| Revision as of 04:44, 14 June 2007 editMorgan Wick (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,680 edits And another thing..← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:55, 14 June 2007 edit undoAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers505,060 edits creating AfD three minutes after article creation is shamelessNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| **When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. ] 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | **When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. ] 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least ''tried'' to assert notability? On Misplaced Pages, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. ] 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | ***Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least ''tried'' to assert notability? On Misplaced Pages, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. ] 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ****I did not know that. If you had ever created an article here on Misplaced Pages, You would know that's not the case. This article wasn't prod'ed. You clearly hadn't even read the article and nominated it for deletion three minutes after creation. You could have ''tried'' to wait a few minutes more, but you failed to do so. When you nominate an article you have to be prepared to justify your actions and you have utterly failed to do so. Three minutes is shameless. ] 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:55, 14 June 2007
Clayton Middle/High School
- Clayton Middle/High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
NN middle school/high school, recreated after prod. Morgan Wick 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator seems to be laboring under the misconception that this is a middle school. It is a combined middle AND high school. As the AfD was created within a mere three minutes of the article's creation, without any opportunity provided to expand the article beyond a stub, it would seem that this nomination is in staggeringly bad faith. Alansohn 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't see any notability. Semantic debates and (considering the prod) timing issues have nothing to do with it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article was created and then nominated three minutes later. There's semantics and then there's a display of bad faith. The apparent failure to look at the article, as evidenced by the hasty correction of the nomination, seems to be further evidence of bad faith. Alansohn 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- What sort of "bad faith" could possibly be involved? I didn't even see the earlier version of the article. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article was created and then nominated three minutes later. There's semantics and then there's a display of bad faith. The apparent failure to look at the article, as evidenced by the hasty correction of the nomination, seems to be further evidence of bad faith. Alansohn 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't see any notability. Semantic debates and (considering the prod) timing issues have nothing to do with it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This article obviously fails WP:N as notability is not even asserted, so it should be speedied, and it fails WP:V as none of the asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. Also, could we please try to assume good faith and lay off the bullying and rhetoric? This is a place to discuss content, not other users. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. Alansohn 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. And you knew that. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least tried to assert notability? On Misplaced Pages, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did not know that. If you had ever created an article here on Misplaced Pages, You would know that's not the case. This article wasn't prod'ed. You clearly hadn't even read the article and nominated it for deletion three minutes after creation. You could have tried to wait a few minutes more, but you failed to do so. When you nominate an article you have to be prepared to justify your actions and you have utterly failed to do so. Three minutes is shameless. Alansohn 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. And you knew that. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least tried to assert notability? On Misplaced Pages, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. Alansohn 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)