Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nontheism

Never transcluded
As far as I can tell, this wasn't properly transcluded onto the list of AFD discussions. As such, it is not being drawn from a representative sample of the community. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. – xeno talk 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why this hadn't been closed yet; I suppose that explains it. I'm not 100% on exactly how AFDs work, but it would seem that there are two choices: re-nominate, "properly" and have another discussion like this one; or, since AFDs are not merely "votes", an admin could look at the discussion that was had and make a decision on whether the article should be deleted or not -- based on policy, guidelines, and the merit of arguments made thereon.  Chickenmonkey  21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Third choice, list it on today's and let it run for another 7 days. – xeno talk 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I admit it, I can't count past two. That sounds like the best idea... although... a lifetime supply of banana powder could come in handy... No, you're right, door number three is the rational choice...  Chickenmonkey  21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec times 2) I realized that it had never been closed, so I brought it up at WP:AN, which brought you here, so thank you for responding. What a mess! Given how messy the discussion was, particularly with complaints regarding canvassing, I would suggest closing this as something like no consensus or no outcome, and putting a notice on the page that it would have to be relisted, properly, and start over from scratch if anyone still wants to pursue deletion. But I wouldn't object to the third option either. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's closed without result and relisted, then everyone has to rehash their arguments. If it's just listed as is, then new folks have to trudge through the arguments thus far. If it's closed with a result, it's may not have been drawn from a representative sample. Looks like we're choosing the least worst of several undesirable paths. =\ – xeno talk 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true. I suppose that if it's closed and relisted, the relisted AfD should have a link to this one, and those who want to trudge through can, if they so choose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think closing without result and relisting would mean that only the most passionate people would come back for round 2. I think it is better to transclude this version, as sloppy as it is.   RJC  TalkContribs 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the interests of doing something, I've transcluded it to today's log. It should run for another 7 days. – xeno talk 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's very reasonable. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)