|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
According to WP:AFD, discussions should be open for at least seven days. The closer's response to me was "Seven hours over the course of a week isn't a terribly large amount of time." I think in discussions such as these (the particularly high profile cases), it is important to let discussions run their full course. It's also questionable to me that just the right number of votes were considered invalid to arrive at the magic percentage of 60% (consensus) in support of keep. Furthermore, regarding the final closing statement of "I feel as though there is a strong consensus here that, based on policy-related arguments including notability, neutrality, and verifiability," I fail to see how a strong consensus could be pulled form this discussion, much less in support of keeping, and it seems to me that WP:BLP was not given sufficient consideration when attributing weight to arguments. "[W]e should take [a] very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs." [1] Lara 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Reopened. It's clear that the majority here believe I was incorrect in closing the discussion this early. Personally, I maintain that I made no error in this; it was not my intention to close this early, and in fact I hadn't noticed I had done so before Lara commented on my userpage. Wikipedia does not have strict rules or laws, and closing a discussion a few hours before the general traditional guideline after over 100 users have provided well-reasoned arguments is not going against the spirit of the community's expectations. I feel that maintaining a strict adherence to "zero hours zero minutes zero seconds" early is harmful to the project and entirely ridiculous. However, I'm clearly not in the majority here, and several administrators and users whom I respect have commented here to state my actions were inappropriate; some (not here, to be clear) have gone so far as to question my integrity in not opening this discussion sooner. Such personal attacks are wildly inappropriate for a situation such as this, where seven hours are all that's being argued, but again, I'm apparently in the minority. Enjoy your next four hours, again, I really don't see what the fuss is. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The closing administrator seems to have cast his own vote, without any relevance to the discussion at hand. The closing administrator seems to improperly conflate votes to delete with votes to rename, arguing at his user talk page that a rename indicates that the category should not exist under its current name and is equivalent to delete. There was no consensus here for deletion. There was consensus to rename, and the closing administrator could have simply selected the most appropriate alternative name as long as he was casting a supervote. In reality, the disparate range of votes here makes this a no consensus. The choice to delete, the most disruptive possible option under the circumstances, is not only rather WP:POINTy, but unsupported by the votes actually cast in the discussion. Responding to a "general sink of petty snarking" by casting a snarky close for deletion only amplifies the problems with the close and the problems at CfD, with all discussion of alternative means of improving the CfD process has been deliberately tossed into the bit bucket. The decision was out of process and should be closed properly as a rname or no consensus. Alansohn ( talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This one ought to have been no consensus. There were at least eight editors arguing for keep, and even the closer agreed ( here, post at 15:54) that our arguments are valid. As Juliancolton says, the decision to delete depended on the fact of the subject's request -- but if even he accepts that in this case one should not give weight to the subject's request, then again it is hard to see that there was a consensus to delete, given the number of editors arguing keep on that ground, or that one could delete despite no consensus. There is also the substantive point to consider: if a subject requests deletion only after attempts to control the page have failed (as in this case), it ought to be clear that they are not really seeking privacy but only control, and honoring the request is then a manipulation that subverts NPOV. But beyond the general question, for this particular AfD ignoring all those keep views can't possibly be described as consensus, especially when one accepts that their arguments are valid. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
According to WP:AFD, discussions should be open for at least seven days. The closer's response to me was "Seven hours over the course of a week isn't a terribly large amount of time." I think in discussions such as these (the particularly high profile cases), it is important to let discussions run their full course. It's also questionable to me that just the right number of votes were considered invalid to arrive at the magic percentage of 60% (consensus) in support of keep. Furthermore, regarding the final closing statement of "I feel as though there is a strong consensus here that, based on policy-related arguments including notability, neutrality, and verifiability," I fail to see how a strong consensus could be pulled form this discussion, much less in support of keeping, and it seems to me that WP:BLP was not given sufficient consideration when attributing weight to arguments. "[W]e should take [a] very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs." [1] Lara 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Reopened. It's clear that the majority here believe I was incorrect in closing the discussion this early. Personally, I maintain that I made no error in this; it was not my intention to close this early, and in fact I hadn't noticed I had done so before Lara commented on my userpage. Wikipedia does not have strict rules or laws, and closing a discussion a few hours before the general traditional guideline after over 100 users have provided well-reasoned arguments is not going against the spirit of the community's expectations. I feel that maintaining a strict adherence to "zero hours zero minutes zero seconds" early is harmful to the project and entirely ridiculous. However, I'm clearly not in the majority here, and several administrators and users whom I respect have commented here to state my actions were inappropriate; some (not here, to be clear) have gone so far as to question my integrity in not opening this discussion sooner. Such personal attacks are wildly inappropriate for a situation such as this, where seven hours are all that's being argued, but again, I'm apparently in the minority. Enjoy your next four hours, again, I really don't see what the fuss is. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The closing administrator seems to have cast his own vote, without any relevance to the discussion at hand. The closing administrator seems to improperly conflate votes to delete with votes to rename, arguing at his user talk page that a rename indicates that the category should not exist under its current name and is equivalent to delete. There was no consensus here for deletion. There was consensus to rename, and the closing administrator could have simply selected the most appropriate alternative name as long as he was casting a supervote. In reality, the disparate range of votes here makes this a no consensus. The choice to delete, the most disruptive possible option under the circumstances, is not only rather WP:POINTy, but unsupported by the votes actually cast in the discussion. Responding to a "general sink of petty snarking" by casting a snarky close for deletion only amplifies the problems with the close and the problems at CfD, with all discussion of alternative means of improving the CfD process has been deliberately tossed into the bit bucket. The decision was out of process and should be closed properly as a rname or no consensus. Alansohn ( talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This one ought to have been no consensus. There were at least eight editors arguing for keep, and even the closer agreed ( here, post at 15:54) that our arguments are valid. As Juliancolton says, the decision to delete depended on the fact of the subject's request -- but if even he accepts that in this case one should not give weight to the subject's request, then again it is hard to see that there was a consensus to delete, given the number of editors arguing keep on that ground, or that one could delete despite no consensus. There is also the substantive point to consider: if a subject requests deletion only after attempts to control the page have failed (as in this case), it ought to be clear that they are not really seeking privacy but only control, and honoring the request is then a manipulation that subverts NPOV. But beyond the general question, for this particular AfD ignoring all those keep views can't possibly be described as consensus, especially when one accepts that their arguments are valid. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |