Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mañil

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. This is a procedural close, not based on consensus or an evaluation of the acceptability of the article. If any other editor believes this article legitimately should be AFD'd, there is no objection to starting a new, legitimate AFD. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mañil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If notable, should be merged into the 1859 uprising article. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not good. See WP:REVENGE. Vrac (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith, and that thing you cited is only an essay and not a guideline. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard to assume good faith after you've already threatened to nominate articles of other users you are in a dispute with [1] and called this article's creator a d**che. [2] Vrac (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith? In only one day User:Diego Grez-Cañete nominated eleven articles of the same user. This is unacceptable. --War ko ^talk 02:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unacceptable to have articles, of dubious relevance, hanging around. Not the other way round. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.