- Bois_Beckett_Forest (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed as a NAC as "keep" however there are strong arguments for both keep and delete. This is one of three NAC closures by this editor which have been identified as inappropriate thus should be overturned to allowed an administer to review the discussion. 129.100.253.78 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse Keep was within the closer's discretion. I can see an argument that NC might have been a better close, but I think keep was probably better as the keep arguments were on the whole stronger. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - "Bois Beckett Forest?" Holy multilingual redundancies, Batman. I second Hobit's comment above. I see a simple numerical !majority for "keep" in a lightly attended AfD, a relisting to get more participation, and decent arguments on both sides of keep/delete. If we're going to overturn the closing, it's certainly not going to be overturned to "delete". I suggest we endorse a "weak keep" close and move on, given the net effects of "keep" and "no consensus" are the same; if someone wants to renominate the topic in 6 months or a year, they can. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Invalid NAC closure. The !votes here were evenly divided and experienced editors weighed in with policy/guideline-based arguments on both sides. This is simply not a discussion appropriate for NAC action. The non-admin who closed this discussion has seen repeated objections to their closes of discussions that have been controversial, and rather than discussing their closes now responds with comments like "If you disagree with this closure, take this to WP:DRV" and "I believe that I have closed your AfD nomination appropriately. If you disagree with it, you may take it to WP:DRV". User talk:SSTflyer/Archive_7#Inappropriate NAC closures. The fact that some of their their closures might be accurate does not justify their plain disregard of the governing deletion policy, and it's evident from the repeated objections over the last few days that the pattern of behaviour has become disruptive. It also appears that the closer doesn't meet the basic requirement fpr performing NAC closes at all: they aren't, with regard to AFDs, a "fairly experienced editors who has participated at previous deletion discussions"; instead, they've participated in fewer than 50 AFDs, and their accuracy rate barely cracks 60% [1], with a burst of bad nominations in the recent past. Given their failure to heed the admonitions they've been getting, any more failures to comply with the requirement that NACs should not be performed on controversial discussions should meet with a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. If I was closing this, I might have closed it as Keep, or I might have closed it as NC, or I might have relisted it for another week. The action taken seems reasonable, so I really can't object (and, in general, my knickers get into less of a twist over NACs than most people's). As for the pattern of closings by this editor, and how they respond to feedback, that may well be an issue, but it's not really germaine to deciding what to do with this particular close. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I was one of the AfD participants !voting to keep. In my opinion whatever history there may or may not be behind the closer and his track record of non-admin closures, this particular close was reasonable. The keep !votes had a strong basis in WP:GEOLAND, and there was no attempt to address this by the delete !voters, who instead made bald assertions of non-notability or relied on arguing a failure to meet the GNG without indicating why this should take precedence over WP:GEOLAND. My analysis of the closing of this AfD would be the same if I had !voted with the other side. I feel that any other closer would have either come to the same conclusion, or possibly closed the discussion as "no consensus". There was no realistic chance of a deletion outcome, and if the discussion was re-opened, there would still be no realistic chance of a deletion outcome. Thparkth (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The keep !votes provided solid evidence of the article satisfying WP:GEOLAND. clpo13(talk) 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- EndorseEven apart from GEOLAND, the article was sufficiently improved & good references added during the AfD to make keep the logical conclusion. I would have closed as keep, and I think it was quite clear enough for a NAC. The original nomination was quite understandable, but the ideal thin to happen at AfD is exactly what did happen. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- article was relisted, and everyone after the relist argued to keep and provided sources. No problem at all here. If there is an issue with the closer making wrong NAC closes then bring the wrong ones here, not the correct ones. Reyk YO! 09:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse not sure this was the best case for an NAC as the discussion was rather divided, but the closure itself is fine. Hut 8.5 11:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The arguments for deletion are really rather weak; if sources have been provided, those arguing "delete" need to show why they are inadequate, which has not been done to my satisfaction. Also, GEOLAND seems quite adequate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – closer of the discussion here. I apologize for my two inappropriate closures, and after reversing them, I read the WP:NACD policy again and avoided any further inappropriate closures. You may check my closures here. If I tell someone to take a deletion discussion I closed to DRV, it means that I truly think that my closure was correct; I can't see how that can be considered as incivil. While I have previously inappropriate closures, I will let the community decide if I should stop non-admin closing AfDs. sst✈(discuss) 13:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator's comment: I have undone a non-administrator's closure of this DRV as "snow endorse", in application of WP:NACD. Because the discussion is not unanimous, it should be allowed to continue for the normal seven days. Sandstein 16:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are saying my close is improper I hope this close differently, otherwise this is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Valoem talk contrib 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not doubting your good faith, but I think closing deletion discussions prematurely should be done only very, very rarely. DRV is all about proper process, after all. Sandstein 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The endorse closure is overwhelming, I am trying to save time for fellow editors so what WP:NACD did I violate? Please reconsider. Valoem talk contrib 17:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which policy or guideline authorizes your action? IAR can only be stretched so far, and doesn't equate to "I can do anything I want unless you can point to a rule against it, and sometimes not even then". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV tends to not be the ideal place for early closes. In general things are only closed early if there is an actual pressing rush. But as one non-admin to another, I'd say that NACs at DRV are properly rare and early closes are almost always controversial. Yes, this almost certainly will end up as an endorse (which I favor). But it's appropriate to give objections time to arise. Please don't take it personally. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "snow" closes should not be performed by non-admins on deletion-related discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that's true. I think NACs on SNOW keeps are fairly common. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They may be common, but they're not appropriate. From WP:NAC: After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days it is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies". Per WP:SK#NOT, this does not justify WP:SNOW closures. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
