List of Dragonlance artifacts ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion was inappropriately closed by Sue Rangell, a non-administrator. Per WP:NACD, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." In this case, four editors believed that this article should not be kept, and four were of the opposite opinion. This is a close call, requiring the weighing of arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, and should be made by an administrator. I ask that an administrator reclose the discussion. I also believe that the closer's assessment of consensus was in error, but will reserve any arguments in that regard for a possible second DRV depending on how the re-closure is argued.  Sandstein  22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The discussion at User talk:Sue Rangell/Archives/Monday 18th of March 2013 09:33:17 PM#Non-Admin Closures indicates that making inappropriate XfD closures is a persistent problem with Sue Rangell.  Sandstein  22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not that it has anything to do with this particular discussion, but if you take a very close look at my NACs, you will find that the only persistant problem is reverts of my closures by non-admins, which is against the rules. Inevitably, with only an exception or two, an admin eventually comes around and closes the discussion the exact same way I did. I've been editing Wikipedia for years, I'm identified, and have Account Creation responsibilities. I think I can be trusted to close the occasional discussion. In this case, the decision seemed pretty straightforward to me. Four (5 really) of pro-policy Keeps well out-balancing two deletes which seemed rather weak to me. These things are often judgment-calls, but this particular discussion seemed pretty cut and dry to me. Thank you. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Four keeps, three(including nominator) deletes, and one guy saying "withholding my vote based on the new sources found". Anyway, I reverted her before on such an issue, stating I didn't think someone who wasn't an administrator could close anything where everyone wasn't in agreement. Dream Focus 23:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes, and your reversion (of an 86-0 snow keep) was against the rules. Per WP:NACD only an administrator can revert a close. That revert of yours was eventually followed up by an administrator who closed the discussion the same way I did. The problem is not my close, the problem is when the closes are muddied up by people who break the rules. Now, this discussion is not about me, or some other closure, it is about List of Dragonlance artifacts, and whether the article should be Deleted instead of Kept. Can we please discuss that? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• There were 5 Keeps, and one guy who said delete, and was still discussing it, and it had not been 7 days yet. Don't distort what happened. [1] After it reopened, one more person said keep, and eventually it closed as keep. But you do NOT have the right to close something after only two days. Undid revision 526762658 by Sue Rangell (talk) you can't do that unless everyone agrees or its been 7 days) Dream Focus 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I am not distorting anything. You illegally reverted This SNOW Keep. I did not report it because I do not like to make waves. (It was also the first close I ever did) I will point out again that it has nothing to do with this discussion. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• And someone else then reverted you for that [2] and told you what you did was wrong. And that's not the first or only time people have told you that you are closing things inappropriately. I did not "illegally" do anything at all. You made a mistake, and two different people had to hit undo that time on you. Dream Focus 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• That somebody else ALSO acted illegally against policy. Two people acting illegally does not make the action correct. ONLY ADMINS can revert a close, that is the rule. You broke that rule. (as did the other fellow) Now, may we PLEASE discuss the matter at hand? ie., List of Dragonlance artifacts Thank you. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Where do you see a policy, or even a guideline, that says only an administrator can revert an improper close by a non-administrator? And this is the matter at hand, you refusing to accept you did anything wrong. Dream Focus 01:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please read WP:NACD. Note that the word administer is underlined. And I will point out that my history is not the matter at hand. The matter at hand is whether or not this article should be deleted, and clearly there is no consensus for that. It would be really nice if the personal attacks could stop, and we could instead discuss the content of the article. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I doubt you'd find that codified anywhere. It would certainly be a terrible idea. Thankfully, it seems you are patently wrong. -- No unique names 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question - This might seem like a dumb question, and feel free to trout me for asking, but this article wasn't deleted. Is this the proper venue for this discussion? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• revert and let an administrator close users are split almost equally between deletion and conservation, and per WP:NACD, close-calls should be left to admins. I also completely disagree with Sue Rangell's assessment of the discussion but as Sandstein said, that can be left for later depending on how this is reclosed. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Request to close - Can we close this discussion? This is not the proper venue. It is easy enough to put the article up for AfD if the editors think the article should be deleted. This discussion is wasting a lot of everyone's time. The proper venue for this discussion is AfD. Thank you. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, this is the appropriate venue. We're here to discuss whether it was appropriate for you to close this AfD. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't make any difference. If you think the article should be deleted, then you should bring it up for AfD, where it can be properly discussed. This discussion has all the appearance of WP:WITCHHUNT, or at least that's how I feel. Some of you seem more intent on having the decision overturned for the sake of having it overturned, than for the article to be deleted. It is easy enough to overturn the closure (as that seems to be the true intent) simply by bringing the article up for AfD. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Its not a witchhunt when this keeps happening, and so many people tell you that you shouldn't be doing it, and you refuse to listen. And why are you suggesting someone bring it to AFD yet again if they don't agree with your closure? That's just plain ridiculous. Can you just admit you did something wrong, and promise not to do it yet again? Dream Focus 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Wow, in the spirit of WP:AVOIDYOU, I will only respond that I am sorry that my Decision to keep the article was not embraced by the two editors above who !voted to delete. I don't see any Right or Wrong, there is no need for drama. This is simply a difference of opinion, can we please have this discussion keeping that in mind? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I voted Keep in both of the AFDs in question. Its about you doing something wrong, not someone complaining they didn't get the results they wanted. Dream Focus 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• And you think that closing a discussion (where Out of 7 total !votes, only two were to delete) as a KEEP was "wrong" to the point of going through all this? You will have to forgive me if I feel a bit picked-on here. At best this is a difference of opinion, let's not use it as an excuse to burn the witch at the stake, put the article up for AfD if you think it should be deleted. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• As I said, there were four keeps, three deletes(including nominator), and one who said he was "withholding my vote". If four people say keep and three people say delete, then its not something a non-administrator should be closing. Dream Focus 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• There were only two !votes to delete, out of a total of 7 !votes, hardly a consensus to delete. The non-vote just commented below that he was leaning to Keep. I will also add that the two delete !votes were extremely weak and were basically dupes, while the Keeps were varied, and fell more in line with policy. This wasn't a "close discussion", it was a cut-and-dry Keep. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think you're too involved in the general controversy surrounding your NACs to be reacting in good faith here. You should step back and let the discussion unfold before making any more extravagant and groundless claims. NACs are only acceptable when the closer doesn't have to weigh !votes, and you did just that. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 02:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Facepalm The !votes were dupes, as in "duplicates", not the editors being misled as dupes. ... and I'll refrain from further comment on your comment. Jclemens ( talk) 02:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Jclemens, what a surprise, I was wondering when you would come. I'm sorry you had to wait that long to find something to nitpick about in my comments. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 02:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• To the extent that nitpicking includes pointing out when an editor completely misconstrues the statements of those with whom he is currently disputing, I plead guilty to nitpicking. You, on the other hand, might find it appropriate to apologize to Sue for the AGF failure in how you interpreted her remarks. Jclemens ( talk) 04:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Folken de Fanel, I agree with your statement "NACs are only acceptable when the closer doesn't have to weigh !votes". We need to change the WP:NACD guideline section to specifically say that to avoid future problems. I joined a discussion where I mentioned that on the talk page. Dream Focus 03:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• As much as I was happy with the close decision, I agree this would have been better done by an admin.....hence I'd be content with an admin re-open and close (sorry Sue). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Revert and let administrator close. Too close for NAC. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note not that it matters much, but I was the withholding voter and I was going to lean towards keep for a number of reasons. Web Warlock ( talk) 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, with no prejudice against immediate renomination of the article for deletion. The discussion ran for the alloted 7 day time period, with 4 !votes to keep, 3 !votes to delete (including the original nominator), and one effective abstention (leaning keep as noted above). With valid policy arguments on both sides of the debate, a reasonable decision on the part of an uninvolved admin would be to close with no consensus, defaulting to keep - which is the effective end result of User:Sue Rangell's non-admin closure. Assuming this resolution is taken, any subsequent renomination of the article should link this review to prevent procedural close arguments. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 02:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse - would I, personally, have closed it? No, probably not (I've NAC'd quite a few AFDs, FWIW). But I'm not convinced that's not a matter of the closing editor taking a slightly more liberal view of NAC than I. Even a WP:SNOW NAC requires some interpretation (eg. are all votes from one wikiproject or article contributors only?) and the point of NAC is that we trust editors in good standing to use some common sense and close some things that admins haven't had a chance to get to. NAC should be obvious, but not automatic or robotic. But I also tend to operate on the basis that if editors later have a strong objection to one of my NACs then I have no objection to them asking an admin to revert/relist. I don't think a DRV is needed for that, but hey... whatever. I can't see anything hugely wrong with the close, but I also don't think the editor in question would leave WP in protest if an admin was calmly asked to relist her NAC'd AFD and did so. Stalwart 111 05:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, Trout nom. Brought to DRV based on NAC status of closer is intolerable. I'd suggest reminding nom that adminship is no big deal. -- No unique names 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• You don't need to be an admin to evaluate consensus. Anyone can do it, and there are mechanisms like DRV to ensure get it right. Our admin corps is generally well-meaning but let's face facts: it includes a number of children and even among the adults, they're not always editing sober. If you spend any appreciable time at DRV you'll learn that discussion-closers need supervising, whether they're admins or not. The only valid question before us is whether the close was right.

  On that score, I agree with Sue Rangell's assessment of the strength of the !votes, and I think that was pretty far from being a "close call". I would comment that if you'd given me a list of names participating in that debate, I could have told you how most of them would !vote without looking. JClemens wanting to keep something fictional; Folken de Fanel wanting to delete it; BOZ wanting to keep a roleplaying game-related article; Dream Focus wanting to keep anything at AfD; not exactly amazing stuff, is it? All making valid arguments, but I think that what it demonstrates is that AfD outcomes depend on who shows up.

  Another question that's arisen during this debate is whether NACs can be reverted by non-administrators. In my opinion if the close is early then the answer is yes, per WP:BRD; early non-admin closes are always bold. (It would be nice if we could revert early admin closes that way on the same basis, but I'm sure the sky would fall if I ever did that.) If it's a close after due process, i.e. after 168 hours had elapsed and not obviously in error, then overturning should need some kind of consensus; but it wouldn't need to be a full DRV, just dropping a note on a sysop's talk page to get the close re-assessed. The sysop might overturn it on their own authority, let it stand, or bring it here.— S Marshall T/ C 08:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

A little rhetorical there about Dream, as of course he does vote delete for articles which aren't net positives for the Wikipedia, such as attack pages. Otherwise your comment is spot on. Re the skyfall scenario you mention, I've long thought it's one of the communities worst mistakes not to have made you an admin. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I do seem to be unfairly stereotyped. I certainty don't vote KEEP at every AFD I participate in, I always have a legitimate reason. I have recently even sent a spam article I came across to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Polygon. Dream Focus 15:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

A lot of what's said on project pages seems to be purely political, with no relation to reality. Sadly this kind nonsense if so prevalent that even normally sensible editors like S Marshall can be influenced by it. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Careful, I didn't say that Dream Focus always !votes keep. I said two things: (1) It's not exactly amazing when Dream Focus votes "keep"; and (2) I could have predicted that he would want to keep this.— S Marshall T/ C 17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - no reason to do process for it's own sake. Wily D 10:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure was a correct interpretation of the discussion so whether the closer is an admin or not is irrelevant. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse While not a complete slam-dunk, the keep votes were more convincing that the deletes, so consensus was clear enough for an experienced editor such as Sue to make a NAC. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This was in no way an uncontentious close. Both Delete !voters offered multiple policy-based rationales for their positions - this was not something that should have been NAC'd as Keep. Had I, as an admin, run across this, I'd have either relisted it or called it as No Consensus - it's not an obvious Keep at all. If it gets relisted I'm obviously not going to touch it, but I'd be interested to see how it was reclosed. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 15:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Reopen I agree with the final result, but had I been considering closing this--which I would not do, because I am heavily involved in the topic--I would instead have relisted for further discussion. This should not have been an NAC. The question of whether such lists are valid articles is much disputed. I very strongly think they should be so considered, and have explained why in the past, and will explain why in detail again if the afd is re-opened or there is another afd. It's not necessary to argue the matter here. Very little about articles or lists in the field of fictional elements has consistent consensus--we have tried to find an acceptable guideline so many times that I and I think everyone else much involved have given up trying, and just argue individual cases. Some afds on them will nonetheless be obvious one way or another, so I can't say afds in the field could never be the subject of a NAC. But most will not be: especially one where there is a close against an opinion expressed strongly in good faith by an experienced editor--as here; especially one where the question of the interpretation of policy is disputed--as here; especially a close that would need a discussion of why certain arguments were accepted and others rejected, not just apparently on vote-counting--as is being done here.

Of course we could just re-nominate, but the basic purposes of Deletion Review is to correct errors in procedure--this also includes errors in the result, because correct procedure should produce a correct or at least plausible result. One of the ground at RfA which is most frequently disputed is whether the candidate has the judgement to close disputed afds, which shows the general acknowledgement that it requires certification by the community before a person should close them. (There is also a question in this case of whether an editor's experience is long & deep enough to recognize where serious problems or basic disputes are involved--another frequent consideration at RfA. I think it appropriate therefore that this close not be simply endorsed. We need to reaffirm our limits. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• The article was previously deleted, though during the discussion reliable sources were provided, in my opinion there was lack of neutrality and was some kind of error to delete the article. Nevertheless, I recreated the deleted article with new information and different version with most reliable source, independ and sgnificant coverage of the subject, was speedy deleted without accessing the new information. Rules should be applied everywhere in neutral way so that reliability of wikipedia remains. Please take a look at this source and its editorial board of editors. The article should be restore that the subject is notable. I ask my excuses that I am not familair for this page, if any error please make it correct.Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 01:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Postdlf's close was clearly correct; but we should assess any new sources that have emerged since the AfD. Are there any such?— S Marshall T/ C 12:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes I have provided new reliable source, That was not provided during the deletion discussion this and its editorial board that is independent and has significant coverage of the subject. Since 2010, needed at least one reliable source but there are more. My question is not that Postdlf's close was correct or not, here is reliable source, on this ground article was recreated on 9 January 2013, but was speedy deleted again.

Please take a look at and review it again, it establishes the notability. Justice007 ( talk) 14:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• "Since 2010, needed at least one reliable source..." refers to WP:BLPPROD actions, not notability. It is not the number of RS that is important, it is whether the subject meets WP:GNG. That may be one RS or ten, dependent on the contents of the source. GregJackP  Boomer! 14:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Right, you validate my point, it is not the number of RS, one or more. In the deletion discussion, main issue was lack of "significant coverage" of the subject. You are not addressing the facts, don't you see 1 2 reliable sources, and above one, those do significantly not cover the subject, direct addressing his notability?. What is then notability in your view?. Justice007 ( talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The governance.pk source does not meet the standards because it is not independent; Mr Hameedi is the managing editor of the publication. The other two sources listed above were considered at the AfD. Is there anything else?— S Marshall T/ C 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• (Later) My mistake: I read this source with insufficient attention and confused "Hashmi" with "Hameedi". I retract that with apologies.— S Marshall T/ C 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please maintain the neutral point of view, that I do not see here, what do you mean, "it is not independent; Mr Hameedi is the managing editor of the publication." How do you conceive or figure out that Hameedi is the managing editor of the publication?. I do not see anywhere that. Fairly and boldly, here is just going the lines that have no proper and exact concept and description of the wiki-rules. When you declare "The governance.pk" is not reliable, independent source, I think I am wasting my time here to discuss. There is no anything else because that will be also declared "not reliable and independent". Justice007 ( talk) 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I have to say, I'm not seeing any evidence of Hameedi's connection to governance.pk either. Can you toss us a link demonstrating that? (N.B. I'm not disputing the truth of the claim, but I'd like to verify it properly myself, since I'm the one that suggested Justice007 file a request at WP:REFUND (not here, but that's beside the point now...)) Yunshui  雲‍ 水 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The close was correct. Subject did not show notability, despite claims to the contrary. It seemed that many of the keep !votes were not concerned with notability, but in making a memorial for the subject. GregJackP  Boomer! 12:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • not quite a "memorial" since he is not dead, just an effusive homage/promotional advert. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (am I the only admin around here to do these chores?) DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support close; it was an entirely correct assessment of the consensus. I disagreed with the subsequent G4 deletion due to the new source, but if S Marshall is correct (he usually is) then I reckon G4 was justified. I'd also argue that the amount of spam we had to deal with from Hameedi's supporters should be a factor in considering recreation; my talkpage has certainly been a lot more peaceful since the article was removed... Yunshui  雲‍ 水 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Well, that was kind of you to say and it makes it even more embarrassing that I was just plain wrong. I retract that completely.— S Marshall T/ C 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• comment, while the subject of the article might not be a member of the governance board and thus automatically disqualify the source as non independent, the "About us" Our objective is to build a sovereign and prosperous Pakistan by embedding the values of honesty, transparency, and truthfulness. This paper is based on purely constructive writings not only to figure-out the governance issues but to suggest solutions in order to address them as well. Its basically a platform for all those patriots who see far beyond mere criticism and want to rectify the governance issues of the country with the force of their intuition. Its not the matter of "Bad-governance" it is lack of knowledge or limited options available with government officials to bring "Good-Governance". We believe that highlighting issues will never serve our purpose until and unless we suggest pragmatically plausible action plans to rectify them. ...Our priority is to refurbish the personality traits of the masses those have been lost in the clouds of oblivion. ... We arepromoting (sic) every perspective of life in order to keep the diversified target market interested, but our primary objective of positivism will be taken care of at any cost. ... we need to bring all innovative ideas together, and those can change the destiny of the nation. We strongly believe that what we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do; not because the nature of the thing has changed, but because the power to do it has increased. strikes me as very much an advocacy paper and not necessarily an NPOV source and so I still question its utility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Neither I will talk about good faith or bad faith, nor your advocacy or someone else. I never search the skin of the hair. I do not impose my personal choices, that I like this and I do not like that. I am here to do my best for the reliability of the wikipedia. Justice007 ( talk) 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - postdlf closed the article exactly as I would have done. The opinions to keep were not convincing to me at all, and came off, at least to me, more like pleading per WP:ILIKEIT, with no real policy-based arguments. The delete votes, and there were quite a few, were varied in reasons, and firmly rooted in policy for the most part. I find those arguments to be most impressive. I think that bringing this to DRV is a waste of time, as there is nothing new to say that links Hameedi to governance. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply