Just curious...have you read the revision Sean saved?
Because while
stubby, it was far from one or two context-less sentences. (I do think
brenneman has a point, but a lot of the messages on this matter seem to
think Sean's initial article was crap.)
John
I have read the first version of Cart00ney yes. The version was not horridly
"crappy", I mean, the article had enough context to define the subject and
say a bit about it, but it DID fail to explain significance of the neologism.
Now I understand that it might be an idea to give an article more than nine
minutes before tagging them for deletion, if the article gets improved five
minutes later to the point where inclusion is obvious, the AFD debate looks
rather silly.
In the case of Cart00ney, it doesn't matter all that much, several people on
the debate are expressing concerns not only over the article's quality but
also over the subject's suitability as a topic.
If the article is a speedy candidate, a speedy deletion can be done
expediently without any grace period because a new and improved version can
be made easily without an AFD debate getting in the way.
In general, articles on neologisms which don't explain significance are prime
targets for the New Page Patrollers' AFD tags, and they will, and should,
only take into account the merits of the article, not its creator.
Sjakkalle