Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 March 5
2018 March 7 >

6 March 2018

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was closed via a non-administrative closure. However, I did contact the person who made the close (response copied below). The question that that has to be answered is, is this article actually a WP:BLP disguised as something else. I believe it is and this has not been successfully refuted by any of the keep votes. The original version of the article contained three subheading that we names of people. These subheading were changed to years in an effort to try and make the article appear less biographical, but with content like "Republican Dennis Levinson was raised in Ventnor City and graduated..." it still appears to be a biography. The non-biographical content in the beginning of the article was already fully covered in the Atlantic County article. Given that two of the keep votes were mainly perosnal attack against me and the third was based notability on the size of the county (which another editor refuted, although he did not vote). So only the fourth keep argument is really worth reading. That argument was based on the fact that the article could become something else, so the current content wasn't that important. I reject that argument because no one has shown any reliable, in-depth, independent, secondary sources with coverage of the topic. SportingFlyer did an excellent analysis of the current sources.

Response by USER:Music1201 (discussion closer)"I couldn't have said it better than Semmendinger in saying that the deletion discussion wasn't concerning whether or not the people named on the article, but instead of the article itself. While I agree improvements need to be made to the article, the general consensus was to keep the article. — Music1201 "
I disagree, the article is about the three people and little else. And its hard to say there is consensus for keep when two of the four keep arguments are little more than personal attacks and the the third was extremely weak. The fourth argument for keep still leaves a lot of questions. Rusf10 ( talk) 02:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Endorse Apologies in advance, this is my first time at a deletion review so I hope I'm voting correctly. My comment in the initial AfD summed up my thoughts already, but let me try and elaborate here as that AfD was not linked. I don't think this page is a thinly veiled BLP article, and therefore I disagree with the notion that we delete an article just because one section in it may break Wikipedia's rules. It's simply a poorly titled page for the position of Atlantic County Executive. In fact, there are ongoing discussions on the talk page which bring this up, as well as Alansohn's own talk page where it's been decided that the current title was a poor decision. This is something that has been discussed ever since the initial AfD was brought up. If your argument is that the page is a BLP violation that's one thing, and, for a couple of sentences, there's merit to it. But just because a few sentences of the page are biographical and may break BLP, that doesn't mean the whole topic warrants an AfD. You're trying to delete a page whose subject has notability (the position of Atlantic County Executive, not its titleholders) just because of a couple sentences. It's like destroying an entire beehive just to kill one bee. We don't just delete entire pages when one section of them has a rule violation (at least, I hope we don't!). Obviously it's too late for it now, but it would have been nice if efforts were made by you on the talk page to try and work with the editors to remove the statements you think violate BLP. You have other editors (myself and Sporting) already agreeing that the current phrasing needs a change, that's why the talk page exists.
If we can get over the fact that we can fix the BLP violations elsewhere, the real question to address for this deletion review is whether or not "Atlantic County Executive" meets GNG. And to that I'd say the history section of this article does a good job in establishing notability for the position with a healthy amount of secondary sources on the matter. Especially when compared to other articles which cover the same topic, which usually only have a single primary source. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Semmendinger:I think you meant to vote Endorse (we are voting on whether or not to endorse or overturn the current outcome, which was keep). If we remove the WP:BLP content from the article all we're left with is a brief summary/history of how county government works in New Jersey and election results which really was already covered in the Atlantic County article and therefore making this an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT article.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Oops, thank you rusf! I read through the intro to this page again and it seems I was a bit confused as to how that worked (fixed now!) Back on topic: I think the election-related information about the office holders does not break BLP, as it's pertinent to the content of the article. This means the "County executives" subheading and info is all appropriate for the page, but select sentences (like the one you mentioned above, and others like "Prior to his election to the Board of Freeholders he served as a Councilmember in the city of Northfield from 1982 to 1986.") are not appropriate as they're more about the person than about the executive position. Of course, this is just my interpretation. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist as per procedure or Endorse after changes. Even at a 4-2 keep vote (where at least one keep vote could have been struck), I was very surprised the closer thought consensus existed after a lot of text had been spilled after only five votes, with at least three votes being involved in a long-term AfD dispute over local New Jersey politicians. I asked the closer for an explanation out of sheer interest as I'm honestly not invested in the outcome.
My argument is largely semantic in scope, but this article is County Executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, implying the article is about the people who occupied this position. I would vote for a procedural relist on the grounds no consensus existed, and I would believe that particular article should be deleted on WP:BLP grounds, but I believe there's a better WP:COMMONSENSE solution: I think the clear solution would be to simply move the article to either County Executive of Atlantic County, New Jersey, or Atlantic County Executive, and have the article be about the position, remove the flawed WP:BLP biographical information, and replace it with a list of officeholders, similar to King County Executive (it appears a couple of the officeholders at that King County link may be AfDable as well). This discussion is currently ongoing on the talk page and would possibly render this deletion review moot. SportingFlyer talk 06:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Endorse Unfortunately the creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey is displeased with the outcome: the AfD has been rejected. Instead of trying to make a good argument on the active discussion on the talk page and trying to find some Wikipedia:Consensus s/he's dragging it here. One can only question if this is part of the continued battle with the article's creator. (That may also explain why the article was nominated for delection @ 21:40, 25 February 2018, a mere 3.5 hours after it was created @ 18:13, 25 February 2018). That ongoing war is is the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico.) Dragging it to deletion review does not assume good faith and IMO is clearly a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The nominator has engaged in the ongoing discussion and rather than continue to do so has chosen a contentious approach to drag it here to (temporarily) block the title change (page move) under discussion. If one looks there the discussion, which properly should be and is taking place there, it has now spilled over to this, the inappropriate venue. Djflem ( talk) 08:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
More personal attacks, but that's okay, its obviously your standard operating procedure. And if you want to move the damn page, just go ahead and do it. Neither I nor anyone else is stopping you from doing it (I already told you that I didn't care).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You are invited to determine for yourself which (you can choose more than one) purpose of this venue you are violating, but I guess Deletion Review should not be used:#5h this sums it up the best: to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion
Extended content
Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Djflem ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Djflem ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for the invitation Djflem esq., but I'm going to decline. I am not just repeating "arguments already made in the deletion discussion". What I'm saying here is your vote in the AfD should be disregarded because it was a personal attack and wikilawyering, not a policy-based keep argument. You never refuted any of my arguments in the discussion. In the AfD, you argued that was the improper venue, now this is the improper venue. You also tried to argue that the article could not be nominated because not enough time had passed after it was created, which is something you completely made up (show me any policy/guideline that says that).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
FYI: The proper page for Wikipedia:Consensus can found at Talk:Atlantic County Executive. (The rest is a waste of better-spent time and IMO is simply Wikipedia:Feeding the trolls). Djflem ( talk) 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Endorse. I think the close is OK, but this a new article and incorrectly named so BLP violations are likely to reoccur, if a common sense solution becomes apparent during this discussion the closer should recommend/require it in the close summary. Szzuk ( talk) 13:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If you actually addressed any of my concerns about the article rather than leveling personal attack at me, maybe I'd consider you Keep vote valid. The consensus was not clear when some of the keep votes (including yours) were complete garbage.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, there is no possible way that anyone could have closed that as "Delete". Subjective criteria require subjective assessments, which is what happened here and that is legitimate. It perhaps wasn't ripe for a NAC, but reopening and then getting an admin to make the exact same decision is pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Endorse as within discretion. Just a comment: the nomination says the article is " a WP:BLP disguised as something else" but there is no problem with biographical information on a living person being included in an article on some other topic. The problem is when material violating our WP:BLP policy being included in any article at all. In case it is helpful I have added {{ BLP}} to the talk page. Thincat ( talk) 09:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Consensus was clear that the article should be retained. Good arguments on the active discussion on the talk page should have been made. User:Lankiveil also makes some good points. The personal attacks and acrimony needs to end in this dispute. desmay ( talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Desmay:Even though you're endorsing the outcome, you're making my point, that is "Good arguments on the active discussion on the talk page should have been made." They were not and that is why a keep close should not have been made. Perhaps a relisting would have been more appropriate?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't speak for Desmay, but they way I read his comment was that the nominator should have participated in the talk page where active discussion were taking place before making this deletion review. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 18:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
One can also note that User:Rusf10, despite professed concerns. did not take part/contribute to the discussion at Talk:Atlantic County Executive. Djflem ( talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing admin disregarded the fact that there was no consensus and that votes were still coming in. The AfD should have been kept open to get a clearer picture. I don't get why it had to be a delete, it wasn't even merged, redirected or it should've at least been moved to draft space, as the main issue was the neutrality of the article. It could've easily been moved from draft to main page after neutrality issues are resolved.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree that as usual it will depend on the quality WP:RS and so far there are none. D4iNa4 ( talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - good close to a contentious discussion. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, good close. A relist under the circumstances would have been absurd given that there was already a large number of participants, and there was no indication that the "tide was turning" or that any major revelations had been made towards the end of the discussion that would have changed the outcome. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Endorse Great rationale, well-worded close. I don't think we need to rehash the AfD, but Spinningspark seems to have appropriately balanced the arguments and accurately summarized them. I agree that the POV argument is most convincing, and the close lays it out well. You may not like the outcome, but the closing argument is excellent. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Review Withdrawn. Since everybody is endorsing, I would have to agree that WP:TNT in this specific case is a better option.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:59, 8 March 2018 (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/2018_March_6&oldid=1039527863"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 March 5
2018 March 7 >

6 March 2018

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was closed via a non-administrative closure. However, I did contact the person who made the close (response copied below). The question that that has to be answered is, is this article actually a WP:BLP disguised as something else. I believe it is and this has not been successfully refuted by any of the keep votes. The original version of the article contained three subheading that we names of people. These subheading were changed to years in an effort to try and make the article appear less biographical, but with content like "Republican Dennis Levinson was raised in Ventnor City and graduated..." it still appears to be a biography. The non-biographical content in the beginning of the article was already fully covered in the Atlantic County article. Given that two of the keep votes were mainly perosnal attack against me and the third was based notability on the size of the county (which another editor refuted, although he did not vote). So only the fourth keep argument is really worth reading. That argument was based on the fact that the article could become something else, so the current content wasn't that important. I reject that argument because no one has shown any reliable, in-depth, independent, secondary sources with coverage of the topic. SportingFlyer did an excellent analysis of the current sources.

Response by USER:Music1201 (discussion closer)"I couldn't have said it better than Semmendinger in saying that the deletion discussion wasn't concerning whether or not the people named on the article, but instead of the article itself. While I agree improvements need to be made to the article, the general consensus was to keep the article. — Music1201 "
I disagree, the article is about the three people and little else. And its hard to say there is consensus for keep when two of the four keep arguments are little more than personal attacks and the the third was extremely weak. The fourth argument for keep still leaves a lot of questions. Rusf10 ( talk) 02:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Endorse Apologies in advance, this is my first time at a deletion review so I hope I'm voting correctly. My comment in the initial AfD summed up my thoughts already, but let me try and elaborate here as that AfD was not linked. I don't think this page is a thinly veiled BLP article, and therefore I disagree with the notion that we delete an article just because one section in it may break Wikipedia's rules. It's simply a poorly titled page for the position of Atlantic County Executive. In fact, there are ongoing discussions on the talk page which bring this up, as well as Alansohn's own talk page where it's been decided that the current title was a poor decision. This is something that has been discussed ever since the initial AfD was brought up. If your argument is that the page is a BLP violation that's one thing, and, for a couple of sentences, there's merit to it. But just because a few sentences of the page are biographical and may break BLP, that doesn't mean the whole topic warrants an AfD. You're trying to delete a page whose subject has notability (the position of Atlantic County Executive, not its titleholders) just because of a couple sentences. It's like destroying an entire beehive just to kill one bee. We don't just delete entire pages when one section of them has a rule violation (at least, I hope we don't!). Obviously it's too late for it now, but it would have been nice if efforts were made by you on the talk page to try and work with the editors to remove the statements you think violate BLP. You have other editors (myself and Sporting) already agreeing that the current phrasing needs a change, that's why the talk page exists.
If we can get over the fact that we can fix the BLP violations elsewhere, the real question to address for this deletion review is whether or not "Atlantic County Executive" meets GNG. And to that I'd say the history section of this article does a good job in establishing notability for the position with a healthy amount of secondary sources on the matter. Especially when compared to other articles which cover the same topic, which usually only have a single primary source. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Semmendinger:I think you meant to vote Endorse (we are voting on whether or not to endorse or overturn the current outcome, which was keep). If we remove the WP:BLP content from the article all we're left with is a brief summary/history of how county government works in New Jersey and election results which really was already covered in the Atlantic County article and therefore making this an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT article.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Oops, thank you rusf! I read through the intro to this page again and it seems I was a bit confused as to how that worked (fixed now!) Back on topic: I think the election-related information about the office holders does not break BLP, as it's pertinent to the content of the article. This means the "County executives" subheading and info is all appropriate for the page, but select sentences (like the one you mentioned above, and others like "Prior to his election to the Board of Freeholders he served as a Councilmember in the city of Northfield from 1982 to 1986.") are not appropriate as they're more about the person than about the executive position. Of course, this is just my interpretation. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Relist as per procedure or Endorse after changes. Even at a 4-2 keep vote (where at least one keep vote could have been struck), I was very surprised the closer thought consensus existed after a lot of text had been spilled after only five votes, with at least three votes being involved in a long-term AfD dispute over local New Jersey politicians. I asked the closer for an explanation out of sheer interest as I'm honestly not invested in the outcome.
My argument is largely semantic in scope, but this article is County Executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, implying the article is about the people who occupied this position. I would vote for a procedural relist on the grounds no consensus existed, and I would believe that particular article should be deleted on WP:BLP grounds, but I believe there's a better WP:COMMONSENSE solution: I think the clear solution would be to simply move the article to either County Executive of Atlantic County, New Jersey, or Atlantic County Executive, and have the article be about the position, remove the flawed WP:BLP biographical information, and replace it with a list of officeholders, similar to King County Executive (it appears a couple of the officeholders at that King County link may be AfDable as well). This discussion is currently ongoing on the talk page and would possibly render this deletion review moot. SportingFlyer talk 06:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Endorse Unfortunately the creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey is displeased with the outcome: the AfD has been rejected. Instead of trying to make a good argument on the active discussion on the talk page and trying to find some Wikipedia:Consensus s/he's dragging it here. One can only question if this is part of the continued battle with the article's creator. (That may also explain why the article was nominated for delection @ 21:40, 25 February 2018, a mere 3.5 hours after it was created @ 18:13, 25 February 2018). That ongoing war is is the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico.) Dragging it to deletion review does not assume good faith and IMO is clearly a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The nominator has engaged in the ongoing discussion and rather than continue to do so has chosen a contentious approach to drag it here to (temporarily) block the title change (page move) under discussion. If one looks there the discussion, which properly should be and is taking place there, it has now spilled over to this, the inappropriate venue. Djflem ( talk) 08:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
More personal attacks, but that's okay, its obviously your standard operating procedure. And if you want to move the damn page, just go ahead and do it. Neither I nor anyone else is stopping you from doing it (I already told you that I didn't care).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You are invited to determine for yourself which (you can choose more than one) purpose of this venue you are violating, but I guess Deletion Review should not be used:#5h this sums it up the best: to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion
Extended content
Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Djflem ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Djflem ( talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for the invitation Djflem esq., but I'm going to decline. I am not just repeating "arguments already made in the deletion discussion". What I'm saying here is your vote in the AfD should be disregarded because it was a personal attack and wikilawyering, not a policy-based keep argument. You never refuted any of my arguments in the discussion. In the AfD, you argued that was the improper venue, now this is the improper venue. You also tried to argue that the article could not be nominated because not enough time had passed after it was created, which is something you completely made up (show me any policy/guideline that says that).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
FYI: The proper page for Wikipedia:Consensus can found at Talk:Atlantic County Executive. (The rest is a waste of better-spent time and IMO is simply Wikipedia:Feeding the trolls). Djflem ( talk) 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Endorse. I think the close is OK, but this a new article and incorrectly named so BLP violations are likely to reoccur, if a common sense solution becomes apparent during this discussion the closer should recommend/require it in the close summary. Szzuk ( talk) 13:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If you actually addressed any of my concerns about the article rather than leveling personal attack at me, maybe I'd consider you Keep vote valid. The consensus was not clear when some of the keep votes (including yours) were complete garbage.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, there is no possible way that anyone could have closed that as "Delete". Subjective criteria require subjective assessments, which is what happened here and that is legitimate. It perhaps wasn't ripe for a NAC, but reopening and then getting an admin to make the exact same decision is pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Endorse as within discretion. Just a comment: the nomination says the article is " a WP:BLP disguised as something else" but there is no problem with biographical information on a living person being included in an article on some other topic. The problem is when material violating our WP:BLP policy being included in any article at all. In case it is helpful I have added {{ BLP}} to the talk page. Thincat ( talk) 09:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Consensus was clear that the article should be retained. Good arguments on the active discussion on the talk page should have been made. User:Lankiveil also makes some good points. The personal attacks and acrimony needs to end in this dispute. desmay ( talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Desmay:Even though you're endorsing the outcome, you're making my point, that is "Good arguments on the active discussion on the talk page should have been made." They were not and that is why a keep close should not have been made. Perhaps a relisting would have been more appropriate?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't speak for Desmay, but they way I read his comment was that the nominator should have participated in the talk page where active discussion were taking place before making this deletion review. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 18:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
One can also note that User:Rusf10, despite professed concerns. did not take part/contribute to the discussion at Talk:Atlantic County Executive. Djflem ( talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing admin disregarded the fact that there was no consensus and that votes were still coming in. The AfD should have been kept open to get a clearer picture. I don't get why it had to be a delete, it wasn't even merged, redirected or it should've at least been moved to draft space, as the main issue was the neutrality of the article. It could've easily been moved from draft to main page after neutrality issues are resolved.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree that as usual it will depend on the quality WP:RS and so far there are none. D4iNa4 ( talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - good close to a contentious discussion. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, good close. A relist under the circumstances would have been absurd given that there was already a large number of participants, and there was no indication that the "tide was turning" or that any major revelations had been made towards the end of the discussion that would have changed the outcome. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Endorse Great rationale, well-worded close. I don't think we need to rehash the AfD, but Spinningspark seems to have appropriately balanced the arguments and accurately summarized them. I agree that the POV argument is most convincing, and the close lays it out well. You may not like the outcome, but the closing argument is excellent. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Review Withdrawn. Since everybody is endorsing, I would have to agree that WP:TNT in this specific case is a better option.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:59, 8 March 2018 (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/2018_March_6&oldid=1039527863"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE