Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 June 29
2016 July 1 >

30 June 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sweat Cosmetics ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure by AKS.9955. The discussion had very less participation, 2 of the !votes were essentially WP:VAGUEWAVE, a query to one of the keep votes about WP:NOTINHERITED was not answered and this was closed without even relisting once. I was looking for sources and was about to vote when I saw this was closed (I guess it missed it by 15 minutes or so). Per WP:RELIST, this was a good candidate for relisting as few editors had participated and more robust votes would have been welcome. When closing a discussion, the merits of the !votes have to be looked into - it is not simply a matter of counting keep votes. I believe this was not done in this case. I personally do not understand what was the hurry to close it in 7 days when there has been less participation. I requested the closer to relist but my request was denied (see discussion here). The closer has not answered my question about how it was a "clear keep" but has said "I dont see how will the outcome of the AfD change just because of your vote". I am requesting an overturning of the premature non-admin closure and relisting the article for more participation. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Pinging DGG, Hmlarson, Rebbing, Megalibrarygirl, Northamerica1000 from AfD. Other experienced non-admin closers Davey2010, SwisterTwister. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It is your assumption that two votes between Hmlarson, Megalibrarygirl & Northamerica1000 were vague. Forget the so called "vague votes", you did not even participate in the AfD. The AfD was closed following the NAC process of 168 hours and all votes were keep, turning this more to SNOW. As far as answering your "questions" are concerned, lets be clear that the deletion discussion needs to take place on the AfD page and not elsewhere. IF the AfD is reopened, then you are welcome to discuss the deletion there. On my talkpage, I answered your simple request of reopening the AfD - the answer was, no I wont as I simply dont see any case. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Participating in the AfD does not have anything to do with the merits of closing. And I could not participate because it was closed minutes before - at the time when I was looking at the sources. I still feel this was a premature closure. AfD is about discussing notability and shutting down such a discussion early serves no purpose. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as per my comments above. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Relist AfD and let more editors participate. The closure was premature. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I endorse this fairly unexceptionable close. One deletion nomination followed by three well-reasoned, policy-based "keep" !votes. Rebbing's intervention is interesting. It certainly should not be read as a "keep", but it's hard to read a "delete" into it when the user says they were looking for reasons to vote otherwise. No reason to think there had been any canvassing or bad faith behaviour that might lead to any of the !votes being disregarded. The full 168 hours had elapsed, so the idea that the close was "premature" holds no water. I would also have endorsed "no consensus" in view of Rebbing's doubts.

    But, now that I've endorsed, I would advise Arun Kumar Singh to consider granting Lemongirl942's request voluntarily. Lemongirl942's approach on your talk page was perfectly civil and respectful and a relist does you no harm. In your place, I would have agreed to it. It's still possible for you to change your mind and agree, and I commend this outcome to you.— S Marshall T/ C 16:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

    • My initial hesitation was purely personal: my read was that the subject clearly failed GNG, but I wanted a valid reason to vote "keep" as I was impressed with the company—girl power, blah blah blah. When I came back to cast my reluctant "delete," I gave the article another look. Between the ABC coverage, the InStyle review, and the handful of (likely-sponsored) mentions elsewhere, I felt it was a close call, at least when I turned my head sideways and squinted just right, so I chose to abstain.

      (Once I've spent the time to form an opinion, I typically vote, even if my vote has to go against my preferences or what I think is best for the project. See, for example, the explanation of my vote at the Jenna Fife AfD. I am strongly opposed to reinterpreting the guidelines on an ad hoc basic to suit my politics.) Rebb ing 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse the close. I can see how individuals would want more comments on the discussion. That said, I can't see any other outcome besides Keep for that article. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse. The three votes are sparse on analysis. Megalibrarygirl simply states that the article passes GNG. Hmlarson offered little more: as my comment highlighted, her argument was premised in part on an impermissible basis (inherited notability); also, she was the article's AFC sponsor. With such a low level of discussion and only a one-week run, relisting would have been wise, and a "no consensus" close may have been more accurate. But all three editors are in good standing and made facially-valid arguments, and only the nominator advanced an argument for deletion, so I can't say the close was unreasonable.

    I second S Marshall's suggestion that the closer voluntarily rescind his close and relist. Rebb ing 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse though a relist would also have been fine and I don't mind if that is what happens now. Generally, I'm nervous of closers being pressurised into changing their close (but asking them for advice or a fuller explanation can be appropriate). However, in this case I don't think the request for relisting was expressed unreasonably. FWIW, the close was not premature and I'll support the closer's decision to suggest DRV. Thincat ( talk) 09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - I probably would've closed the same as AKS.9955 (Had the nom perhaps discussed it with the !voters then I could perhaps understand but as no discussion really took place the best thing to do would've been to close as Keep). – Davey2010 Talk 17:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse reasonable close, though relist or even NC might also have been reasonable outcomes given the relatively limited nature of the !keep votes. As an aside, I am a bit worried that the closer is being a bit too defensive wrt his closes. Remember that people disagreeing with an action you took is not a personal attack, nor do you need to defend each action. What you want out of a DRV isn't an endorsement, but rather the right outcome even if that's different than the action you took. Hobit ( talk) 18:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, but relist. I agree that the original close was fine. It's true that none of the keep arguments actually cited any sources, and sources is what it's all about. Relisting this on that basis would have been reasonable, but calling it a keep and closing it was reasonable too. But, I'm also with Hobit, that the post-close conversation at User_talk:AKS.9955#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSweat_Cosmetics wasn't what you really like to see. The goal is to end up with the right decision, not to strictly enforce policy and deadlines. I don't honestly know what I would have done in that situation, but it's very easy to sit here in my armchair and do some monday-morning quarterbacking. And, if I were to do that, I would say that had this been closed 20 minutes later, User:Lemongirl942 would have added their argument to delete, and with that in place, relisting this would be a no-brainer. And, since we're not about enforcing strict deadlines, a relist seems like the right thing to do here. In the alternative, I would encourage the closer to amend their closing statement to include WP:NPASR, and then User:Lemongirl942 could just nominate it for a fresh look.
All that being said, I think the nomination statement calling this a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure was a bit over the top. It was open for more than seven days, so it certainly wasn't premature. And the close was perfectly reasonable. Slapping an inappropriate label on every WP:NAC people don't like is getting old. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I will make it clear that I am simply asking for a relist and not overturning the decision to a delete. I understand that 168 hours had passed and the closer was entitled to close it. My description of "premature" was more about allowing a bit more discussion. And yes, describing the close as inappropriate was...umm...inappropriate on my side I guess. Anyway what actually happened was that I went through the list of old AfDs, saw this and was looking closely at this, when it was closed. I found evidence of undisclosed paid editing in the article and was in the process of confirming when I noticed the closure. I immediately informed the closer at that time, though I didn't mention the part about paid editing as I was still confirming it. I just didn't expect a defensive response. Anyway, I'm OK if the NPASR is added to the close result on the AfD instead of a relist. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
As a purely practical suggestion (and orthogonal to the rest of this discussion), if you're doing some research on an AfD that's already at risk for turning into a pumpkin, it might be a good idea to drop a note saying, I'm actively working on this, please don't close immediately. If I were going to close an AfD, and saw such a note, with a very recent timestamp (say, less than an hour old), I would honor the request. I hope other admins would do the same. There's a Template:Closing that serves this purpose for closes that take a long time. I've used that on occasion. I don't know if there's a similar template for participants in the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_June_30&oldid=1089516643"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 June 29
2016 July 1 >

30 June 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sweat Cosmetics ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure by AKS.9955. The discussion had very less participation, 2 of the !votes were essentially WP:VAGUEWAVE, a query to one of the keep votes about WP:NOTINHERITED was not answered and this was closed without even relisting once. I was looking for sources and was about to vote when I saw this was closed (I guess it missed it by 15 minutes or so). Per WP:RELIST, this was a good candidate for relisting as few editors had participated and more robust votes would have been welcome. When closing a discussion, the merits of the !votes have to be looked into - it is not simply a matter of counting keep votes. I believe this was not done in this case. I personally do not understand what was the hurry to close it in 7 days when there has been less participation. I requested the closer to relist but my request was denied (see discussion here). The closer has not answered my question about how it was a "clear keep" but has said "I dont see how will the outcome of the AfD change just because of your vote". I am requesting an overturning of the premature non-admin closure and relisting the article for more participation. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Pinging DGG, Hmlarson, Rebbing, Megalibrarygirl, Northamerica1000 from AfD. Other experienced non-admin closers Davey2010, SwisterTwister. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It is your assumption that two votes between Hmlarson, Megalibrarygirl & Northamerica1000 were vague. Forget the so called "vague votes", you did not even participate in the AfD. The AfD was closed following the NAC process of 168 hours and all votes were keep, turning this more to SNOW. As far as answering your "questions" are concerned, lets be clear that the deletion discussion needs to take place on the AfD page and not elsewhere. IF the AfD is reopened, then you are welcome to discuss the deletion there. On my talkpage, I answered your simple request of reopening the AfD - the answer was, no I wont as I simply dont see any case. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Participating in the AfD does not have anything to do with the merits of closing. And I could not participate because it was closed minutes before - at the time when I was looking at the sources. I still feel this was a premature closure. AfD is about discussing notability and shutting down such a discussion early serves no purpose. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as per my comments above. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Relist AfD and let more editors participate. The closure was premature. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I endorse this fairly unexceptionable close. One deletion nomination followed by three well-reasoned, policy-based "keep" !votes. Rebbing's intervention is interesting. It certainly should not be read as a "keep", but it's hard to read a "delete" into it when the user says they were looking for reasons to vote otherwise. No reason to think there had been any canvassing or bad faith behaviour that might lead to any of the !votes being disregarded. The full 168 hours had elapsed, so the idea that the close was "premature" holds no water. I would also have endorsed "no consensus" in view of Rebbing's doubts.

    But, now that I've endorsed, I would advise Arun Kumar Singh to consider granting Lemongirl942's request voluntarily. Lemongirl942's approach on your talk page was perfectly civil and respectful and a relist does you no harm. In your place, I would have agreed to it. It's still possible for you to change your mind and agree, and I commend this outcome to you.— S Marshall T/ C 16:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

    • My initial hesitation was purely personal: my read was that the subject clearly failed GNG, but I wanted a valid reason to vote "keep" as I was impressed with the company—girl power, blah blah blah. When I came back to cast my reluctant "delete," I gave the article another look. Between the ABC coverage, the InStyle review, and the handful of (likely-sponsored) mentions elsewhere, I felt it was a close call, at least when I turned my head sideways and squinted just right, so I chose to abstain.

      (Once I've spent the time to form an opinion, I typically vote, even if my vote has to go against my preferences or what I think is best for the project. See, for example, the explanation of my vote at the Jenna Fife AfD. I am strongly opposed to reinterpreting the guidelines on an ad hoc basic to suit my politics.) Rebb ing 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse the close. I can see how individuals would want more comments on the discussion. That said, I can't see any other outcome besides Keep for that article. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse. The three votes are sparse on analysis. Megalibrarygirl simply states that the article passes GNG. Hmlarson offered little more: as my comment highlighted, her argument was premised in part on an impermissible basis (inherited notability); also, she was the article's AFC sponsor. With such a low level of discussion and only a one-week run, relisting would have been wise, and a "no consensus" close may have been more accurate. But all three editors are in good standing and made facially-valid arguments, and only the nominator advanced an argument for deletion, so I can't say the close was unreasonable.

    I second S Marshall's suggestion that the closer voluntarily rescind his close and relist. Rebb ing 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse though a relist would also have been fine and I don't mind if that is what happens now. Generally, I'm nervous of closers being pressurised into changing their close (but asking them for advice or a fuller explanation can be appropriate). However, in this case I don't think the request for relisting was expressed unreasonably. FWIW, the close was not premature and I'll support the closer's decision to suggest DRV. Thincat ( talk) 09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - I probably would've closed the same as AKS.9955 (Had the nom perhaps discussed it with the !voters then I could perhaps understand but as no discussion really took place the best thing to do would've been to close as Keep). – Davey2010 Talk 17:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse reasonable close, though relist or even NC might also have been reasonable outcomes given the relatively limited nature of the !keep votes. As an aside, I am a bit worried that the closer is being a bit too defensive wrt his closes. Remember that people disagreeing with an action you took is not a personal attack, nor do you need to defend each action. What you want out of a DRV isn't an endorsement, but rather the right outcome even if that's different than the action you took. Hobit ( talk) 18:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, but relist. I agree that the original close was fine. It's true that none of the keep arguments actually cited any sources, and sources is what it's all about. Relisting this on that basis would have been reasonable, but calling it a keep and closing it was reasonable too. But, I'm also with Hobit, that the post-close conversation at User_talk:AKS.9955#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSweat_Cosmetics wasn't what you really like to see. The goal is to end up with the right decision, not to strictly enforce policy and deadlines. I don't honestly know what I would have done in that situation, but it's very easy to sit here in my armchair and do some monday-morning quarterbacking. And, if I were to do that, I would say that had this been closed 20 minutes later, User:Lemongirl942 would have added their argument to delete, and with that in place, relisting this would be a no-brainer. And, since we're not about enforcing strict deadlines, a relist seems like the right thing to do here. In the alternative, I would encourage the closer to amend their closing statement to include WP:NPASR, and then User:Lemongirl942 could just nominate it for a fresh look.
All that being said, I think the nomination statement calling this a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure was a bit over the top. It was open for more than seven days, so it certainly wasn't premature. And the close was perfectly reasonable. Slapping an inappropriate label on every WP:NAC people don't like is getting old. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I will make it clear that I am simply asking for a relist and not overturning the decision to a delete. I understand that 168 hours had passed and the closer was entitled to close it. My description of "premature" was more about allowing a bit more discussion. And yes, describing the close as inappropriate was...umm...inappropriate on my side I guess. Anyway what actually happened was that I went through the list of old AfDs, saw this and was looking closely at this, when it was closed. I found evidence of undisclosed paid editing in the article and was in the process of confirming when I noticed the closure. I immediately informed the closer at that time, though I didn't mention the part about paid editing as I was still confirming it. I just didn't expect a defensive response. Anyway, I'm OK if the NPASR is added to the close result on the AfD instead of a relist. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
As a purely practical suggestion (and orthogonal to the rest of this discussion), if you're doing some research on an AfD that's already at risk for turning into a pumpkin, it might be a good idea to drop a note saying, I'm actively working on this, please don't close immediately. If I were going to close an AfD, and saw such a note, with a very recent timestamp (say, less than an hour old), I would honor the request. I hope other admins would do the same. There's a Template:Closing that serves this purpose for closes that take a long time. I've used that on occasion. I don't know if there's a similar template for participants in the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_June_30&oldid=1089516643"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE