I've also relisted an article on Gazeebow Unit, a Newfoundland rap group. The article was deleted in a previous nomination on a very low vote, despite the fact that the sole delete voter gave ample evidence of national notability. Alas, I fully expect that someone will try to pull this renomination on grounds of bad faith. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Does bad faith matter for deleting or keeping an article? I mean, regardless of what awful motives someone has, at the end of the day we should just delete articles we don't want, and keep articles we do, right? This is my naive, un-AfD-contaminated optimism here :) Steve On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Phil Boswell wrote: Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. "When the best sort of sysop has to break the law to do what everyone knows is right, there's something wrong with the law. --JimboWales" (from Elian's userpage again...) -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 1/31/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: And the next problem arrives when people want a fifteen-archive, five megabyte discussion on whether "has to" is correct. -- Sam

On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: As I expected, despite there being no consensus to delete in the second AfD, that AfD was prematurely deleted and the AfD was closed prematurely. DRV is out of control. They're now interfering with open deletion discussions on AfD.

Tony Sidaway wrote: And the entry on it at DRV is loaded up with dozens of "Keep deleted, AfD valid" votes. If the first AfD with its grand total of three deletes (two with explanations simply "per nom") and one keep is valid, what about the second AfD with two keeps and two deletes (one of which argues to delete solely on the basis that its undeletion was out of process)? Why isn't _that_ AfD valid? This sort of rules-lawyering is getting insane. Is this "Gazeebow Unit" thing a good article to have on Wikipedia or not? That's ultimately the only important question here. All this digging in of heels over pointless protocol and procedure is getting in the way of trying to discuss that.

On 1/31/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: DRV can and has discused content. Listing a deleted article on AFD is a mildly amuseing form of rule lawering but not really very helpful. -- geni