List of fictional vehicles ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page is far too broad, with no encyclopedic purpose. There was no legitimate reason given for it to be kept, but the discussion still wound up at "no consensus". There is no reliable source that defines the notability of a list of random vehicles from basically every work of fiction. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you consulted at all with the closing administrator? If you have, could you please link to your conversation with him. If not, why not? NW ( Talk) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The closer is actually Scott MacDonald—it appears that Zxcvbnm linked initially linked to an incorrect nomination. That being said, I too would like his perspective on the matter, so I have notified him using Template:DRVNote. – Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Closer's comments This is the first I've heard of this when Black Falcon contacted me. Had the appellant come to me, I'd have explained this and perhaps avoided a DRV. Closing is not all about numbers, it is also about arguments and policy. There is not policy violation in this article (there may be a guideline breach - but that's not certain, and guidelines are not policy), and so it is a matter of whether the deletion argument has been made and accepted. It was obvious to me that that there was no consensus here, and some validity (and bad arguments) on both sides. Another AfD in a few months is probably the best way to go. Personally, I think the article needs to be more defigned as it is over-broad, but I's unsure that's a reason to delete rather than improve, and certainly it isn't a reason to close as delete without clear consensus.)-- Scott Mac (Doc) 09:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure You failed to provided adequate reason for it to be deleted. And you linked to the wrong AFD. It was the third nomination [1] that ended recently. If there is no consensus to delete, then it defaults to keep. And if you bothered discussing things on the talk page, you'd could see we discussed criteria for inclusion. Dream Focus 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. No attempt made to discuss the closure with the closing admins, though it'd have been good if they'd explained the reasoning behind their close. I only see sour grapes here, not a reason why the close was incorrect. Deletion review is not AfD round 2. (I've fixed the link to point to the correct AfD debate). Fences& Windows 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• It's getting narrower, and now it has a lead paragraph that makes it a *little* more exclusive. There are a great number of "Lists of fictional <foo>" that need attention. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it's pretty hard not to endorse a non-consensus close on a sharply divided discussion, where the different views on articles such as this have been persistently opposed on many articles for a number of years. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no consensus close, since there was none. And DRV is still not AFD 2: Deletion Boogaloo. Umbralcorax ( talk) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - there were valid arguments on both sides, so I believe that this was within the closer's discretion. I do want to comment on two particular arguments:
  1. The criterion of notability (delete argument) does not really apply (or, at least, it doesn't apply well) to a page that exists primarily for the purpose of facilitating navigation.
  2. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, so the existence of one is not automatically a reason to delete the other (keep argument); that being said, in many cases one or the other presents a clearly superior means of organizing information (delete argument). So, just as we should not always treat lists and categories from an "either/or" perspective, we also should not always treat them in an "and" context. Several comments, primarily on the "keep" side, seemed to veer toward the extremes on this issue.

  The rest of the arguments were either of the AADD sort, and should have been weighted appropriately, or involved valid disagreements about a gray area of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (a useful thing to have, in my opinion, because it provides flexibility to editors). – Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I largely concur with Black Falcon, and would point out (as Black Falcon does) that according to WP:CLN, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. Arguments suggesting they are mutually exclusive should have been given no weight in the close.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 12:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, AFD is not DRV round 2. Stifle ( talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I would have closed as keep, but the close of "no consensus" is well within the realm of a closing admin's judgment in this case. Alansohn ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Alansohn. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per DGG. The real objection seems to be a "no consensus" defaulting to keep, in my observation. Jclemens ( talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus, although I strongly disagree with interpretations of CLN that blur the distinction between categories and lists. There is a distinction between the two; and some groups of information are only suited for a category, some are only suited for a list, and some are suited for both. I myself believe that this goes beyond the scope of a list article, but there was a suitable opposition in the AfD. Hopefully consensus here will change in the future. Them From Space 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

  (Re: CLN) Well put! – Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Barring a blatant breach of content policies, a consensus is required for deletion, and that was not present here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply