Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2023 November 30
2023 December 2 >

1 December 2023

  • Latham Park – Closure endorsed, on the basis that there is no consensus below to overturn it. However, between those advocating relist in addition to those making reference to the original nomination statement, there is enough support to note that the usual convention around wait periods for a re-nomination do not need to apply in this situation ( WP:6MONTHS), provided that any new nomination for deletion is significantly stronger than the original (I note SmokeyJoe's comments in particular, with the principle shared to some extent by Thryduulf and Jclemens). Daniel ( talk) 21:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Latham Park ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am the nom, I do not ordinarily dispute AfD conclusions but I feel like this was a bad close. Just on !vote counts there was 1 delete (me) 1 redirect and 1 keep - the others were unhelpful "per username" !votes. Regarding policy, the !keep vote made a policy argument which I disputed, so there was not consensus. In my opinion there should have been a relist or two, and there should have been an opportunity for other experienced editors to examine the !keep policy argument (which I believe is novel), to do source analysis and to discuss other possible redirect or merge targets. JMWt ( talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Relist per nom and due to low attendance. With three keep votes (only one based in policy) and two delete/ATD votes, another week could allow consensus to form in either direction. Frank Anchor 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse without prejudice to relisting. The "per username" comments are explicitly endorsing the view expressed by the username they cite ( Govvy in this case), and as that is a full rationale based on a reasonable interpretation of policy there is no more reason to discount their votes than if they had stated the same thing in their own words. That leaves three policy-based recommendations to keep and one to redirect. The redirect argument simply asserted that there was no evidence of notability and did not address either the detailed arguments for keeping or against redirecting expressed by Govvy so cannot be afforded that much weight. There was no support for your proposal to either delete or merge. Relisting to seek more views would not have been unreasonable, and I won't stand in the way of a consensus to do that, but I also cannot fault closing this as keep. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Good close. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Your AfD nomination was weak. A better nomination would do a WP:SIRS style reference analysis, say why each is non independent, don’t just assert that all are non independent. Seriously consider whether you want to propose a merge or a deletion, AfD is not WP:Proposed merges. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Relist - I don't normally like to reverse a close, but there hadn't been enough participation for a consensus when there three Keeps, two of whom were copy-cats, and two against Keeping, and more participation is in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There was no additional support beyond the nominator to delete the article (1 redirect) - and noone contested that the BBC articles brought up in the discussion were not RS. Five participants is a good number at AFD. And, the redirect option was rejected as a viable alternative. I can't see error in the close. -- Enos733 ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would obviously side with Endorse, because I voted for keep. I do agree there were limit participation, but you shouldn't discount the two other keep votes just because you don't like it. What I said at AfD was more than enough, so I don't need to write anymore here. Govvy ( talk) 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not about me, it is about the policies and guidelines we use when discussing AfDs. I refer you to WP:PERX which states Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.
    The fact is that 'per nom' !votes add nothing. Closers are supposed to weigh the arguments not count !votes.
    As to obviously siding with Endorse, I suggest you have a clearer think about what we are doing here. There are no 'sides', there are no 'personal pages'. The question for a DRV is whether the closure proceedure is correct, not whether the correct result has been achieved. If normal proceedure had been followed in this case, allowing all editors a chance to properly consider the sources and rebut arguments, I would have no issue whatsoever with any outcome which reflected consensus. JMWt ( talk) 12:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:PERX is not a "policy or guideline", it is an essay. It is not in any way binding on closers. Stifle ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. This was a normal AfD in which a consensus to keep formed. WP:PERX comments depend on whether the commment they point to contains a real argument or not. Govvy's comment does.— Alalch E. 12:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well that's not what WP:PERX says. And given that the discussion was closed before normal practices regarding rebutting and discussing sources was completed, I'm unclear how you can possibly say there was any kind of consensus. JMWt ( talk) 12:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    There was a consensus, it just wasn't what you thought should have developed. Relists aren't guaranteed, and your nomination garnered 0 supports, 3 opposes, and one redirect. Could there have been more participation? Sure. But it was open for a full week and not one other editor supported your nomination. SmokeyJoe's advice above is sound--look at it and build a more compelling case for next time if you choose to renominate in the future. Jclemens ( talk) 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Perfectly clear consensus. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Consensus was clear from the discussion. WP:PERX is an essay, not a policy, and while there's no reason those votes can't be down-weighted, consensus was still clear. The article was also significantly WP:HEYed by a non-participant and so the main deletion argument has been made moot as well. SportingFlyer T· C 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. Even if we give the PERX !votes equal weight to the others, that still leaves a three-to-two split, which is not typically going to amount to a consensus in this context. (Obviously it would if the keep !votes were significantly stronger than the others, but I don't see anyone arguing that.) No harm in honoring the request to give this another week. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:38, 7 December 2023 (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/2023_December_1&oldid=1189125756"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2023 November 30
2023 December 2 >

1 December 2023

  • Latham Park – Closure endorsed, on the basis that there is no consensus below to overturn it. However, between those advocating relist in addition to those making reference to the original nomination statement, there is enough support to note that the usual convention around wait periods for a re-nomination do not need to apply in this situation ( WP:6MONTHS), provided that any new nomination for deletion is significantly stronger than the original (I note SmokeyJoe's comments in particular, with the principle shared to some extent by Thryduulf and Jclemens). Daniel ( talk) 21:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Latham Park ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am the nom, I do not ordinarily dispute AfD conclusions but I feel like this was a bad close. Just on !vote counts there was 1 delete (me) 1 redirect and 1 keep - the others were unhelpful "per username" !votes. Regarding policy, the !keep vote made a policy argument which I disputed, so there was not consensus. In my opinion there should have been a relist or two, and there should have been an opportunity for other experienced editors to examine the !keep policy argument (which I believe is novel), to do source analysis and to discuss other possible redirect or merge targets. JMWt ( talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Relist per nom and due to low attendance. With three keep votes (only one based in policy) and two delete/ATD votes, another week could allow consensus to form in either direction. Frank Anchor 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse without prejudice to relisting. The "per username" comments are explicitly endorsing the view expressed by the username they cite ( Govvy in this case), and as that is a full rationale based on a reasonable interpretation of policy there is no more reason to discount their votes than if they had stated the same thing in their own words. That leaves three policy-based recommendations to keep and one to redirect. The redirect argument simply asserted that there was no evidence of notability and did not address either the detailed arguments for keeping or against redirecting expressed by Govvy so cannot be afforded that much weight. There was no support for your proposal to either delete or merge. Relisting to seek more views would not have been unreasonable, and I won't stand in the way of a consensus to do that, but I also cannot fault closing this as keep. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Good close. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Your AfD nomination was weak. A better nomination would do a WP:SIRS style reference analysis, say why each is non independent, don’t just assert that all are non independent. Seriously consider whether you want to propose a merge or a deletion, AfD is not WP:Proposed merges. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Relist - I don't normally like to reverse a close, but there hadn't been enough participation for a consensus when there three Keeps, two of whom were copy-cats, and two against Keeping, and more participation is in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There was no additional support beyond the nominator to delete the article (1 redirect) - and noone contested that the BBC articles brought up in the discussion were not RS. Five participants is a good number at AFD. And, the redirect option was rejected as a viable alternative. I can't see error in the close. -- Enos733 ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would obviously side with Endorse, because I voted for keep. I do agree there were limit participation, but you shouldn't discount the two other keep votes just because you don't like it. What I said at AfD was more than enough, so I don't need to write anymore here. Govvy ( talk) 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not about me, it is about the policies and guidelines we use when discussing AfDs. I refer you to WP:PERX which states Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.
    The fact is that 'per nom' !votes add nothing. Closers are supposed to weigh the arguments not count !votes.
    As to obviously siding with Endorse, I suggest you have a clearer think about what we are doing here. There are no 'sides', there are no 'personal pages'. The question for a DRV is whether the closure proceedure is correct, not whether the correct result has been achieved. If normal proceedure had been followed in this case, allowing all editors a chance to properly consider the sources and rebut arguments, I would have no issue whatsoever with any outcome which reflected consensus. JMWt ( talk) 12:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:PERX is not a "policy or guideline", it is an essay. It is not in any way binding on closers. Stifle ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. This was a normal AfD in which a consensus to keep formed. WP:PERX comments depend on whether the commment they point to contains a real argument or not. Govvy's comment does.— Alalch E. 12:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well that's not what WP:PERX says. And given that the discussion was closed before normal practices regarding rebutting and discussing sources was completed, I'm unclear how you can possibly say there was any kind of consensus. JMWt ( talk) 12:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    There was a consensus, it just wasn't what you thought should have developed. Relists aren't guaranteed, and your nomination garnered 0 supports, 3 opposes, and one redirect. Could there have been more participation? Sure. But it was open for a full week and not one other editor supported your nomination. SmokeyJoe's advice above is sound--look at it and build a more compelling case for next time if you choose to renominate in the future. Jclemens ( talk) 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Perfectly clear consensus. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Consensus was clear from the discussion. WP:PERX is an essay, not a policy, and while there's no reason those votes can't be down-weighted, consensus was still clear. The article was also significantly WP:HEYed by a non-participant and so the main deletion argument has been made moot as well. SportingFlyer T· C 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. Even if we give the PERX !votes equal weight to the others, that still leaves a three-to-two split, which is not typically going to amount to a consensus in this context. (Obviously it would if the keep !votes were significantly stronger than the others, but I don't see anyone arguing that.) No harm in honoring the request to give this another week. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:38, 7 December 2023 (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/2023_December_1&oldid=1189125756"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE