[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
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.
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/336 - Release Date: 10/05/2006