Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters


 * Comment on more weight to regulars: I don't think that is a fair process at all. People who contribute here are not necessarily experts on a subject more than people who are just starting out contributing. In fact if resumes were given it could yo find the new people have far more experience in matters here than the regular editors - maybe anyway - so try to stay open to everybody contributing to the discussion because it is silly to exclude people in an open database like this. Wiki is suppose to be an open discussion place.A20anna (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The flipside of that is that regular editors—or editors with some kind of a history to them—are more easily proven to be separate people. The problem with a flurry of new accounts joining in a discussion is that the possibility is there for abuse, either by canvassing for support for one side of the discussion or by outright abusively creating multiple accounts. That's why new editors—specifically, single-purpose accounts—are an issue in deletion discussions.


 * That said, deletion discussion is also more than a show of hands. Ten experienced editors saying I don't like it should be outweighed by one editor, even a new account, with a well-constructed argument based on Wikipedia guidelines like notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example of what C.Fred is talking about, see Articles for deletion/Competition cams (2nd nomination). The example I refer to is also instructive in as much as experienced editors were unmoved by long posts with no grounding in policy, but were responsive to the presentation of reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * REPLY - hey thanks for letting me know!! I like it that people actually talk on this site. It was just there was a very negative feeling in that discussion page. I like positive energy and that page has a really negative energy and was sort of weird in tone. I don't think a page should stay anyway if we do not represent the whole person in our depiction of them, that is what I really think. I mean if we have to by Wiki rules delete half or more of what that person is about because of certain Wiki rules, it is better for that person for the page to be deleted anyway. I mean people work hard for their credentials no matter what their job is and not giving them their fair day, it is better to just delete the page. Those are my real feelings on deleting the page. But I wanted to stand up for the person because she was a woman, so I took a stand. it seemed like some people in that discussion were biased a little and did not want to outright say it. But I am like really open minded and accept lots of stuff some find "different" - so that is probably why I was so affected by that negative energy. I am sort of sensitive to bad energy. I think I will say that on the page but watch someone will slam me because I said it. that is what I mean by negative energy. Are you an editor? Can you sponsor me on the feminism pages? I think on that subject since I care so much, I'd rather not be called to the carpet for a silly rule when I am so emotionally charged about feminism. I would get my feelings hurt because I care so much about the topic.A20anna (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)