Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Order of Nine Angles

Inappropriate Tag
I object to the user who insists on tagging my account as a single-user. This is clearly incorrect as a study on my contribs will show - ONE entry for this ONA article, and EIGHT for other articles not connected with this ONA. Is there a reason this user keeps doing this? Cloud-dreamer 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with the above, which is why I have just removed the tag before User:Cloud-dreamer did. Why does User:Tunnels of Set keep adding this tag? Is there a hidden agenda behind this and behind the reason why you want the ONA page deleted?65.57.106.27 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag simply says that the user had made few or no other edits besides the article at the time of voting in this AfD. This is true. The users first edit is to the article and the had made only three other edits before voting in the AfD. That is, 2/5ths of the users edits at the time of voting pertained to this article. This is a standard procedure in AfD and is meant to help the closing admin determine how well the user is likely to understand Wikipedia policy. After only 4 edits, the answer is, probably not at all. Tell me, Cloud-dreamer, what three policies are the pillars of Wikipedia and does this article satisfy them? Tunnels of Set 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that because the use of this tag is a standard Wikipedia process, removing it is considered vandalism. If you revert the tag more than 3 times, you can be blocked for breaking the three revert rule. The only proper way to get the tag removed is to discuss it with an admin and have them remove it if they agree with you. The fact that you don't know these things actually proves that the tag is completely appropriate. Tunnels of Set 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, I do believe your statement that *the user had made few or no other edits besides the article at the time of voting in this AfD is incorrect - there clearly were other articles edited by that user before he/she came here to add his 2cents on the issue of deletion. There has been more edits by that user since - and the tag *implies* by its wording that the user so taged has some kind of vested interest in the article in question so therefore his *views* can/could be discounted. This implication is quite unfair - and seems to me to go against the ethic of Wikipedia itself. Second, you are making an assumption because no one as yet has broken the 3revert you and it was you who added the tag, incorrectly in my view. Third, rather than answering the question asked about whether there was some hidden agenda in the request for deletion, you reply by asking other questions, which is dodging the issue somewhat. Fourth, the article about the ONA is *noteworthy* according to Wikipedia criteria, plus its sources are non-partisan and are mostly published by mainstream publishers - so what exactly according to your view, is the reason why you desire the ONA article to be deleted? 65.57.106.27 14:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I nominated it for deletion is that it did not seem to meet Wikipedia requirements. I will leave it up to the community to make the decision. The closing admin will read this talk page and take your objections to being tagged {spa} into account as well. No problem. :-) Tunnels of Set 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply - appreciated. As far as I can tell, the article about this ONA does meet the requirements set by Wikipedia - but yes, the only way to decide in accord with the principles of Wikipedia is as you say to let the community decide. As for the tag, whatever the intent of the writer(s) it sure does read in a somewhat pejorative way. 65.57.106.54