Talk:René Magritte

Seems to be off mission, as well as a dead-end page. Anyone have any ideas? Researcher (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to accelerate the afterlife for kill it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tom Stoppard play's fun though (After Magritte), but this needs killin' ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not much point being here. Doesn't do the site any good, and doesn't give much useful information to do a reader any good either. --Kels (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

Nope, none of the above. Are there any cranks out there that use M. Magritte as a backup? A stretch, but that's the only possible justification I can come up with on a moment's notice. Seems to be WP material. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not defending this particular article but I think 1 hour is hardly sufficient time from nomination to deletion. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bold action forestalls endless discussion. Appropriate discussion may prevent hasty action. In a wiki, we can have it both ways, since deleted articles can be restored. Can't they? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun, but there seemed to be quite the consensus building up. Anyone have a reason for me to undo the deletion? Researcher (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No reason at all, but there's not been long for folks to see it. Leave it now. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just from reading the above discussion, I can tell it wasn't worth keeping, whatever it was. (Then again, the talk page for Bob Dylan would make you think it was totally worth keeping.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's back

but don't count on it staying for long Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

and my sums are falling apart. 21 less 10 is not three weeks, as proclaimed in the restoration comment. -- SJC

Delete. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to examine what passes for consensus on this website

A handful of comments over the course of 2.5 hours passes as adequate consensus to delete an article. But of course there are barely any rules on this website in the first place. You admin types should have a close look at how poorly things sometimes work out here. Article deleted. Article undeleted. MC blocked. MC unblocked. MC vandal binned. MC unbinned. Pick a course of action and stick to it. Better yet, make up some good rules that require the outcomes you want! Wow! Jerry 18:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Until you puke

That would imply that we want things to run in a smooth, logical, non-random way. Researcher (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @J: May your lack of understanding pass quickly. A week and a half ago, the {{delete}} tag made a brief appearance on this page, so it's been on at least a few screens for more than a few hours before being summarily (and quite properly, IMO) deleted as totally off-mission, quite plain to see. I think I can tell the difference between consensus and design by committee when I see it... Over on the mother of all wikis, "consensus" can mean the whole mob agrees, or two individuals (that care) agree, or something in between. I just restored it so you could have a peek before I delete it again in a few hours, unless someone beats me to it, or compelling reasons to keep appear, and soon. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue was debated ad nauseum last time we overhauled the Community Standards, with some editors wanting us to use a fixed process like getting a majority of at least three editors before making any decision. In practice this would tie us down to a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy when doing routine thiongs like deleting unnecessary articles (which can easily be resurrected if the need arises). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Did somebody say ad nauseam? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I hear that, I feel like I'm supposed to get nauseous when exposed to ads. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You guys could at least wait for the major contributor to turn up to [ahem] try to defend the article before euthanizing it. I'd recommend a 24-36 hour delay from delete-templating to action. That at least allows our more active editors around the globe to chime in. Murdering an article while its writer is asleep just seems a tad wrong. ħuman 02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, H. That's why I put this on the {{delete}} talk page. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

aah, H? Weren't you the one that took off the previous {{delete}} tag earlier this month? Golden opportunity for a preemptive defensive edit to the talk page at that time, although you're both right, more time for comment is appropriate in general.

If there was a witticism concealed on this page, call me thick, but I missed it. I even saw your homage to Joaquín Martínez in an edit comment. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)