Help talk:My article got nominated for deletion!

message: This article should be deleted.  Nothing informative here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.167.206 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what you think is best.  I wrote this as a link for the desperate comments that appear on AfD from time to time.  This is an introduction to the process.  GAFD is about the nuts and bolts. Durova 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I strongly disagree with merging. This should be a simple, friendly guide for new editors who are shocked and surprised that 'their' article has been nominated. The guide to deletion should, as Durova says, be about the nuts and bolts. --kingboyk 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Disagree with merging for above reasons. -EdGl 01:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * Do not merge. Instead, make the text even more beginner-friendly. // Habj 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Well, the statement Verifiability is often the issue in the sub-section of How to save an article is slightly inaccurate. Notablility is often the issue here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a paragraph about speedy deletion. Durova 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE:How to save the article 

message: I disagree that this essay should be merged.  As somone whose first introduction to the deletion fora was the trial by fire of having four articles nominated for deletion within hours, let me assure everyone that there is a desperate need for an article like this one.
What is missing from this article is a candid warning that, rather than expecting the wikipedians who comment on their article to be civil and helpful, there is a strong faction within the regular denizens of the deletion fora who are neither civil, or helpful — who use opaque jargon, they won't explain; who won't respond to the replies the reader tried to give to the points they raised; who will justify the positions they took by citing criteria, like POV, which are counter to policy.
I just checked, WP:DEL, which used to contain a table, addressed to  those considering making a nomination for deletion, telling them how to address common problems.  I remember, in particular, that the table explained that a perception that an article was written from a baised POV was not grounds for deletion.  Very important help for those who arrived at the page because an article they started, or were interested in, was nominated for deletion.  I don't know why that table has been removed.  But let me suggest it is an argument against merging this helpful article into the longer official policy.
In my experience there isn't a discussion of any length where one or more of the regular patrollers doesn't violate wp:civ, wp:npa, or at least, wp:bite.  Sadly, some administrators are among the worst rule violators.
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 14:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  keep 

message: The AfD process is very complicated.  I should know; I'm in the process (for the first time) of nominating an article for deletion.  The article I'm nominating is a roughly 4,900 word article that was copied verbatim, in its entirety (text plus photos) from a U.S. government website.
To inform myself about how to proceed to get the article deleted (or possibly transwikied to Wikisource) I've printed out and read some 63 pages of WP: information articles about the process, plus 30 pages of the Wikipedia article on "Plagiarism" (Article=10 pages, Talk=25pages).  The WP: documentation, scattered as it is, has all been very, very helpful to me, particularly with respect on how to inform the author about the deletion process.
Bottom line: I think this article would be perfect as a Wikipedia Help: article.  It's short and concise.  Please don't make matters worse by merging it with the WP: Guide to deletion.  K. Kellogg-Smith 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we should have a brief and more informal guide to the deletion process. Then people can dig deeper from there if they want to. Mathmo Talk 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion appears to have stalled, without a consensus to merge, so I have removed the  tags from the pages. Anyone can feel free to start a new discussion if they wish. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep, but as a HELP: article instead. 

message: Respectively, I have added the information "violates the Wikipedia policy" before "This usually backfires" at Help:My article got nominated for deletion!#A discussion for consensus, not a vote. I also thought that getting other users to vote for a specific consensus would be like treating editing or discussions as battleground. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "A discussion for consensus" section