Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat)

Delete
It should be deleted. Cute but not necessary. Just Wunderbar (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your !vote needs to be recorded on the actual AfD page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I missed the fun :( L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  03:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Lessee here. Several editors agitated for a SNOW close.  From looking over the various comments, the rationale of most keep !voters amounted to either "Me too!" or pointing towards "reliable sources" which were proven to be not reliable in this case, as they were riddled with obvious factual errors and in general attempted to push an alternate reality on readers.  I really hate to repeat myself, but it cannot be stressed enough that the "reliable" in reliable sourcing entails the existence of a fact-checking process, which was plainly absent from these particular sources.  It hasn't helped that the "Me too!" editors evidently have a different concept of what makes a source reliable  I really have to wonder if this closure was pushed for to prevent an admin coming along, seeing either that or the possibly of a pattern of canvassing, and putting the kibosh on their expected outcome, because that's what admins are expected to do in such situtations.  I have very little patience for ANI to begin with and certainly don't have time to start a thread there, but this sounds like a prime ANI candidate to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * if you disagree with the closure of an AfD then you first need to discuss it with the person closing the discussion, in this case Ansh666. If the closer does not discuss it or you are still unhappy after the discussion then the next step is deletion review. I cannot see any grounds for an ANI thread here, particularly as you have not attempted DRV. If you are alleging a pattern of bad closures by Ansh666 then an AN/I might be justified after most/all have been overturned at DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was a good close. I say that as one who favored (and still does) deletion. You win some and you lose some. This one is going in the loss column. But it is what it is and the consensus to keep was overwhelming. It's not always easy, but sometimes you gotta know when to drop the WP:STICK and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Full reasoning for the close here. ansh 666 21:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

's response comes across as typical of the poisonous admin culture around here: dealing with the encyclopedia's problems by not dealing with them, passing the buck and expecting someone else to run through a million different processes while expecting to do very little themselves. Sorry, but I really don't have that kind of time to waste. Does anyone really want to tell me with a straight face that I have no other alternatives in a billion-website world? No wonder admins are so fond of drumming the "wielding the mop" metaphor, because I certainly don't see a whole lot of examples of leadership out of what's ostensibly a leadership position.

However, that's a gnat on a horse's ass compared to other issues. I came into this whole affair solely through the AFD. Only through further browsing earlier today did I discover an ITNC thread started before the AFD began. The AFD was mentioned at ITNC but not the other way around. Why would anyone think that this is appropriate behavior, especially since many of the same editors are involved in both discussions? Think WP:CANVASS for one, as I alluded to previously. That makes this all a little too obvious: the ITNC proponents go shopping in yet another forum agitating for a non-admin SNOW close, understanding that letting it run its course and having an admin close it might have produced a different outcome, because it's quite possible the admin would have actually done their job and weighed the arguments and facts and not just counted all the "Me too!" votes. Concern for the notability of the topic or the general health of the article is not what matters here; this is a blatant exercise in gaming the system so that someone can collect a "special hat" for the "accomplishment" of "animal recent death on the Main Page", and that contrary viewpoints are troublesome and deserve to be wikilawyered out of existence. As ITNC is yet another walled garden of few particular editors pushing their vision on the rest of us through the influence provided by the Main Page and their seeming willingness to spend unlimited amounts of time over there, it's understandable that I may be slightly late in tying together two discussions which should have been tied together in the first place by other editors.

I gave up on ITNC following the "article quality" RFC, the end result being that "article quality" is defined by slapping content elements together in certain fashion, and that any obvious deficiencies are someone else's problem so long as it looks purty. I'm seeing that same POV with this article. I could most certainly provide another "wall of text" (that comment raises the question: are you telling me that my arguments in a discussion are supposed to conform to someone else's lack of an attention span? I can only assume this is where all the "Me too!" came from.) pointing out the half-dozen or possibly more things I found wrong right off the top of my head. Since I have other things to do and the ITNC regulars are so consistently deaf to such concerns, I don't see where it would benefit me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that you aren't actually interested in reading a response so I will refrain from detailing why almost everything you say in that comment is factually incorrect or a signficant misunderstanding. However process exists for a reason and it is necessary precisely because there are so many people and so many articles. I could have followed the process for you, but (a) why should I? (b) I don't actually disagree with the closure, and (c) I didn't see any problems with the process as followed here. There was no canvassing for a non-admin closure - a request was apparently made at the administrators' noticeboard for an admin to snow close this if they felt that was appropriate (although I didn't know about this until after I left my comment above). Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)