User talk:Svartner

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 2.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojsej Ignjatović

I think you need a rationale better than No support for deletion there because that's not a parameter of WP:XFD#CON or WP:CONS. You need to judge the reasons for deletion or keeping, not the amount of !votes in support or against it. --Joy (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'd also ping @Doczilla and @EmilyR34 who had previously tagged the discussion for relisting. Do you all think that we have now developed a consensus to keep in that discussion? --Joy (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments presented per Kelob2678 and Sadko were consistent. A third relist would not be appropriate. Svartner (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consistently good or consistently bad? :D --Joy (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit: the process of reaching consensus requires that we apply the relevant policies and guidelines fairly, not that we compromise with people who do not seem to really understand the same policies and guidelines.

In that discussion, we did not see any new sources presented that provided evidence of significant coverage. In the three weeks of AfD being open, these folks managed to scrounge a couple of plausible biographies, but most of them were largely trivial, so we were discussing literally two or three paragraphs of source material, most of which had glaring errors and/or inconsistencies.

Just because a lot of text was produced in the AfD that doesn't mean it had any meaning with regard to our standards. --Joy (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting discussions: For several reasons, "repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice." (Italics and boldface appear there, not added here for emphasis.) Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)'[reply]

Yes, I wasn't arguing that it should have been relisted some more, I was saying it should have been resolved according to the policy. --Joy (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, there was consensus to keep despite how the sheer amount of discussion text visually buried the keep !votes.

Regarding how you dominated discussion and kept arguing this one, please see WP:BLUDGEON. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate casual accusations of disruption. You need to distinguish between arguing for policy compliance and bludgeoning. I wasn't repeating any arguments, I was carefully explaining how each of the different points raised by the keep !votes were not good enough for our standards. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal player RMs

If you are going to mass nominate, please can you at least add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves? Giant Snowman 19:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the tag to the articles, is there anything else that needs to be done? Svartner (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add the tag and list there, that's it - it's the best way IMHO of ensuring publicity and discussion. Giant Snowman 22:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to reach a consensus on Runit Debbarma

Hi, I have been adding maintenance tags to this article Runit Debbarma earlier, which were removed by the author of the article without any appropriate changes/addition. Despite of proposed deletion, these tags were once again removed by the author of the article without any explanation. Currently, the article is an AFD-related discussion, but these tags were removed too, despite several warnings to the author. If you can give it a quick look at it, we probably can come to a consensus. Thank you for your time. Khorang 08:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronika Klechová

Hi - just a little heads up. Nothing major, but I reclosed this AfD - when a nominator withdraws an AfD and there are no other opinions supporting delete, it is classified as a speedy keep, not a withdrawal. You can see detailed information about speedy keeps here: Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]