Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 1


 * The deletion discussion was right away riddled with unfounded accusations by the deletionists, ranging from SEO to COI to "sock" re: & I. It's been repeated in the discussion here, that's why I said who, what, how & where (in a Note under Acousmana's comment). If what some have to add gets distorted or ignored repeatedly to get to a certain outcome that turns out to be predetermined no matter what follows, do you think I should not notice? Planetdust (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon: The [| Kamogawa] discussion you mention is a good example of how this should evolve. Novem Linugae did change his vote after actually looking at the sources and gave valuable insights into WP:policies and resources I wasn't aware of. I've also stated that redirection is a possible outcome – a far cry from what's going on here. If you don't catch that the Villa Kamogawa deletion nomination itself and one of two delete votes there come from specific people for specific reasons, that is another matter, WP:HOUNDING. Planetdust (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Planetdust - Deletion Review and Deletion Review talk are a content forum. Unsubstantiated handwaves about conduct of other editors are neither appropriate nor useful.  Hounding does occasionally happen, and does need to be dealt with, but what I see here is an aggressive but hypersensitive editor who demands the right to lecture other editors but then tries to shut down any replies.  If you really think that you are being hounded, report the hounding at WP:ANI.  But then, to quote Taylor Swift, "Don't say I didn't warn you."  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)