Queries erased arguments do not work well I mean for cases like this. The point is that we have a series of arguments and, finally, a librarian must make the leap and decide “who has won.” The problem is that this jump is impossible to give: We are defenders of the relevance and irrelevance defenders. No argument is ostensibly better than another and, although one librarian has finally decided to delete it, another in his place might have decided to keep it. The truth, I prefer the old system of voting. It is more objective. Filipo (Talk) 08:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I think it’s time to sink my teeth into this. I know it’s a very delicate matter, but at this stage, with several years of filming, I understand that this can not be free to continue using ethical criteria to decide what is encyclopedic and what not.The question, in my opinion, maybe I should go through a more demanding when it comes to meeting the Verifiability policy, surely the foundation of everything we have here. Thus, failure to comply with this policy (which would happen by specifying this project) could be the decisive criterion for deleting items. I repeat that this is complicated, but now that Philip opened this thread has given me thinking about it, because obviously the conclusion he has come into the present system is quite obvious deletion. – Camima (Talk) 09:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC) “Totally agree with Phillip. Mejor voting. Save time and user conflicts, as in cases where there is no agreement, it is difficult to assess whether our arguments are better than our opponents, that this procedure we face.Not only regards the relevance-as well noted Camima-if not the entire process of participation here, that should be addressed once and limit what, who, how and how many there are both smudge-professional-queries can be erased open, and make it clear that the proponents who would remain the responsibility to demonstrate the burden of proof, it is they who should argue individually and not automatically with the insertion of templates, because this project is hindered if remains what they intend to delete. Now there’s a real abuse that touches demonstrate procedural innocence certainly is sometimes destroy a solid foundation for building good, but it was always better and harder, as you know the architects, adding that remove, that’s why there is always time.Whenever I have clearer than what users are valuable here-far more than articles, and that we limit the opportunities for conflict between us will help us continue to grow that consultations must use delete with caution, that the free is large and there is room enough for everyone … and we have much time left to do better. Urdangaray (Talk) 11:51 8 August 2008 (UTC) It seems totally illogical to delete that character, and it seems to me a contempt for people who waste their time voting and arguing, when then will be a unilateral decision single person. And it is not like ls comparisons, but that has more relevance Wartortle, to name only one of the more than 200 pokemon! is in Wikipedia, a person of flesh and blood known for the vast majority of a country, it is almost insulting.Pacoperez (Talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC) The problem is not erased queries by argument, but the criteria of relevance, such as Camima points. Think of the kind of free we want. Certainly it is an affront to clear comparative Pochol n when full of Pokemon, which are a few simple drawings. Go ahead I do not think any of the two cases have any relevance encyclopedic. But not only are the characters in the show business that are irrelevant, nor pokemons: these are the wrestlers Wrestling, porn actresses, actors dubbing the unknown bands, local businesses, minority sports … Right now I’m arguing with a user who wants to hang an article about a darts club. One of the pointers in Spain, appears to be well known. Why darts club is not relevant and a third-team football if If there is clear relevance criteria would not have to be constantly discussing these points, the problem is that there is not.The latest macro-half and it was subsequently not developing a clear policy on which to draw. Over there is where I think they should start without haste, lest we miss out on any course, a survey looking at not the criteria of relevance, but the assumptions on which they should vote, trying to be as comprehensive as possible and, once achieved, apply to the letter.