Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination)

Deletionists

@Kingoflettuce, per Special:Diff/1128179969, and relatively few editors do call themselves deletionists, especially in recent years. I'm not sure when I last saw someone call themselves that. In a collaborative project, it's just not helpful to think of ourselves as being on a certain side and in opposition to the "other" side. And comparing people who nominate articles for deletion to sockpuppets is also not helpful.

Let's just talk about edits rather than about editors. Talk about why you think an article conforms to policy rather than saying other editors are deletionists, which implies bad faith. It's not that it's a bad word. It's that it's unhelpful namecalling. Valereee (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Valereee The only reason for that comparison was if a sockpuppet nominated something for deletion, I'm sure (don't have the policy at hand) it'd be procedurally closed, no matter how legitimate the concerns raised were, with no prejudice to a re-nom. I couldn't think of another easy comparison. Nominations like the Acadia one (I can't even keep up with how many there are, the threads are all over the place!!!) are surely the mark of a (fill in appropriate term here). I appreciate the advice and will retire my use of the word. All the same, I think the Acadia-type behaviour (which mirrors much of what has been said and done in the Daily Dozen AfD) needs calling out. As for "staying on topic" and talking about the edits/policy, I have tried my best. Others voting keep have done ever better with their superior grasp of notability guidelines. If that's not enough, so be it, but it's not as if I started off singing the D song and nothing else. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce, it's fine if want to privately believe the nominations are motivated by deletionism rather than by a sincere belief that a subject isn't notable. Making the accusation publicly violates both NPA and AGF. It's fine if want to privately believe nominating for deletion is as harmful to the encyclopedia as sockpuppetry. Making that comparison publicly is not going to impress any admin who comes in here to investigate an ANI for violating NPA/AGF.

Look, let's turn it around to see if it'll make more sense to you: The editors you're accusing of deletionism could just as easily accuse the editors !voting keep of being friends/supporters of the creator who are only here because the creator is well-known and not because they really think the article subject is notable. Would that be a helpful argument to make? How would it make you feel? Would it make you want to defend your motives rather than focus on the article? Is that useful to the discussion?

Discuss the edits, not the editors and whatever you believe their motivations to be. This is necessary at all talk pages, but it's particularly necessary at AfD where tempers are often high and especially where (as we've seen here) the article creator is a prolific and respected editor who is still actively creating. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce I believe you're talking about WP:G5. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I suppose that works. Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore, I withdraw that line of argumentation because Valereee has convinced me that SC was within reason to nominate x amount of AB articles for deletion. But there's still x discussions to be had! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)