Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towel-Headed Man (2nd nomination)

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 was Closed because the previous AfD was closed yesterday. Open a merge discussion, and if that is fruitless pursue a new AfD then. ^Avruchtalk 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towel-Headed Man

Towel-Headed Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's a little unusual to nominate an article agian so soon after the first AFD closes, but based on the closing admin's comments I think it's reasonable. The first AFD closed as no consensus, with the admin finding it close between the choices of deleting or merging to another article. With that in mind, let's try to determine with more clarity whether the article should be deleted or merged, and if merged to what target. I still believe that the article should be deleted for failing WP:NOT#PLOT but have no objection should a merge target emerge as a preference. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Close procedural vote, as we just discussed this. And you nominated it last time. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um yeah, I think I explained why I nominated it again. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• A merge doesn't require an AfD. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. However, in the wake of an AFD where opinion is split between deleting outright and merging with multiple articles suggested as targets, a merge is controversial. Do you think, if I merged and redirected the article to any other article, that it wouldn't draw objections? Otto4711 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close. If there was no consensus yesterday to delete, there won't be any today. Discussing the target of a merger is a discussion that does not require an AfD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• As noted, the last discussion closed with the discussion split between delete and merge. The closing admin should really have relisted it for further discussion. As also noted, the second nomination was not made with the goal of consolidating opinion behind any particular option. Rather than being a bureaucrat, maybe you could address the issues of the nomination? Just a thought. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Here is the issue that matters in the nomination. The previous discussion closed yesterday with no consensus to delete. Since deletion is no longer an option, this being a deletion discussion, it should be closed immediately. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion is no longer an option? Bullshit. A no consensus close does not remove any option from the table. I can't you seem more interested in being a bureaucrat than in discussing the actual issues. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your rationale for renomination should be taken to WP:DRV, not here. What makes you think a no consensus decision can be tipped one way or the other so quickly? Furthermore, if this nomination results in a speedy keep-too quick, then chances are that all subsequent nominations will be quicly closed as being done in bad faith with complete disregard for the nominator's rationale. I strongly urge you to withdraw the nomination and wait at least two weeks before renominating. That is, no matter what your rationale for renomination is. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural speedy keep I mean really, this nomination is clearly an, "I didn't like yesterday's results". If you want to dispute the outcome, take it to WP:DRV instead or waited a couple of weeks before being renominated. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh for the love of god...is there really something so terrible about continuing a discussion that closed inconclusively? Do we really need to go through a week-long DRV regarding this? Is it really more important to be a policy wonk? Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it really that important to delete this article as quickly as possible, procedure and common sense be damned? --Farix (Talk) 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, here's a thought: read the actual nomination. The goal here is to come to a decision based on a discussion of the issues, which as I understand AFD is the goal of every nomination. Demanding that the nomination be closed because your sense of process is offended doesn't accomplish that goal. Otto4711 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the renomination that indicates that this AfD needs to be redone so soon after the first. --Farix (Talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Close I see the point about why to renominate so quickly (so I'm not going to give anyone a hard time about it) - but since the previous nom closed, it gives any concerned editors an opportunity to really bring up the quality before nailed with another deletion nom. Let's give them that opportunity. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (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.