Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5-4 is a consensus? ~ UBeR 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a vote. The last keep was by an recently registered user. One other "keeps" failed to back up their claims so would (I guess) be somewhat discounted; another was based on broken googling William M. Connolley 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think they backed up their claims more so than the deletionist. The Google bit was done incorrectly, but even done correctly it yields 198,000 results (quite a bit more than another entry that Wikipedia deems notable). The article was properly sourced, so... ~ UBeR 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue about me. But clearly Ronnotel *didn't* back up his claims, even when asked to William M. Connolley 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- A quick Google search fixes that though. ~ UBeR 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly the closing admin was unable to predict your future posts; and Ronnotel obviously didn't think so either William M. Connolley 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly. ~ UBeR 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly the closing admin was unable to predict your future posts; and Ronnotel obviously didn't think so either William M. Connolley 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- A quick Google search fixes that though. ~ UBeR 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue about me. But clearly Ronnotel *didn't* back up his claims, even when asked to William M. Connolley 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think they backed up their claims more so than the deletionist. The Google bit was done incorrectly, but even done correctly it yields 198,000 results (quite a bit more than another entry that Wikipedia deems notable). The article was properly sourced, so... ~ UBeR 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
