- Plowback retained earnings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the closing administrator interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The way I see it, the consensus was to delete the redirect as created for no valid reason, see the relevant editing guideline, and in violation of the WP:POVNAME policy. I attempted to discuss the matter with the editor who closed the discussion.[1] S/he hinted that Plowback retained earnings is one of the "redirects that shouldn't've been created, but should also not be deleted once created" thus convincing me the decision to close as "no consensus" was made in disregard of the policy- and guideline-based arguments presented during the discussion. I'd like to request that the closure be reviewed. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale is inconsistent with the established practice as it's based largely on your personal opinions ("RfD zen," "I saw no evidence of harm") rather than on what was said during the deletion discussion. Allow me to remind you that "[t]he closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument." You should've stated your opinion during the discussion rather than use it as the unspoken closing rationale—I say "unspoken" because your closing statement contained no explanation of why you (mis)interpreted the consensus the way you did. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Whether or not we have this redirect is unimportant. The closer could have closed the discussion pretty much any way and would have been within my view of discretion. However, another relisting would not have been a very good idea. Thincat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, closing discussions in disregard of policy-based arguments is perfectly fine as long as the discussion subject is "unimportant?" Endorsing a closure solely because of its perceived low impact defies the purpose of deletion review which is to evaluate the closer's interpretation of the consensus. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm that you have used other words. Thincat (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - no real policy arguments for deletion other than that it's implausible, but the discussion was undecided about how plausible it is. Whether it's plausible is for the community to decide, not the closing admin, and they rightly deferred to the lack of consensus on that point. WilyD 12:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Four editors participated in the discussion; three out of the four participants expressed the opinion that the redirect isn't useful. The one editor that disagreed failed to substantiate his claim of the redirect's usefulness when his opinion was challenged, and thus his comment should've been discarded by the closing administrator as
unhelpful unhelpful. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, the IP is just one of the participants who failed to log in. The editors who claimed it was useless equally failed to justify their opinion after the assertion that it's implausible was challenged; if you're going to disgard all the opinions on usefullness, you're left with essentially no information at all. Possibly, in a strict by the policies interpretation, you could use the absence of any argument for deletion to close as keep there, but it seems unnecessary. WilyD 10:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your presumption that the IP "is just one of the participants who failed to log in" is incorrect; one look at the IP's list of contributions should suffice to determine that. If you believe otherwise, why not ping the editors who participated in the discussion and ask them instead of speculating? As for the assertion of the redirect's implausibility, you may want to take another look at the discussion; the assertion was amply justified—the redirect's length was determined to be excessive, and there was an agreement that the redirect violates WP:POVNAME as it "consists of two legitimate names of the target put together for no apparent purpose." In addition, no justification for the redirect's existence was found on our list of reasons for creating and maintaining redirects. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- POVNAME is about article naming, and thus wholly inapplicable. POFRED are examples, and not an exclusive list. Beyond that, "was determined" is not a synonym for something you personally thought, but was not widely agreed upon. Again, leaving very to appeal to, beyond the subjective impressions of those involved. WilyD 11:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POVNAME states that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and as such it very much does apply. I believe this very part of the policy was quoted during the discussion; I would recommend taking another look. WP:POFRED is a list of examples extensive enough that if a redirect's existence cannot be justified using any of the reasons listed there, it's a strong indicator the redirect isn't useful. The discussion was open for two months and none of the arguments presented by those in favor of deletion were described as irrelevant/inapplicable/invalid either by the editor in favor of keeping the redirect or by the closing administrator; thus, for the purpose of this review, they are to be considered valid as "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express [one's] opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." To interpret a debate is to analyze the power of arguments used by each of the sides in light of how the opposing side addressed them. When determining the outcome of a debate, one's personal opinion on what constitutes the desired outcome shouldn't come into play. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two of the above endorsements come from involved editors; WilyD is the creator of the redirect, which he omitted to mention; BDD was the closing administrator, which he did mention. Thincat's endorsement appears to be based on his/her opinion that the issue isn't worth discussing due to its supposed lack of importance. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion about whether the redirect should be kept or deleted (hence I didn't participate in the RfD). Yes, I turned down an invalid A10 request, but I don't care about how XFDs turn out after declining invalid speedies (except as a bit of a check on my judgement of when to decline speedies). WilyD 10:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the creator of the redirect which was the subject of the deletion discussion whose closure is now undergoing a review makes you involved. Your endorsement should thus be treated as a comment from an involved editor and as such scrutinized for possible bias by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's misleading to state that I created the redirect; I processed a bad A10 nomination, as a disinterested admin. But I suppose misrepresenting the facts is the only basis for requesting the discussion be overturned. WilyD 11:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Plowback retained earnings started as an article which duplicated an existing topic without expanding/improving upon the content of previously created articles on the subject; as such, it qualified for speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#A10. For some reason, you decided that turning it into a redirect was preferable to deletion and that's what you did. This makes you the creator of the redirect. It's all in the article's history and is undeniable. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Three out of the four participants of the debate expressed the view that the redirect should be deleted. The one editor who disagreed failed to substantiate his opinion when challenged to do so. Would you mind explaining what, in your opinion, makes Steel1943's single
WP:ILIKEIT WP:ITSUSEFUL comment consensus-breaking? Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the second time you mischaracterized Steel1943's comment as WP:ILIKEIT; it plainly isn't. The appropriate belittling shortcut would be WP:ITSUSEFUL, and that's not just a legitimate argument in RFD discussions, it's an overriding one. Endorse. —Cryptic 01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My goal wasn't to "belittle" Steel1943's comment; rather, it was to highlight the fact that s/he failed to justify his/her opinion regarding the redirect's purported usefulness when challenged to do so which rendered it moot. That useful redirects shouldn't be deleted is a truism, but let's not forget that our criteria for determining whether a redirect should be kept require more than a single unsubstantiated assertion that it's useful. Another thing to consider about Steel1943's comment is that it was tentative in its assertion of the redirect's usefulness: "it may be implausible, but that doesn't mean that it's not useful" doesn't strike me as a comment that could reasonably be considered sufficient to break a strong consensus built around multiple arguments, including policy- and guideline-based, none of which were refuted. As a side note, it was because of the fact the usefulness was only tentatively asserted that I chose to put the comment under the WP:ILIKEIT label, but, in retrospect, WP:ITSUSEFUL does appear to be a better choice due to the following statement we can find there: "you need to say why the article is useful or useless (...) Without that explanation, [one's comment] does not make a valid argument." [emphasis in the original] In light of what I just said, do you still believe that BDD's interpretation of the debate's outcome as "no consensus" was correct? Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
