel are still unanswered.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one question, then: what IS your justification for calling for a procedural closure (thank you for the correction)? --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a minor point. In this instance I didn't want the status of my sk to be potentially viewed as obsolete in the presence of a subsequent !vote marked "delete".  The point remains that IMO this was a disruptive nomination and I request that AfD volunteers such as yourself support improvements in AfD quality.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you have no justification for calling for a procedural close. You're still basing your comment on SK2, "unquestionably vandalism or disruption," except that there has been a subsequent delete !vote so SK2 doesn't apply (is "obsolete" in your terms). So you thought you would just throw in "procedural close" instead. See the other discussion for my comments on improving AfD quality. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree, and the paraphrasing has changed the meaning of what I said. Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. I tried to extract some meaning, since all you actually said was to refuse to provide any justification for a procedural close: "It is a minor point". Never mind, I think we're done here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)