On 7/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
As one of the deletionists perfectly fine with merging, I agree there were reasonable people (and unreasonable people) on both sides. I would hope an admin closing a deletion discussion would disregard any bald assertion that the person making it didn't bother to support, that's basically a bare vote, and I would also hope they would disregard any "All (insert class of something here) are notable." (I would similarly hope they would disregard any assertion such as "No (insert class of something here) are ever notable." The purpose of an AfD is to discuss whether -this- subject, -this- time, should be retained.
I did a search for assertions you've made in deletion discussions, to try to figure out what you think people *should* be saying, and gave up after only finding one you've made recently.
So, how does the following comment explain why an article is notable or non-notable:
*Keep, but change the title to something like "Cherrix medical refusal case", with the name as a redirect. We have plenty of material for an article on the event, but not enough for an article which claims (by being titled with the person's name) to be a full biography on the person.
It seems to me that forcing people to make the exact same arguments over and over and over again is exactly what's wrong with AfD.