Ah, here we come back to our original argument. It is not possible to provide reasoning for inclusion or exclusion in this case, because the sole point here is notability. I think all MTG cards are notable, you think they are not. It is a pure-and-simple difference of perception about what Wikipedia should be. You assert the cards aren't notable, which means they should be deleted, to which I reply saying they are notable, which means they should not be deleted. No reasoning exists, no debates are possible because it's a matter of personal opinion. In this situation what avenue is left to us except counting votes to determine consensus?
Molu
On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:11:27 +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Molu,
Please go ahead. All the information in available on the net nicely catalogued, and even the images may qualify for fair use. A complete database of MTG cards will be a popular section in WIkipedia. If they're taken to AfD, rest assured at least I will be voting Keep.
No, you won't, because AfD is not a vote. You may be arguing in favour of keep, but rest assured that your mere presence will not be enough to have any influence --- you'll have to actually provide some semblance of reasoning.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
--------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1ยข/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
G'day Molu,
[Please stop top-posting. It makes reading and replying to your messages unnecessarily difficult.]
On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:11:27 +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:
No, you won't, because AfD is not a vote. You may be arguing in favour of keep, but rest assured that your mere presence will not be enough to have any influence --- you'll have to actually provide some semblance of reasoning.
Ah, here we come back to our original argument. It is not possible to provide reasoning for inclusion or exclusion in this case, because the sole point here is notability. I think all MTG cards are notable, you think they are not. It is a pure-and-simple difference of perception about what Wikipedia should be. You assert the cards aren't notable, which means they should be deleted, to which I reply saying they are notable, which means they should not be deleted. No reasoning exists, no debates are possible because it's a matter of personal opinion. In this situation what avenue is left to us except counting votes to determine consensus?
If we had a bunch of "keep, notable" and "delete, non-notable", with nothing in between, no elaboration, etc., then I would close as no consensus. I *never* count votes, and haven't a clue whether (from a strictly numerical point of view) my closes meet the percentage threshold imposed by silly billies or whatever.
Closing an AfD, I: * Read the bloody thing, top to bottom, until I know everyone's opinion and am sure I haven't missed anything. * If there are any compelling arguments that aren't answered, that's the way to go. * Try to get a feel for the general vibe of the debate (no, really): if it feels like we're getting a rough consensus, close according to that. In your example, this is extremely unlikely. * If all else fails, close as no consensus.