I am having trouble understanding the rationale for closing this AFD as "keep". As a matter of public record, it might be helpful if you updated/changed the closing rationale beyond "The result was Keep", and add in why you felt the 9 !votes for merge were less persuasive than the 4 !votes for keep. Let me know your thinking. Randomran ( talk) 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(dedent) Nifboy said:
“ | Condense and then figure out what to do with what remains (i.e. make an editorial decision and not a policy decision). Infoboxen don't really belong in a list of nineteen and there's at least some material that can quickly be cut due to WP:VGSCOPE (example from the first entry: "In Lorelei's case all of her Pokémon are boosted by several levels..."). On a side note, I'd like to point interested editors to the RFC on Notability which is in part meant to address articles like these. | ” |
I do not see how you could possibly interpret that as other than "unambiguous keep". He speecifically says:
He later said he understood the merge !votes, but did not say he agrees with them, nor that he was changing his !vote.
AMIB said:
“ | Merge to List of Pokémon characters, with some of the content going into game articles. | ” |
While clearly a "merge" !vote, it is calling for editors to sift through the content and move it to several articles. This requires the article to be kept, for GFDL reasons, and to allow editors to go through that collaborative editing process. A closing administrator cannot be expected to perform such a complex merge.
You are right about Sundragon34; he made three separate comments that stated the article should be kept. I did not see his later comment where he changed his mind and went merge. He should have used strikethrough to make that clearer. That alone is not enough to change the outcome of the AfD, though.
Jerry
delusional ¤
kangaroo
08:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding the rationale for closing this AFD as "keep". As a matter of public record, it might be helpful if you updated/changed the closing rationale beyond "The result was Keep", and add in why you felt the 9 !votes for merge were less persuasive than the 4 !votes for keep. Let me know your thinking. Randomran ( talk) 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(dedent) Nifboy said:
“ | Condense and then figure out what to do with what remains (i.e. make an editorial decision and not a policy decision). Infoboxen don't really belong in a list of nineteen and there's at least some material that can quickly be cut due to WP:VGSCOPE (example from the first entry: "In Lorelei's case all of her Pokémon are boosted by several levels..."). On a side note, I'd like to point interested editors to the RFC on Notability which is in part meant to address articles like these. | ” |
I do not see how you could possibly interpret that as other than "unambiguous keep". He speecifically says:
He later said he understood the merge !votes, but did not say he agrees with them, nor that he was changing his !vote.
AMIB said:
“ | Merge to List of Pokémon characters, with some of the content going into game articles. | ” |
While clearly a "merge" !vote, it is calling for editors to sift through the content and move it to several articles. This requires the article to be kept, for GFDL reasons, and to allow editors to go through that collaborative editing process. A closing administrator cannot be expected to perform such a complex merge.
You are right about Sundragon34; he made three separate comments that stated the article should be kept. I did not see his later comment where he changed his mind and went merge. He should have used strikethrough to make that clearer. That alone is not enough to change the outcome of the AfD, though.
Jerry
delusional ¤
kangaroo
08:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)