On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Nick Wilkins wrote:
Of course, in the interests of accuracy and full disclosure, you were somewhere going to mention that the second nomination was closed by an administrator who strenuously argued in that very discussion for keeping the article? And that the third nomination was closed as a no consensus? Hardly convincing evidence that the previous discussions "were settled on the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New York Times" rather than "because of the Slate article". Or even that they were actually settled. This article really isn't the best example for your proposal.
It was closed with the support of Jimbo, on that exact grounds, so yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that it has been consistently kept on those grounds.
Are you going to deal with the argument put forth by Bwithh and others that Farivar is not particularly notable among journalists? Or should we just ignore them and speedy keep the article? I happen to disagree with them when they say that Farivar is not notable enough for an article, but I respect their opinions.
Sure - I'm happy to deal with those. My problem is dealing with them in an AfD that has already been set up with outright falsehoods, and with people who are "voting" in line with policies that aren't policies, precedents that don't exist, and facts that aren't true.
Let me be blunter: if this is standard for how the community considers deletion (and I've seen precious little evidence of late that it's not), the community can no longer be trusted with this function.
-Phil