| Revision as of 07:34, 11 June 2008 editOhconfucius (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers328,951 edits →Emarosa: WP:AGF← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:41, 11 June 2008 edit undoCryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,747 edits →Emarosa: So if Esradekan had put magic <s> marks around his keep, to more explicitly indicate his , that would make it ok? If I'd put '''delete''' '''delete''' '''delete'''...Next edit → |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
*'''Overturn''' (delete). The keep arguments were clearly unfounded because of misstatement by the 'keep' voters, and it would appear the closer was 'blinded by their science'. There is nothing to suggest that this band meets any of the criteria of ]. ] (]) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
*'''Overturn''' (delete). The keep arguments were clearly unfounded because of misstatement by the 'keep' voters, and it would appear the closer was 'blinded by their science'. There is nothing to suggest that this band meets any of the criteria of ]. ] (]) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
*'''Endorse closure''' as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Only three people actually stated whether the article merited being kept or being deleted. Ironically, the person who brought this to DRV made two posts without stating whether he/she was recommending keeping, deleting, or something else. Neither did the IP who made a comment (and in terms of determining consensus, !votes by IPs tend to be discounted in this process). So, depending on the interpretation of Cryptic's comments, there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus. Either way, the seven days passed and there was no consensus to delete. ] (]) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
*'''Endorse closure''' as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Only three people actually stated whether the article merited being kept or being deleted. Ironically, the person who brought this to DRV made two posts without stating whether he/she was recommending keeping, deleting, or something else. Neither did the IP who made a comment (and in terms of determining consensus, !votes by IPs tend to be discounted in this process). So, depending on the interpretation of Cryptic's comments, there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus. Either way, the seven days passed and there was no consensus to delete. ] (]) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**So if Esradekan had put magic <s> marks around his keep, to more explicitly indicate his , that would make it ok? If I'd put '''delete''' '''delete''' '''delete''' in my comments, would I then have been ''counted'' thrice? There is nothing ironic in me not making a bolded incantation; I was trying to form a consensus, not to ''vote''. And I succeeded; nobody thought this band meets ] except the article's creator. Utter disgust. —] 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
Closer seems to have read only the bolded words, not the actual discussion. Had he done the latter, he would have seen that, of the only two users wishing to keep this article, the first had repudiated his opinion, and the second - the article's primary author - had been refuted. —Cryptic 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)