Tesla Semi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is classic case of a popular topic that has lots of media attention attracting large numbers of fans who simply cast votes that the topic is awesome, it's popular, it's revolutionary, it has lots of google hits, etc. The crystal ball policy explicitly highlights that speculation about the future that has been re-reported in reliable sources is still speculation, and a product announcement is a product announcement. AfD closers are expected to be aware of these patterns and take into consideration the popular misconception that Wikipedia is supposed to be about everything, or supposed to reflect whatever topic is trending. The rationale "potential to cause bad feeling" is not a valid reason for non-admin closure and not a valid reason to invoke the snowball clause, which specifically reminds us that "discussions are not votes". User:Iridescent was aware of one bad NAC on this discussion, and that disputed cases should be handled by an admin, rather than edit warring over non-admin closure. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse they aren’t votes but numbers matter and the best hope here, even assuming all the keep arguments were worthless would have been a no consensus close because the support for keeping was so numerically strong. Snow keep was good. Also, Dennis Bratland, Iridescent is one of our most respected admins and a former member of the arbitration committee. I’m not sure if you were talking about the former NAC, but your wording seems to imply you think Iridescent made a bad NAC here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• All I see on Iridescent's user page is creepy spanking porn. Where does it say they are an admin? If I'm supposed to treat them as royalty this should be announced. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Here. You can also check by clicking "View user groups" on the left hand toolbar. Also, I prefer the one where "Jimmy Wales" is firing the "previous WMF executive director". TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Also User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/common.js has an useful script at the top that shows dou who is an admin if you added it to User:Dennis Bratland/common.js. I agree with TonyBallioni on the preferred image. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Circle the wagons guys. If you want to be treated with deference, then act like you deserve it. You sound like frat boys. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• For the record, I have absolutely no idea what User:Iridescent was aware of one bad NAC on this discussion, and that disputed cases should be handled by an admin, rather than edit warring over non-admin closure is supposed to mean. ‑  Iridescent 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment ( edit conflict)x2 For the record, what might be called bad feeling (I don't call it that) between Dennis and myself can be evidenced on my TP. I bring this up only out of the interest of transparency. If I am wrong to mention, please delete this section of my comment. Secondly, I don't like being called a "fan(s) who simply cast votes that the topic is awesome", which assumes I let a potential illogical appreciation of the company to blind myself to the policies of Wikipedia. While this may have been one of my earliest logged-in edits, that doesn't make me some fanboy. And "it has lots of google hits" is basically one of the definitions of the WP:GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• If you're going to equate GNG to a search engine test, then QED. If that were the case we'd be creating a new article every time Taylor threw shade on Kanye. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• That would either belong in an article on Kanye or Taylor or List of notable times Taylor threw shade on Kanye. And that is a reductio ad absurdum because of the BLP. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Regardless of whether the nominator considered some of the !votes spurious or not, WP:CRYSTAL clearly states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented"[...] - check. It also states, "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included," - checks this too. This seems like a sound closure to me. ceran thor 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as IAR if nothing else (though I do think it meets GNG and CRYSTAL). Hobit ( talk) 02:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as much as I dislike snowball clause keeps under any circumstance, this was not going to end any other way. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. The reading of the consensus seems accurate to me. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse had me when the nom admitted this is a "popular topic that has lots of media attention". We write based on what RS'es cover, for good or ill, despite the much longer horizon needed to get something into a paper encyclopedia. You did know we'd effectively killed those off, right? Jclemens ( talk) 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure -- there's no indication that the discussion would have closed any other way. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply due to the existing amount of coverage; that was a clear keep. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply