Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (4th nomination)
I asked the closer of the previous AFD to reopen it, after I had closed Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon#RfC:_Page_name.It was clear from that RFC that editors were impeded from discussing the fate of the article by the lack of reliable sources.  However, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (3rd nomination)|3rd AFD had been snow-closed by a non-admin only 16 hours after it opened, despite the lack of sources and despite the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (2nd nomination)|2nd AFD having had much greater participation and led to the article's deletion for lack of sources.This is a perverse situation.  otability|Notability is not an abstract policy.  It reflects the fact that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, and without those sources a topic cannot be covered in accordance with agreed standards for verifiability.  I have no dogs in this race, other than a desire to avoid this perverse situation of editors being unable to manage an article because of a lack of the reliable sources necessary for its existence.I hope that this AFD will be allowed to run its full 7 days, so that editors can assess whether anything significant has changed since the second AFD
— User:BrownHairedGirl, 11:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)