"no serious reason offered for nominating this article for deletion" said the closing admin and yet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluesnarfing (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City car were allowed to continue despite the nominator failing to provide a reason. either those afds were decided wrongly and bluesnarfing should be undeleted or this the closure of the Habari afd was wrongly decided and the closing admin should be disciplined. either way at least one afd was decided wrongly Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The failure advance a reason for deletion in a nomination is a ground for a speedy keep. It doesn't matter what did or didn't happen in other AfDs; this close was proper. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To cite a specific other AFD is usually not helpful as per WP:WAX (but see the exceptions noted there); however to cite a consistent pattern of decisions in other AfDs is to suggest an effective consensus on an outcome, much like the effective consensus on the notability of secondary schools and inhabited towns and villages. In any case this is somewhat aside from the point of this DRV discussion. DES(talk) 02:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In the other AfDs referenced, a procedural nom was made and someone promptly presented real, seriously intended reasons for deletion. That didn't happen here, as for WP:WAX a single AfD or existing article does not control another. However when there is a consistent pattern of actions, that may demonstrate general consensus. DES(talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so you are asking for the review of the third nomination from a year ago, not the fourth nom which you raised a few minutes after that one was closed? I don't know what you mean by bluesnarfing should be undeleted, since that discussion resulted in a keep outcome anyway... This all seems rather pointed --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- No reason was offered by the nominator or by anyone else. If it bugs you that much not to be able to open an AFD, please feel free to sign up for an account, so you'll be able to open one yourself. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, the OP here was Misterdiscreet, who evidently has an account, but seems unhappy about some other recent AfD results, if I understand correctly. DES(talk) 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. *facepalm* You're right. Consider that comment directed to the IP address who wanted to open the AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no valid reason for deletion advanced; if there's a real reason for deletion, please renominate it quoting that reason. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
