Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Molatar


 * The following comments were originally placed on the close VfD page. They have been moved to this talk page.

I must protest vigorously. This debate saw only four votes and barely lasted five hours. Moreover, this article was speedy-deleted by Manning without meeting any of the current speedy-delete criteria (I have subsequently restored it). Someone's finger is far too heavy on the trigger here, and I request that the debate be reopened on this article and that due process be allowed to proceed. Denni &#9775; 00:52, 2005 July 20 (UTC)


 * Without intending to cause offence, it appears your devotion to "process" exceeds your devotion to "quality". This page was blatant rubbish, total of no merit and having a VFD discussion wastes everyone's time. If you can provide a reason why the page should remain I am totally prepared to listen. But if your sole argument is that "Process must be followed" then I would ask you to question your own priorities. I have redeleted the article, and until you can provide a reason for keeping of this article (other than a desire to follow process) I would ask that you keep it that way. I certainly do not wish to have an edit war with you, and it feels like this entire dispute is based on a desire to follow process, and is not related to the quality of content. Manning 01:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC
 * While I agree that this page is blatant rubbish, that is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. We have policies for a good reason: to prevent other well-meaning but overenthusiastic souls from running around deleting anything they don't like. While I find myself firmly in the deletionist camp as far as maintaining quality goes, I also believe that it must be community standards, not individual ones, which determine what goes and what stays. While I was disappointed by the outcome of the recent speedy deletion votes, I will nonetheless abide by them and move a lot of sheer crap to VfD as a consequence. I have no intention of conducting an edit war, but I do intend to work in the context of community to ensure that due process is carried out. Even "blatant rubbish" should be protected if that is the community's wish. Just as I do not unilaterally delete school articles, Pokemon articles, or band vanity articles (as much as I would like to), neither should you be deleting articles in a manner inconsistent with the expressed wishes of other Wikipedians just because you personally are offended.


 * Your comments also do not address the gross violation of VfD policy you undertook by closing a debate after only four votes and five hours. There is nothing in VfD policy that makes that remotely acceptable. I consider this to be gross admin abuse, and I don't care =what= the contents of the article were. There are very, very few cases of a VfD discussion being terminated before five days, and I believe it takes something as extraordinary as a dozen votes for speedy deletion in the first twelve hours or some other just-short-of-amazing vote count to make an early deletion acceptable. Whatever the case, the pedestrian showing of votes on this article was not of sufficient weight to suggest early termination of the process. It is this kind of behavior that allows inclusionists to get on their high horse and which makes it even more difficult to bring about change in current deletion policies. Kappa and Tony Sidaway will have a field day with this if they see it, and rightfully so. Denni &#9775; 02:09, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
 * Deletion is proper, this page is mostly copyvio and otherwise falls under WP:CSD #A3 and #A4. Please read applicable policies before citing them. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)