Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination)

Post AfD comment moved here from the Project Page
The following is a post-AfD closing comment moved here from the Project Page: :::: I know the AfD is closed, but yeah, exactly. I'm really puzzled at the sudden new wave of voters who just don't get that the GNG is pretty much the fundamental notability criteria, and that it doesn't *matter* how useless, pointless, vapid, insignificant or unreal a subject is, just as long as it's discussed at length in reliable and independent sources. If they want to change how WP:V and the GNG work, doing it piecemeal at AfD isn't the way. Nha Trang 19:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue, Unscintillating, is that Wikipedia is not to be used as an advertising forum. This article was created by someone with a single issue account that had a COI, and was edited by two more of the same. The people who argued against the AfD were simply allowing these people to game Wikipedia. Congrats. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't look all that closely at the comment before I moved it, but the editor seems to be centered squarely on supporting our policies and guidelines. Since you pinged me, I read your nomination statement again. IMO, it is a soapbox.  Like the moved comment said, your nomination didn't understand that existence of the app is not an issue for WP:GNG.  The statement that the topic belongs in the encyclopedia without the status of a standalone article contradicts and negates the need for a deletion discussion, as there is nothing to delete.  You say here "coi", but many editors with a "coi" are helpful contributors.  You say here "advertising forum", which had you said that and WP:IAR in the nomination, would have at least required me to stop and consider the nomination.  Part of the job as a nominator is to prepare the community for a discussion, which means following the steps at WP:BEFORE and in this case that would have meant explaining the previous AfD. As for your reply to my !vote, our polices and guidelines do not say that closing a Kickstarter campaign is a reason for a Speedy Renomination; on the contrary, if reliable sources report the closing of a Kickstarter campaign, this adds to WP:GNG notability.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't "gaming" Wikipedia -- this is Wikipedia working the way it ought to. I'd happily put up with ten thousand adspam articles than establish the precedent that it's okay to torch articles which meet the GNG as long as a loud enough claque screams "Adspam!  Adspam!  Unclean!" at them.  Never mind that it's all speculation anyway: anyone have proof that this is adspam?  Not conjecture, proof?  Of course not.  As a wise fellow said, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes consensus will disagree with you, in which case you ought to lose gracefully and move on.  You have your opinion: a honking heap of very experienced editors, like NorthAmerica1000 and IZAK and Alansohn and DGG and Epeefleche disagreed with you.  It's that time.   Nha Trang 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)