Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ

Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ

Not necessary. The questions that were on here earlier were both 1) not frequently asked, and 2) answered incorrectly. We don't need this FAQ. jps (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete "G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page.Such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page" why should the talk page continue when the underlying page has been deleted? That's why I called for the speedy delete--Wlmg (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The "answered incorrectly" is a content issue -- and removal of all content before proposing for deletion seems contrary to normal procedure. We should determine whether or not to keep a page on the basis of its content before the AfD nom blanks it. AfD is not a good place to settle content issues as a rule. Collect (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now, as the page doesn't appear to have been completed yet. Note that the nominator deleted the page's content before nominating it for deletion. I suggest the nominator read WP:ACTIVIST. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Following each other around much, Cla68 and Collect? jps (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Appropriate for an AfD comment, Joshua? The overlap between the two editors is de minimis. 8 articles and one essay, for example. And I do not see how such a massive overlap has anything at all to do with this article one whit. Closing admin please note. Collect (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • You two have been active in very similar areas as of recent, including an activist-amount of interest in WP:ACTIVIST on your part, an essay Cla68 penned. Neither of you comments that often at MfD in the past. Let me opine: you were pissed off by me and looked through my contributions finding this MfD. Cla68 simply followed suit. Closing admin please note, indeed. jps (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Eh? Try looking at my over 500 edits at MfD for a start. That is not very often? I am one of the most active editors there! I fear you are looking for reasons to dismiss genuine arguments to Keep at this point. Collect (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
          • A might touchy are we? This shows that, until I pointed out your particular interest in this MfD that your activity over the last few weeks was not that of a "Mfd-regular". Anyhow, it's good to see you comment at others. Keep your whistle whet! Cheers! jps (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
            • My last 500 edits in WP space show nearly one hundred separate XfD discussions I have participated in. Somewhere over 30 per month. I count that as being an "MfD regular" but if anyone here other than you opines that I am not a regular, I would love to hear from them! Collect (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Whatever. The pattern is clear. Over the last three weeks, you've only commented on a few MfDs that seem to be centered around very particular issues. Your new forays are to be commended. jps (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                • IOW taking off under two weeks from the day after Christmas is evidence that I am somehow conspirng with Cla68 with whom I have less overlap than with you? Or that I am not a regular here? That I skipped fewer than 20 MfD discussions from December 26 to January 8 -- a period when some of us actually have family to talk to? Sheesh -- the pile gets bigger and bigger. Collect (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • • You can try to twist what I'm pointing out to any designs you care, but it's pretty clear that there are a few MfDs you've taken a particular interest in. Being shrill cannot fix your contribution history. It's a pretty funny lark that you claim you took off from commenting on MfDs for the holidays. Not plausible considering you were editing Wikipedia otherwise. La-de-da. jps (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)