Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car insurance in Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Stubbleboy 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car insurance in Ireland

Previously nom here. This article, besides being an unencyclopedic topic, appears to be an original interpretation of an uncited report, delete--Peta 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is a serious rewrite and source addition. Arbusto 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While it is "soon" after the last afd, I'd hate to see a NN article seek through just because someone renominated it too "quickly." Arbusto 03:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete there are no sources for this jibberish. Stubbleboy 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: In light of realizing this was just nominated for AFD a week ago, I am withdrawling my consensus from this AFD. AFD is not for Wikipedia:Cleanup. --Stubbleboy 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Re-opening this discussion a mere 7 days after the prior discussion was closed, with at least two editors saying that the article should be marked for the attention of and cleanup by Irish Wikipedians, given the existence of quite a few sources on the subject, is an abuse of AFD. AFD is not cleanup. This renomination is effectively a demand by the nominator that cleanup progress at the rapid pace that xe sets. One doesn't get to demand that volunteer editors work to a pace that one sets. A better use of xyr time would have been to take the sources cited in the prior AFD discussion and, using them, improve the article xyrself. This warrants one of my very few Speedy keeps. Uncle G 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep Only a week has past since last nom . Not enough time to improve the articial (Gnevin 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

• There is no policy (that I can find) on time limits between nominations. The fact is this is a rubbish, unencyclopedic article that nobody is going to fix.--Peta

Reply: WP:POINT comes to mind (yes, it's a guideline, not a policy). Anyway, if you feel the previous AFD was wrong, you could (an should) go to WP:DRV, not just restart one. Restarting a correct AfD on such short notice is a disruption of the AfD process. I have regularly initiated AfD's that are at the end kept to my astonishment, and I wouldn't dream of renominating them without waiting at least six months (probably a year), unless something has changed considerably in the meantime (like, a new policy of guideline on notability gets accepted). Oh, and keep because of recent AFD decision. Fram 14:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. What is the hurry here Peta? Is there a fire or some other impending disaster? Allow one month or six months for improvement but one week is not reasonable at all. If no improvements are made then renominate it later BUT NOT NOW. ww2censor 16:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - it's just been through nom. What's the problem? Besides, its passes WP:NOT- Alison^✍ 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - If you didn't like the original Keep, take it to deletion review. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, too soon after first nomination, WP:POINT. Use WP:DRV to question closed XfDs. WP:AFD is not a cleanup center. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - in the last vote I said it needed work. There has not been time yet in my view Nigel ^(Talk) 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.