the closer of the deletion discussion claimed that there was a "strong consensus" for deletion referring to the number of voters, but a consensus is not a vote count.
In the deletion closure they said: the only editors advocating Keeping this article are the article creator [...] implying that the closure was based on the number of voters not on arguments. And also implying that my argument was not counted nor taken into consideration only because I am the article creator.
The arguments of those who were in favor of deleting the article were baseless. They kept claiming things without backing their claims. Like saying that the article is violating WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS without describing how or where. Or saying that "this article is sourced from WP:INDEPENDENT-violating sources" without specifying which sources are being referred to. Such arguments should not be counted.
The argument that the deletion decision was mostly based on is because this article is a content fork and any sourced content is better placed in other, existing articles on the subject of governance in the U.S. The problem with this argument is that there was no consensus on this matter. I kept arguing that the bureaucracy is not the same as the Executive Branch as the concept of bureaucracy can be expanded to include congress and other things but those who disagreed kept repeating themselves. I hope you take a look on this issue. Thank you! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is clear consensus for deletion. The delete side has a substantial numerical advantage and is equal or stronger policy-wise as well, given that one of the keep votes has no explanation whatsoever. Contrary to the DRV filer, the closer wrote Additionally, the only editors advocating Keeping this article are the article creator and an editor who provided no Keep rationale and considered the strength of the arguments. VickKiang(talk) 00:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The participants are not required to elaborate on their views when they say things such as the article being WP:SYNTH etc, especially not when it's reasonably clear what they mean from the context. There doesn't have to be agreement between all participants around a specific keep or delete !vote in order for that comment to be contributive to forming of consensus. The nominator's !vote was not discounted. It doesn't affect the outcome that one keep !vote was discounted. Close is based on a reasonable reading of consensus. —Alalch E. 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes they are required to explain their own POV in order for it to be counted. A claim that is unfounded or is not based on facts cannot be an accurate claim. When you claim that an article is violating OR then you need to explain how or else you're claim is not sufficient. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on context, and here the context is pretty clear. There is a lengthy tread involving a view that original synthesis is involved, and when someone subsequently says "Delete. WP:SYNTH." it's clear that they join the argument. But in general, even when it's less clear from context than it is now, the reality is that there isn't a hard requirement that the closer discount such !votes; the closer needs to figure out if they contribute to a consensus or not, and unless it looks like that what the closer came up with is pretty unreasonable, i.e. the opposite of what a reasonable closer would find, it will not be a factor in overturning. —Alalch E. 16:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there isn't a hard requirement that the closer discount such !votes first, conesnsus is not calculated solely by number of votes. second, yes there is a requirement which is the strength of an argument. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer assessed consensus correctly. Length of arguments, by disagreeing with every contrary argument, does not count as strength of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And when did I say that lengthy arguments are strong arguments? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, accurate close. I'd discourage any attempt to name an article "bureaucracy in $country" because of the immense difficulty of finding scholarly or academic sources and the high likelihood of attracting axe-grinders.—S MarshallT/C 10:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you're endorsing the closure because you don't agree with the name of the article then you're deviating the discussion. This is not a 2nd round of AfD, it's a deletion review. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining to me how DRV works! :)—S MarshallT/C 22:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was sarcastic - S Marshall has spent a lot of time at DRV and must be very familiar with how it works. Hut 8.5 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was a consensus in the discussion that the topic is or should be covered in other articles. The Keep arguments focused on the fact that the information was sourced and that the term is used in sources, which doesn't exactly refute this. It is entirely possible to have an article which is well sourced but which consists of information which should be covered elsewhere. The article does also read like the work of someone who strongly dislikes the subject matter and isn't remotely neutral (it's a POV fork). Hut 8.5 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This topic is also sometimes referred to as BIP in the press, and if you add the search term "BIP" Bitcoin you will get some results. I often look for fortune.com, wsj.com, and bloomberg.com as we will get too many results in non-RS (we are not using cryptoblogs and other junk sources for RS on crypto articles). I did find three hits in fortune. There would also be plenty in google books as well which yields 10 pages of results. Please also note that these articles spawned from a disagree relating to a BIP: Bitcoin Cash launched a result of a disagreement relating to a BIP that merged SegWit which allowed for creation of Lightning Network. Thus while BIP is maybe not as notable as the others, it is somewhat of a linking article and couldnt be merged with any of them, as Segwit is only one of many many BIPs. We could try to merge some of the BIP content to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin article is WP:TOOLONG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the AFD isn't linked here but you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. I thought there was a rough consensus among participants to delete this article and in my deletion rationale, I mentioned that I'd be willing to restore it to Draft space if an editor was interested in trying to improve the article as one participant argued to Draftify the article. That option isn't always stated so I thought my closure was fair. Deleting articles that some people care about will often bring discontented content creators here to Deletion review. Merry Christmas! LizRead!Talk! 03:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would be ok to move it back to draft and I can try to add some sources to it so next time it doesnt result at AfD again. Last time I looked at the article it was having WP:NOTDIR problems, but that has been a while. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I've fixed the link (at least for my browser). VickKiang(talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. IMO User:Liz's close is accurate. There is one keep/draftify and six deletes, which is numerically solid consensus for delete. A no consensus or draftify would be preferable if the lone keep/draftify vote is substantially stronger, which IMHO is not the case. No objections towards a restoration in draftspace and submission via AfC. VickKiang(talk) 04:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the close accurately reflected the discussion, and this isn't supposed to be a second round of AfD. Draftification is the obvious way forward here, if nothing else the large table listing every Bitcoin Improvement Proposal should probably be removed. Hut 8.5 11:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse discussion clearly conveyed by the close: subject lacks notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (speedy close). The nomination doesn't say that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly (and there's no reason for me to think so), nor does the challenge rest on any of the other WP:DRVPURPOSE reasons. The part about merging options is interesting but doesn't connect with what can be done here seeing how there's no prospect of success at challenging the close. —Alalch E. 20:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close no objection to draftification, consensus on what was there was clear. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer correctly assessed community consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
