Mr. Roboto Project – Overturned and relisted in my individual capacity as an uninvolved administrator. No valid arguments for keeping the article were presented and two established editors presented policy-based rationales for deleting. A further relist is warranted here upon a good faith request. I consider Beeblebrox’s request to be in good faith, and the reasons presented by him and Nick to constitute a valid reason to overturn this NAC. – TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don’t believe the closer correctly interpreted the result. As I said on their talk prior to coming here [1]: ...as far as policy-based arguments go, both I and the other “delete” comment made them, and the single keep voter tacked on some WP:ROUTINE sources without actually adding a single word to the article, and then added their novel, admittedly unproven theory that this club may have influenced others when in fact the article makes it clear that it was inspired by a much more well know club in California. In short, no compelling argument to keep was made in my opinion.. Their response [2] didn’t address the substance of the delete arguments, that even with the added sources WP:CORPDEPTH had not been met. It was already resisted three times, so telling me “nominate it again, don’t go to DRV” is not, in my opinion, an acceptable response. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the NAC closer, I don't think it was anything other than a no-consensus despite Nick's bullying on my talk page which nearly caused me to miss my train- coincidence? Seriously though there was only one keep vote from a veteran editor that added references and only one delete vote, with no other participation. The references added were described as routine but not unreliable or inadmissable. If it had not already had 3 weeks I would have relisted, and I suggested renominating, I did not tell anyone anything,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, this makes it sound like you were counting votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments presented. Citing policies and stating how they apply should count for more than “I slapped some local sources on it and have a personal theory I just now made up that it might be important” which is the entire substance of the only keep comment.
I'm confused as to how I'm now being blamed for Atlantic306 being unable to arrive at a railway station in a timely fashion. I would suggest such a conspiracy theory casts serious doubt about the competency of Atlantic306. Nick (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
did you see the word seriously in my comment which meant the previous comment was a joke, if you can't recognise humour your competency is poor Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
getting back to the afd, there was no analysis of the sources added by the keep voter by the nominator in the discussion and the delete voter's analysis was not corroborated by the nominator or anyone else regarding the extra references, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
