User talk:Spartaz/Archive9

Hi, sorry if you object to my editing this page, but I think you should take another look at Tung-Wang, because I don't think anyone realizes exactly how bad the "sources" are. People were voting "keep" on notability grounds, which I would agree with, except that this wasn't a real person, it's a recent story floating around the internet. Juzhong (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying this is a hoax or did the bloke really exist? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is a work of fiction, not a hoax exactly. Juzhong (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was on the basis of notability but if you think its a simply not true you are welcome to relist the article at AFD on that basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

consensus?

I should imagine, and would prefer, to see this AfD closed as "no consensus" as opposed to "keep"; there didn't seem to be any consensus for the latter in the discussion. If your interpretation concedes a consensus that I don't see, could you then instead explain such? Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• You nominated the article as unsourced. DGG made the following keep argument "Keep There are multiple sources available for all star treckepisodes, and they've been cited in other articles. since they've all been discussed by RSs, they are every one of them notable". You did not challenge the accuracy of this assertion and, as I'm sure you know, discussions are closed against policy not headcount. There was a clear assertion by a trustworthy well established editor that sources would exist and this was not challenged by the nominator. I can only presume that you accepted the argument that there were sources. Since the nomination was that there were no sources and you accepted there were I can only conclude that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One reason I didn't challenge DGG (talk · contribs) because I made the same argument to 23skidoo (talk · contribs)

True, there are a lot of relable, secondary sources for a lot of Star Trek. Whether there are for this particular episode[, there's been no evidence proffered]: for the last 14 months there has been no effort or interest in this article except for reverting my {{notability}} and {{reliable sources}} tagging (and deftly ignoring that particular page's discussion tab).

Another is because DGG was effectively arguing that despite no providence of evidence, he's absolutely sure "there're pertinent sources out there for this article—I just don't need to provide them or cite them specifically here so others can improve it." I was silent on his point because I assumed the administrative closure would see the same fallacious argument as I did.

Further, Wizardman (talk · contribs) has now removed the {{notability}} tag after the AfD closure, despite it still being obviously applicable. Would you be willing to make the reversion there as the involved administration? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'd rather have my teeth drilled without painkillers then insert myself into this fiction wars. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)