Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hartnett House

{{cquote|**User:Unscintillating, there is no need to be like that. I've given clear and detailed reasons for my nomination, including details of edits I have made to the article in order to try to improve it / establish notability. Can you please comment on the article and its notability, not the editor. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Are you accusing me of commenting on other users?  Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Unscintillating, of course you are. You offered no reason for a Keep, much less a Speedy Keep, except to question the good faith of the nominator. You made exactly this same comment at ten AfDs in a row, but it is not helpful to the discussion. If you have a valid reason for keeping this article, please give it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)}}

Editors are advised with each edit to an AfD Project page, "...commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating, what happened to your earlier practice of referring all the censored, uh, I mean "refactored" comments to the talk page of a single article? Easier to keep them unchallenged if you put them all on separate pages? Anyhow, it looks like you forgot to strike out the erroneous "speedy keep" !vote on this page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• As for the refactoring here, there is material here that does not exist on the other page.  Your commitment to quality of workmanship at AfD IMO has dropped greatly recently.  As for your !vote, why did you not support me in objecting to a disruptive nomination as per WP:SK#2?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::Because it was not a disruptive nomination. (I had to go back and take out the capital letters, because my first impulse was to shout it. And why are you still citing SK#2 when you have been shown, chapter and verse, that it does not apply? Do I need to quote it again?) You have never offered any evidence for your claim that the nominations were disruptive. All you said was "deletion spree", apparently referring to the fact that the nominator offered several nominations on the same day which is perfectly allowable practice, and a comment on what you assumed to be the motivation of the nominator. That is the very definition of "commenting on other users", which you complained about when the nominator and I pointed out that you were doing it. The truth is that each of these nominations was individualized and showed evidence of BEFORE; there was nothing disruptive about them. So what I did - what YOU should have done - was to evaluate the subject's suitability for inclusion (in those cases where I felt the subject fell within my areas of competence) and base my !vote on that evaluation. Rather than inventing criteria for "speedy deletion" and censoring anyone who objected to them. {{ping|Unscintillating}} --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} So even though I have proven that I was not commenting on an editor, and you had me repeat it, and I thought we were past that point; you've now discounted this proof and returned to your unsubstantiated opinion, which puts us back to the red herring argument that WP:SK#2 is somehow not allowed at AfD.  As for your reading of WP:SK and WP:Deletion process, please proof your own work.  You might be interested to look in the edit history of WP:SK, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Speedy_keep&diff=prev&oldid=455809364 here], where you will see that I tried to change the word "nominator" to "the nomination", but this change was rejected.  The point is that using the word "nominator" does not by itself constitute a comment on an editor.  The other point is that I didn't start reading WP:SK yesterday.  While I am aware of flaws in my SK in this AfD, from the perspective of your objections, there is nothing wrong with my SK.  Not only do you know you are misreading my intent, you should know you are misreading the objective meaning of the words.  Do you deny that you were following me around?  What is your agenda?  How are you improving the quality of AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Unscintillating}} Sigh. I'll reply one more time. Not for your benefit, because I am familiar with your discussion style such as

• ignoring simple, factual questions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Instituto_Serrano_de_Conserva%C3%A7%C3%A3o_da_Natureza&diff=prev&oldid=623529292] ,
• claiming something has been "proven" simply because you said so (as above "I have proven that I was not commenting on an editor") ,
• attributing things to other people that they never said (as above "the red herring argument that WP:SK#2 is somehow not allowed at AfD"),
• accusing others of things that actually apply to you ("...commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive." "It is good that you are coming up to speed on the SK guideline"),
• and attempting to change the subject [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Hindi_Pa_Tapos_Ang_Labada_Darling&diff=623538189&oldid=623532473],

but for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this.

For reference: Your comment, spammed across 10 or more nominations - the comment that touched off all this - said "Speedy keep  Deletion spree.  Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice."

For reference: SK2, your justification for a !vote of "speedy keep", says "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it."

My response, Point 1, You said "Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice". That was a claim about the motivation of the nominator. That is commenting on another editor rather than the validity of the nomination. (Use of the word "nomination" rather than "nominator" is irrelevant. The nomination is an inanimate object with no mind of its own. Only the nominator can "seek" to do something through the nomination.)

Point 2, SK2 says "bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination". That directly and explicitly invalidates your claim that SK2 applies in this case.

Point 3, the fact that you tried unsuccessfully to change the wording of SK1 (not SK2) three years ago has nothing to do with anything. To repeat my earlier suggestion: You might find it pays to read a guideline before you cite it. It can save you from embarrassing errors necessitating strikeouts and backtracks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Did you proof your work on reading WP:SK like I asked?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::Would you please clarify which of my various comments you are talking about, or what you think it is that needs proofing (by which I assume you mean proofreading)? --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::*So your answer is "no", which does not surprise me, since the post I replied to repeats the same parenthetical material taken out of context as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Hindi_Pa_Tapos_Ang_Labada_Darling&diff=623523048&oldid=623518595 diff].  Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::::For anyone attempting to follow this sorry excuse for a discussion: in addition to refusing (in the above non-responsive "answer") to clarify what he was asking me to do, Unscintillating replied here about the question he never answered and the "proofing" he wanted me to do. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|MelanieN}} I gave you two specific diffs (one literally and one by reference) and identified that they each had parenthetical text from WP:SK#2, and stated my opinion that they were taken out of context.  And this is "non-responsive"?  You have misled readers by linking to a conversation about WP:Deletion process#Procedural closure, when the discussion here is about WP:SK#2.  I'm having a hard time getting my mind around the idea that I need to explain to you how to find parenthetical text.  Do you want me to quote specific text with bold?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::So is that what you have been "hinting" at all this time? That the text I was quoting was parenthetical? I think it is fully in context, but fine, let's just go with the non-parenthetical text. That leaves us with the guideline for SK2, that it is for nominations which are "unquestionably vandalism or disruption," as I explained below. Do you believe that wording applies to these ten nominations - that they are "unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? Please answer below. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|MelanieN}} You say, "I think it is fully in context".  I'm sure I don't understand the problem.  WP:SK#2 states (bolding added), "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it."  The parenthetical material amplifies the phrase "nobody unrelated recommends deleting it".  Associations outside the scope of subsequent delete !votes are out of context.  Do you agree?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::I have already said: OK, if you object to that phrase, let's drop it and just talk about the non-parenthetical portion of the guideline. So I don't understand why you are still trying to argue about the parenthetical phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::First of all, I dispute that that is the sequence of events.  Second, you've ignored a hint, a polite suggestion to proof your work, a polite direct request to proof your work, a question if you had proofed your work as requested, and above a detailed explanation of how you could find the problem.  And now that I've put the text in bold with an analysis to effect communication, suddenly I see a complaint that you don't know why I'm pressing the issue, and you've used that as a reason to avoid answering the question, "Do you agree?".  I'm not saying that you have to answer the question, but I hope you will consider that not all of these steps were needed.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

::*{{ping|MelanieN}} Another of your points above is that you deny that you are making red herring arguments against WP:SK#2, such as would apply to all WP:SK#2.  Instead of taking this point to closure, I propose that you propose how I can reword my !vote so that it meets WP:SK#2.  That way we can get back to working on the problem of improving the quality of AfD in general.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Unscintillating}}, there is no way you can reword your !vote to meet WP:SK#2, because the discussion does NOT meet SK2. SK2 is for a nomination which was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption" - but this one wasn't. The series of nominations you spammed with this "speedy keep" !vote were in fact legitimate, individually described nominations showing evidence that BEFORE had been followed. You would not find a single other Wikipedian to agree that these nominations were "unquestionably vandalism or disruption". And without that, there is no justification for SK2 to be applied to this article. No matter how you word it. Or to give you a direct answer to your question: you could have worded it "this nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption," in order to attempt to make it meet SK2 - but that argument would have quickly been shown to be false and unsupportable, and could have WP:Boomeranged against you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|MelanieN}} This would go more easily if you dropped the accusatory language and the escalatory words.  Do you think you can tone it down?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Unscintillating}} As per above: so is it your opinion that these ten nominations were "unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? A simple question, can be answered yes or no. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::In several edit comments I have stated "disruptive nomination, WP:SK#2".  This is not ten nominations, this is forty documented nominations on two days of AfD transclusions.  The day with 30 nominations was on a page with 127 nominations=23.6%.  Extending those numbers out to seven days yields 20*7 = 140 potential concurrent AfD nominations, of which I've only responded to those on one day.  How do we get to focusing on improving the quality of AfD nominations?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Unscintillating}} Well, if you believe it is "disruptive" to make a large number of otherwise well-formed nominations, you are free to seek consensus for that opinion. Maybe at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep.
And if you believe that recent nominations, or specifically the recent nominations from User:Boleyn, were of poor quality, I disagree - but anyhow that was not the basis for your comment, and you never pointed out any actual fault with the nominations.
To me the best way to "improve the quality of AfD nominations" would be to take them seriously and evaluate them on an individual basis. Throwing around blanket and poorly supported "speedy keep" !votes is not going to do anything to improve the process IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::We've already gone over one of these points.  If you think my !votes would fall of their own weight, what motivated you spam them?  Do you have an objective basis for claiming that these are "well-formed nominations"?  Observing that these nominations did not follow WP:BEFORE is an objective criteria.  WP:BEFORE has consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Agreed, BEFORE has consensus and is an objective criterion. So please note that the nominator of this article did follow BEFORE, as the nom statement clearly indicates. So, yes, there is objective evidence of a well formed nomination.
On the other hand, you have not provided any evidence that the nominator missed any significant coverage, of the type that should be caught if BEFORE is followed - here or in her other articles. In fact, you have not yet provided a shred of evidence that any of these articles deserves (on its own merits) to be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

{{Ping|MelanieN}} Ok, the article here is Hartnett House.  Let's skip over WP:BEFORE A1, A2, and A3, and start with B1.  How does this article fail the criteria for PROD?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:I note that the article was nominated for speedy, six years ago, 3 minutes after it was created! (I hate that), and the speedy was removed by someone who added sourcing. Since then, six years, it's had only routine edits. I don't know why the nominator chose AfD rather than PROD, and I don't care. Maybe because the article had been here for six years, and they wanted to err on the side of caution. That was a judgment call, not my call or yours, and I don't intend to get into it. To me the most important part of BEFORE is D, the search for sources, which clearly was followed. Choosing to go straight to AfD, rather than trying PROD first, certainly doesn't come close to being "unquestionably vandalism or disruption". So I guess we are done here too. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

::If we are done here that means that it has been confirmed that WP:BEFORE was not followed for this nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)