Hi Postdlf, did you intentionally keep the bundled article, High-level design? Or did you not notice it? Only one of the respondents addressed that second article, so maybe it's worth nominating it on its own to get more feedback. Sancho23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that was overlooked, sorry. It's a risk with the later-added articles whenever they are not formatted the same as the initial nomination; I'll have to watch for that better. I agree that there's no clear consensus to delete that second article. Two options: 1) I could reopen the AFD and relist it; or 2) I could note in my close that there is no consensus regarding the second article and explicitly suggest a second separate AFD for it. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who wrote the article, didn't start it but did write it, didn't know it was nominated for deletion because I've been away (just got back today actually). Can I get a copy of the source text? Like, the whole thing? I would've saved a copy of it if I had known it was nominated for deletion. I need it for my own personal archive. Thanks in advance.--Krystaleen07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly the same thing happened to me with my article - highest football grounds in England. It's a useful resource, a popular pub trivia question, and I know I've actually met people who have used the page! It got deleted over a weekend, so if I don't check Wikipedia over 2 days over a weekend, a whole article gets deleted? I don't know what classifies as original research these days, but surely using publicly available data and maps isn't original research? It's a collation of existing material. Gavinio (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
But the problem is it's existing material put to a purpose that is not reflected by reliable sources. The AFD discussion was unanimous while it was open in determining that football stadiums are not categorized or analyzed by their altitude even if you can find verify any individual stadium's altitude. Calling it "pub trivia" is actually an telling characterization, because that's a common label thrown out in fact by editors who think something should be deleted, if the article doesn't amount to more than pub trivia (and I say this as someone who is quite fond of pub trivia) because Wikipedia is not the place for that, as it's too far away from what an encyclopedia is.
I did close the discussion early because I saw no chance of further discussion changing that consensus. If you can show me that there is a valid argument to make for the list being kept that is supported by relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:LISTN, WP:LISTPURP, WP:GNG, WP:NOT, etc.), I'll consider reopening and relisting it, or at least direct you to how to otherwise have that discussion reviewed.
I know it can be frustrating when something you worked on and used gets deleted, but that's inevitable because of the standards we try to maintain. It's more likely to happen when you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia simply because you are new and it takes time to learn all the various acronyms people throw out and how they are put into practice. Are you aware of Wikiprojects? They are collaborations between editors on certain subjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and they are a good place for raising ideas for new articles or for seeing what articles need some help from willing editors. postdlf (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out; the closing script I use didn't catch that because the page had been moved since the nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
