Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathomat

''Moved from Project page. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:23Z  ''
 * If you're the original nominator, you're taken to be advocating deletion unless and until you withdraw the nomination. Thus, there's no purpose to adding an advocation of delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't strike through my comment; it is very explicit and the closing admin is unlikely to be confused or tricked. I tried to say in my nomination that I was interested in seeing the discussion before taking a stand one way or the other; perhaps I was not clear enough. Another example of why AFD should be renamed articles for discussion.  CMummert · talk 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not articles for discussion They are articles for deletion, hard to resurrect in spite of the amount of work put into them. If you want to discuss, please use the talk page and templates.  If you nominate for deletion, then you are saying you believe the article should be deleted.  There is a lot of good material that gets deleted because these forums get used prematurely, imo.  Kind regards, --Greatwalk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether a topic that is likely well known to Australians but not apparently not documented in any reliable sources is notable enough for inclusion. As I said in my nomination, " I think it warrants discussion no matter whether it is kept or deleted."  I disagree that the nominator must always favor deletion - the nominator only needs to favor formal discussion about whether the article should be deleted because there is a nontrivial chance that it might be deleted.  In this case, I had refrained from prodding this article in the past, someone else prodded it, and then the prod was removed. Therefore, I thought that a formal discussion was warranted. CMummert · talk 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I struck through your comment in order to make it clear that it was not an opinion which needed to be taken into account. You'd already expressed the same sentiments five days ago in your nomination, and the lack of a follow-up withdrawal of the nomination made it clear that your opinions had not changed on the matter. The wording of your comment was still visible (through the editing screen if nowhere else). Perhaps as a compromise solution, striking through the bolded "delete" would be a viable way forward? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by the first sentence there; aren't all opinions taken into account? Anyway I don't mind striking one word, because I still think nobody is going to be confused. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments carefully, not count "delete" vs. "keep" comments. In my future AfD nominations, I will be explicit in my nomination if I plan to defer my opinion until later. CMummert · talk 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that first sentence, it was a bit sloppy. What I meant was that you'd already expressed an opinion by nominating the article in the first place and saying that it didn't have any references that you could find, so a repetition of that opinion by the exact same person should be taken with a greater degree of caution than should the repetition of the same opinion by a different person. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)