The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
DELETE: I was going to try to breathe some life into this page but after reflection believer it should be deleted. The subject is a minor political player who never held elective officer. The page is stagnant ands there is little chance that it would every seriously be updated. I do not believe it fits the criteria for notability under the Wikipedia policy. At best it should be merged with another site. I was told by another editor that this is the second time that this site has been nominated. The last time was in May. Thoughts?
Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8 Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. (And possibly under #1 also:
The nominator...fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) User:Boardwalknw8 is also an WP:SPA for this topic ( [5]) and should declare their conflict of interest, if they have one. —— SN 54129 20:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
COMMENT: I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no conflict of interest in this matter. There was no "edit war". There is no attempt at disruption. My actions have been taken in good faith. Please take the time to review all of the comments that have been hidden from view by user SN54129. I believe they are relevant to the discussion. You decide.
Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 13:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
Otiose discussion: "extended content" —— SN 54129 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no personal interest in this matter. I have been told this was the second time this site has appeared for deletion. I did spent hours trying to edit the site because it looked like it would be easy to do. I worked hard at it for hours. Then summarily had all my edits all removed by a user who threatened to have me blocked when I pushed back. The record on that is clear.
COMMENT TO SN54129: I don't think this constant sniping is appropriate. I didn't plan to post again but I need to respond to your comments. Once again, I made this request in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not seet the requirements on notability. I tried my best to bring in into compliance but all the edits and sources I made were summarily removed without proper discussion. That anyone can see by reviewing the threads. It's apparent that a few individuals want this site to stay the way it is. Clearly not for the purpose of biography or they would have at least considered the changes and edits that were made. This is the second time this site has been noted for deletion. The animosity alone that has been demonstrated by others should be a reason to take it down. I refer you to my previous comments above. By the way, have you posted before under a different name or ID? I think that if you have more than one account you should acknowledge that. Please enjoy your remaining wiki break. Let's examine the facts in an objective fashion, not with one sided or smug advocacy. Let the community itself decide as provided for by the policy. That's the whole purpose of objectivity and peer review. Cheers to you as well and Happy Holidays. Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
COMMENT TO SN54129:Thanks for your note. By the way, You never did answer the question about posting under a different name or ID. I was told by another editor that this site was noted for deletion earlier this year. That's why I made those comments. It's interesting that you perceive my response as an "egregious attack" when I have been accused of bias and raising this issue for the purpose of "disruption" only. I believe my responses speak for themselves. Attacking me personally as being a new user or not understanding wikipedia policy doesn't address the substance of the issue. You may attack me all you wish and question my experience but there is clearly something going on here behind the scenes by certain editors. I encourage anyone reading this thread to review all of the history of the site and the edits and then make their own decision. Cheers. Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8 NOTE TO C.FRED. Thanks for your input. I believe you are mistaken about the reverted/deleted edits. The history of the page clearly shows that on 4 occasions on December 4th, that JEDCUBED reverted 19 edits en masse without any attempt at discussion our apparent review of the citations. (Remove diffless WP:ABF / WP:ASPERSION —— SN 54129) Once again, I encourage anyone reading this thread to review all of the history of the site and the edits and then make their own decision. Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8
COMMENT TO SN54129: Thank you the information on how to communicate. I will work on that in the future. The learning curve for me is a bit steep so please bear with me for now. I believe that my question to C.Fred was appropriate. I also don't believe you have the unilateral right to remove it. The same is true of the removal and subsequent shutdown of the undone" edits". Therefore, I ask that you restore my question. Let's ask the community if it's inappropriate. I also note that you never answered my question to you about more than one editing account and neutrality. I find this interesting since I was asked to do the same. I am not accusing anyone of conspiring against me. Once again, I made this request in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not seet the requirements on notability. I tried my best to bring in into compliance but all the edits and sources I made were summarily removed without proper discussion. That anyone can see by reviewing the threads. Let's get to a discussion on the merits. Sorry about not being indented. Still working on that...Cheers. Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8 Comment: I feel a need to clarify here. I've seen
Boardwalknw8 has characterized my reversion of their edits in a negative light. " COMMENT TO JEBCUBED: I will apologize to you in advance for the formatting. I'm still working on it. At the outset, thank you for your post. While I appreciate the fact you are an experienced editor, the manner in which you handled this allowed me to draw only one conclusion. All 19 edits I made were summarily reversed without any attempt of any kind to discuss this matter. When I added them back, I was told that you would have me blocked. I was trying to create a page that is not notable into something that might be. I believe that "good faith" would have been an attempt at discussion which never occurred. You simply could have pointed out the areas where you believe there was an issue about non-neutrality. Rather than demand it be done your way. Having said that, I appreciate your post. If you say you have no interest in the matter and were working in good faith, I accept that. No one likes to engage in these kinds of back and forth discussions. I made the request to delete this site in good faith. Not for the purpose of disruption. This site clearly does not meet the requirements on notability. Let's get to a discussion about that on the merits. Thank you again. I think you showed quite a bit of class in your post. Boardwalknw8 ( talk) 20:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8 |