Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Commentary

- The past 3 nominations were based on a faulty premise. --Justanother 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting observation, considering that myself and several others find the AfD itself a faulty premise. Anynobody 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not delete my comments again. Please see my opening discussion for the answer to your question if you have a question. Thanks --Justanother 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the gray header

I am curious about this header as the link on it, Wikipedia:Survey notification, goes to an "inactive" page. Please comment. Thanks --Justanother 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to be curious about? Clearly it is a template that is outdated but convenient to one side of an ongoing small faction war over cult related pages which has adopted the Barbara Schwarz page as one of its battle fields. I hope it is entirely clear to anyone reading that template that it is pretty much 99.9% meaningless. While canvassing isn't particularly ethical behavior there is no way of ever knowing if the people responding to an AfD are "representative of Wikipedians". Its absurd and I find it rather offensive that someone would want us to believe its possible. That's my comment.PelleSmith 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as if those that were actually canvassed as opposed to simply reading a post on someone's user page would take take trouble to make a clear statement "I'm here because I was canvassed and here is what I think. . . .". --Justanother 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template Template:!vote is widely used. I was unaware that Wikipedia:Survey notification was no longer active, but the wording of the template itself is still most appropriate. Smee 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please see What links here, to see that the template is still used. Smee 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'd never actually seen this particular template before, but the extremely similar template {{not a ballot}} sees regular use when there is reason to believe that someone may (whether in good faith or not) tried to deliberately solicit participants from a specific side of the issue in order to sway the discussion. Since such solicitation is in fact counter to Wikipedia policy (not "outdated" in any way, not "99.9% meaningless") I really can't imagine why anyone acting in good faith would treat the act of placing a template alerting people to this point as if that was somehow counter to Wikipedia policy. I also find the allegations about "convenient to one side of an ongoing small faction war" extremely interesting, as it would seem to be a pretty blatant violation of WP:AGF. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother why don't you want editors to see both sides of this discussion?

Respectfully Justanother, the WP:AfD process is designed to let neutral editors vote after reviewing reasons to delete or keep an article. The idea of WP:NPOV is what putting the pro/con arguments together addresses. By moving my points about notability to the bottom, it could be argued that you don't want neutral editors to have both sides of this entire discussion. What can not be argued is that moving them is a violation of WP:AfD#AfD_etiquette which states: Don't reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count. Therefore, I will return the counterpoints to the non-notability argument to the header (under, not above, your non-notable arguments of course). Anynobody 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not chop up my comment. That is inappropriate. I thought actually that I had given you a more favored position. You should ask for 3rd opinions here but certainly do not chop up my comment. It distracts from the continuity. That is my comment, signed by me. You cannot edit inside it. --Justanother 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be falling victim to WP:OWN, you did set up the vote but you don't get to set the conditions of the vote. Editors should know both sides. Anynobody 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have all the chance you need to present your view. Just not in the middle of my comment. --Justanother 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]