So what, it is a fact that you propsed the article for deletion after only eight (8) minutes. If you don't like objections against quick nominations, you better wait. That you like to destroy articles is your game, but not mine. For a deletionist you have awfull long toes. Night of the Big Windtalk23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look. I understand your point about a lot of my articles being "collections of google hits" etc... but how does that make them unencyclopedic? It seems like a very good way to start an article IMO. First of all you get the info, just so there is something in the article, then afterwards you fish through the already found info and link up the info on similar topics and make paragraphs out of that. I think the problem is that you equating "collections of google hits" with unencyclopedic material is wrong. These articles are good. Obviously they are not perfect but besides maybe a couple which actually were uncyclopedic or obsolete, the rest give good info, even though the info may only be a few sentences long. The fact the the info is in discrete sentences, each gotten from a different source shouldnt make a difference at all. If you really do have a problem with these few articles which have been tagged recently, just take them to AfD. See what they say. Obviously my vote isn't going to have any weight on your decision so see what the wider community say. I may be wrong, who knows, but from my perspective, I have been majorly short-changed for trying to do some good to this community.--Coin945 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
