Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths


 * Does this vote above really count, a user without an accou´nt which only entry is this one.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked, AfDs weren't a tally of votes, but a discussion of policy whether to keep or delete. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well your "opinion" doesnt count for mutch as you have no account and no history on Wikipedia.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" until someone doesn't like what you say.
 * If Griffiths is found not guilty, then he will only be famous for being an alleged serial killer, and does not pass Wp:ONEEVENT in my opinion. Instead of arguing that I've never made an edit before, please explain why I'm wrong in my analysis. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not arguing with you, neither do i have anything against your opinion that comes from your own hands... not mine. All i am saying is that before you create an account or atleast have been doing edits for atleast a couple of days, going into Afd discussions isnt something to recommend as your "opinion" wont weigh in to the final decision anyway. Waste of time.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way at the moment you are refering to stuff that could potentially happen. But you forgetting that the man has confessed to being the Crossbow Cannibal etc etc.. Basicly his trial appearance and all the media attention after his arrest make Stephen pass Wp:ONEEVENT in my opinion.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything at WP:AFD which says IPs without an account cannot contribute to an AFD discussion. Instead I can find policies The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. which I did, and When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. which I have but have seen no counter-discussion by yourself against what I said, simply a few attacks against me. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to stop making remarks and go into attack-mode. If you continue like this it will only end up bad for yourself. I will end this meta-debate with an unexperienced editor like yourself right now. I know im right and you are wrong in this particular instance concerning rules and regulations on Wikipedia. Cheers. Happy editing.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He hasn't confessed or being found guilty of anything yet. It's total assumption that he will be found guilty of any murders, never mind three which makes him a supposed serial killer. English law is quite clear that you're innocent until proven guilty. To call him a serial killer is libellous and quite simply incorrect at this stage. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

ÅlandÖland, please stop now. I am a big fan of compulsive registration, and I disagree with the IP rationale. Yet last time I checked IPs have all the right to participate in AfD discussion and to have their voice heard. So please stop attacking editors and stay civil. If the comment is meaningful, it has all the same rights of other editors' comment. The real waste of time is your flame with the IP editor. To use your own words: You need to stop making remarks and go into attack-mode. If you continue like this it will only end up bad for yourself. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Åland, please read WP:BITE. The last I knew of it, the fact that somebody had made few other contributions would be kept in mind by the closing admin, but that would not automatically strike the merit. There is certainly no reason to say an IP doesn't count because xe's an IP. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)