- Railpage Australia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A "speedy keep" NAC closure by Music1201 (talk · contribs) after seven days where only one other user had commented and that user did not comment on the merits of the discussion. We don't apply WP:WEB the same way we did nine years ago and I think it was entirely valid to have a new run-through on AfD. I've raised the matter with Music1201 on his talk page and he has declined to reverse himself. I'd like to see the debate re-opened and re-listed so that consensus may be reached. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close (as closer) No AfD fails 10 times and then suddenly gets deleted. It is backed up, cited, and there is no indication of "unnotability". — Music1201 talk 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn from "Speedy keep" to "Keep". No WP:SK criterion was cited or seems to apply, however the AfD looks to have had run its 168 hours. With " the subject clearly shows that it meets applicable notability guidelines" the closer looks close to hitting the WP:Supervote line.
- For anyone still wanting to see the topic deleted, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, and to briefly summarise all of the previous AfDs and explain why they were all wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review, I also !vote to overturn the entire closing rationale. An unexplained "Keep" would have been much better. As an explanation, I suggest "no one agreed with the nominator". I have given a lengthier reply to the nomination on my talk page, at User_talk:SmokeyJoe#Railpage_Australia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NB. Closer subsequently altered "speedy keep" to "keep" [1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with SmokeyJoe on all aspects. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Folks, I don't wish to badger, but how can we keep the article when no one commented substantively on the nomination? Surely this is a relist or a softdelete? I went to a good deal of trouble to actually review the article, its sources, and the procedural history of the past deletion discussions. The NAC is painfully inadequate, wrong on policy, and didn't engage with any of it. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point. But there have been discussions in the past (rather a lot). And while those discussions weren't great (and are old and some where closed for procedural reasons), it's fair for the closer to take them into account. Especially on number 10. If anyone felt strongly that this needed to go, I think they'd have commented. No one came out in support of deletion in 7 days--if this was somehow a great injustice, I think others would have opined. It's probably worth just dropping at this point. I'd probably have relisted, but keep is also reasonable given the previous discussions. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, this is the sort of situation that drives men mad. I thought it mattered, else I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place and explained all the problems with its claims to notability. The close is a travesty, but it will be taken as an endorsement of the article's notability even though no one in the discussion thought so. We're in a circular situation where we're keeping an article because we've kept it before, but no one can actually state "and it's notable for these reasons." Note the closer's statement on this very page: "No AfD fails 10 times and then suddenly gets deleted. It is backed up, cited, and there is no indication of "unnotability". That is nonsense and no one who writes that should be in the business of closing a deletion discussion. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I said that because it's 99.9% true. Wikipedia is pretty harsh on it's notability guidelines, and there was almost 11 chances for that article to be deleted. If it wasn't notable at the time of creation, it would have been speedily deleted. If it wasn't notable in the existing 10 AfDs, it would have been deleted. Do you see the pattern? Two of the the AfDs were speedy closed as "bad faith" nominations. I don't think your point is valid saying that my statement makes me have no business of closing a deletion discussion, because I have closed dozens in the past few days without a single complaint, and I don't think your point is valid saying that it's nonsense. I assume there has never been 9 deletion discussions for one article, and then the 10th one suddenly closes successfully. I do however, agree that this AfD probably should have been kept as "keep" instead of "speedy keep", so I've changed that. Even though I knew what the outcome of the discussion would be before even reading it, I still thoroughly read the discussion and determined that the argument you provided when creating the nomination was still not as convincing as the comments in the discussion. An editor even wrote: "I would likely consider a relisting of this AfD without a rationale for so doing, to be an edit against consensus." (I don't agree with this editor, but I can see why he wrote this.) — Music1201 talk 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate close and let an admin reclose as they see fit. Not a reasonable closing statement at all A "ruling" as apparently given in the closing statement is not within the remit of anyone on this project. Specific points (1) our policies and standards change and develop over time (2) consensus can change (3) the previous AFDs were all in a very small space of time (1 month, 9 years ago) and largely were closed early with no substantial discussion - apparently much as a reaction to an SPA campaign to get the article deleted, giving these discussions much weight at all is questionable at best, (4) As far as I can see there haven't been 10 previous AFDs (as stated and repeated above), there have been 8, the box on the AFD lists the current nomination and a redirect to one of the other nominations, if the closer didn't even bother to check the previous noms... --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The most recent AFD was literally 9 years ago. A lot has changed since then. I'm glad that the "speedy keep" has been changed to a "keep" but I'm still not satisfied. The fact that the nomination is the 10th one isn't a valid reason to close it as keep. Neither is the fact that the closer believes the subject meets WP:GNG. The AFD itself received little participation overall, and a nomination which WP:NOQUORUM applies to shouldn't be closed as keep, at the very least it should be closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I think that relisting would be the best option here, so that some more comments can be made and a clearer consensus can be achieved. Omni Flames (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Omni Flames, same as Music1201, is a recently enthusiastic WP:NAC-er, not surprisingly subjected to criticism himself. Paying attention to the review boards, especially where NACs are involved, is absolutely and entirely proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Music1201: That section you linked to makes it clear that there's nothing wrong watching someone's contributions if you legitimately see something wrong with their edits. This is far from the first time someone has brought up concerns about one of your closes. I also find it interesting that you think commenting on one deletion review you're involved in is wikihounding. Omni Flames (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- That "success rate", 97.2% without explicit complaints, is nothing to be proud of. You have to do pretty bad for someone to bother complaining. You are too enthusiastic with your NACs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist without opinion on the closure; it got derailed by a discussion about process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Mackenson made a solid nomination that was not rebutted, one user just wanted to complain about not making an edit to the talk page first (not mandatory...). The fact this was nominated several times nine years ago should not be relevant to the AFD today and it deserves a fair hearing, something it has not yet got. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist yes the article has been nominated for deletion many times before, but the last time was nine years ago. That's a very long time round here. The nomination was perfectly reasonable and the only other person to comment didn't address its points at all. If there isn't any more participation after a relist or two then it might be reasonable to close as no consensus for lack of participation, but not keep without relisting at all. Hut 8.5 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist A single vote does not a quorum make. Let's have a proper discussion on the merits of the article. clpo13(talk) 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's rather unlikely that a relist will help here. DRV can enforce the procedure, but what it can't do is magic up a squad of interested editors to have the discussion and do the research. This was listed for 168 hours and got zero substantive discussion. (Unscintillating's characteristically pugnacious intervention can, I think, quite safely be disregarded.) The accurate close would have been "no consensus to delete", i.e., hardly anyone cares whether it should be deleted or not, so the material is kept by default in the absence of any pressing reason to do anything else. I don't object to a relist if that's the consensus, I just think it's probably a senseless waste of time.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A procedurally-sane outcome has to be worth something, especially if it deters future closes like this one. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedurally-sane? We can wag our fingers at the naughty closer and say things like "Strongly not endorsed!" if you like. We can probably even administer a piscine corrective, although DRV rarely goes that far... but another 168 hours on this? I'm not seeing the need. Editor time is a resource that's getting scarcer and scarcer as the number of active Wikipedians dwindles, and I feel that we should be mindful of conserving it.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Normally I think relisting is a waste of time and it should be used a lot less than it actually is. In this case though, the only discussion to take place was process wonkery unrelated to the page itself. If there's still no informed commentary on the page after another week, it should be closed as "no consensus". Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Relist There is an advantage in stable decisions. But after 9 years, if is some new reason that wasn't previously available, or if consensus has generally changed for that type of problem or that type of article, or for something as critical as copyvio that was previously ignored or not discovered, there's reason to revisit. This change in consensus for articles on web sites is the argument here, so there's grounds to revisit. The rejection of the AfD because of not following BEFORE is irrelevant and erroneous. This isn't a matter of not looking for sources, or of arguing over content. It's a matter of the application of policy, and AfD is the place to discuss it. I have in the past proposed WP:BEFORE to be required, & consensus once accepted the change, but subsequently thought better of it, partly because of the difficulty in specifying just what has to be done when. This is a good illustration of the problems of being too rigid about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist and let the full AfD go its course until a clear consensus is reached.Mattlore (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
