On 2/11/06, David Carson dcarson@iinet.net.au wrote:
I don't believe the nominator ever said it was crap. He said it was a non-notable neologism, and thus the _topic_ was not suitable for Wikipedia (the topic was crap, if you like). This is a completely separate issue to the quality of the article's content (which was excellent, probably higher than 99% of the first saved versions of articles).
Reminds me of my recent proposal on this list which scored a grand total of one reply :) Quick reminder: Split AFD into two halves: Request for subject blocking: Community decides the subject is NN or not interesting etc, deletes the page and prevents a new article being created on the topic Request for page wiping: Community decides the subject is potentially interesting, but the current text is libellous, copyvio etc. Page is hacked down to a stub, or wiped altogether (but not blocked).
Misunderstandings and confusion of this sort would be vastly reduced if the nominator had to actually think for a second what he was objecting to exactly.
Steve