Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Re Snocates's opinion

 * Did my intro while nominating not mean anything? I made it very clear it was NOT WP:COI. Who cares what church I belong to? This article needs to be merged and or deleted altogether. Speculation is ridiculous. You are not assuming good faith. 'Nomination is possibly motivated by WP:COI' is rude and speculative and this is not the place for it. I nominated this article because it was suggested to me that I do. Not for any other reason, besides I suppose my own desire to see this article go the way of so many other POV and biased articles that make allegations only in an attempt to make a group or organization look poorly. Carter | Talk to me 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tough beans. Merely asserting lack of COI does not make it so. I've reviewed your comments on that page and elsewhere and you've repeatedly attacked editors (including me) for anti-Mormon bias in ways that stretch your credebility and strain AGF. You don't come across as a neutral or disinterested party, that's all. Snocrates 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither does saying that WP:COI applies make it so. Don't pretend like you've not attacked me as well. Shall we review your comments or have you deleted them already? "Apparently WP:NOT means I'm in charge." Sound familiar? Also, I found it odd that when I tried to warn you about attacking other editors, you simply deleted the warning as if nothing was wrong. I suggest that before making allegations Snocrates, you make sure they could not also be made about you. This isn't theplace to debate that issue anyways. Stick to the article. Carter | Talk to me 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it did make it so. I said "may", i.e., it was a suspicion raised by me. Other editors can look at it and evaluate it themselves. I stand by all my comments and don't delete them like others do. (I do delete others' comments from my talk page b/c I've specifically asked for issues not to be addressed there—see the hard-to-miss header on the page.) Your potential COI is very relevant to the nomination and I also stand by my raising the issue. You can make any allegation you want against me — as you have before — and editors are free to take that in to account when assessing my opinions and actions. Likewise, you've nominated here, so your actions and motivations are relevant. Snocrates 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Storm Rider's opinion

 * If there is no concern over the content of the article, but only with the title of the article, proposing deletion is superfluous and not appropriate. Proposals for moves/renaming/merging are not properly made through the AFD process. And if you have no concern over the content of the article, why is your vote for deleting unless it is being used as a means of censoring? Snocrates 05:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is concern over the content of the article. The part about the title wasn't mentioned until the last little part of the nomination. Thanks for trying to make the AfD nomination 'superfluous'. I added the above mentioned article to the options of merging in the nomination. Carter | Talk to me 15:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - The article is an attempt at sythesis to force a conclusion where facts are not in evidence. Not one editor has demonstrated why the LDS church is involved in this topic except that a memo was written by an LDS authority, one without any expertise to produce a reputable conclusion. I personally do not disagree with the "facts", but the conclusion being drawn. I strongly believe a merge into False allegations is the better path. The memo is already highlighted in the Glenn L. Pace article. When there are so many different things wrong with an article an AfD is the best place to go. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And to whom do you ascribe the subjective "intent" of the article? Snocrates 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)