On 7/9/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)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.