Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination)

Does anyone else feel that RAN's use of the this box is disruptive, or at the very least inappropriate? I note that a very similar template was deleted about a year ago. I further note that use of such templates/boxes in not standard practice in deletion discussions, and wonder why RAN feels he can't just leave a regular comment instead. As I said in the template deletion discussion linked above, "There's a big difference between leaving a comment saying something like "I have just done a big update to this article in an attempt to address the concerns expressed in the preceded delete votes" and this template, which is in the passive voice and declares that those concerns have been addressed. One's an opinion expressed as such, the other is an opinion dressed up as a fact." Yilloslime ^T_C 06:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's... silly. But it has no impact on the discussion and most intelligent reviewers will laugh at the attempt. So, while i agree it's the sort of nonesense that shouldn't be allowed, it is of no impact whatsoever. Just ignore the bleating.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone cares, I've started a discussion of this over at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Use_of_template-like_amboxes_in_AfD_discussion. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this relisted to try to actually establish some consensus? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RELIST generally precludes relisting of debates with more than 3 or 4 contributors. If there are many contributors and no clear consensus, it should be closed as no consensus and not relisted. If nothing else, that process avoids massive AfD backlogs. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not entirely true in practice. In this case, though, I feel that sufficient policy- and guideline-based debate on both sides had been put forth without a clear consensus emerging. As I wrote on my talk page: "With a no-consensus, there's nothing preventing rapid reconsideration of the article. In the meantime, I suppose the supporters will have their opportunity to strengthen the article further. If nothing significant happens, that might be telling in itself." If you still feel I was in error, please feel free to take up the matter at WP:DRV. I won't be offended. Shimeru (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]