|
Perry the Platypus (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD))
I discussed this with the closing administrator,
MBisanz at his talk page at
User talk:MBisanz#Reconsider AfD (Perry the Platypus), but after four days the administrator did not reply to my last post. My concern is that the closing administrator looked just at the number of votes and when the votes occurred, instead of looking at the arguments presented by the editors. Nothing was changed to the articles subsequent to the relisting that would signify that the "Delete" opinions were no longer worthy of their arguments.
Aspects (
talk)
08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ferb Fletcher (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD))
Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD))
reply
- Endorse closure. MBisanz could not possibly have closed this any other way.
Stifle (
talk)
09:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure agree with stifle, reviewed AfD and article... it's a keeper.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Keep was appropriate. And you're misrepresenting an excellent admin by saying he only counted !votes. Read what he wrote to you on his talk page again. --
Dweller (
talk)
10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I brought about this deletion review because I feel the closing administrator incorrectly closed the AfD in two ways. The first way is that the admin found consensus not by looking at the strength of argument and underlying policy but instead counted heads. I always thought it was the role of the closing administrator weigh the arguments presented by both sides and not simply count the votes. If he did look at both sides of the argument it is hard to gather that from either the closing sentence, "The result was keep.", or from the discussion on his talk page where he talks about the amount of votes and when they were cast. The second way, is at the very least the admin disenginiously closed the AfD as Keep when it could have been closed as no consensus, as he stated on his talk page, to minimize ambiguity and future confusion.
Aspects (
talk)
11:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Instead of arguing about it, you should be apologising to MBisanz for misrepresenting him. Any disingenuousness here is entirely by you misrepresenting what he wrote. By accusing him of disenguity you compound your baseless accusations. The AfD was appropriately closed. --
Dweller (
talk)
12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think there's any "bad faith" going on here, just a lack of complete communication. I have often wished that closing admins would state reasons behind the conclusion of an AFD rather than just the result.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
12:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse (keep). At worst keep (no consensus). No prospect for deletion. discuss other options on the talk page. Agree with Paul McDonald, I wish closers would always give a decent explanation, clearly better explanations are needed. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Closing admin First I weighed the nature of the comments, that deletes were changed to keeps and that the comments made in the second five days said keep. Second, I weigh the count of each side to check if my initial close is supported by the numbers or would require an explanation as to what arguments I found most convincing and why I did not find a numerically superior argument as convincing. In this case the numbers confirmed rather than contradicted my initial close, so I just clicked the script and closed as a straight keep.
MBisanz
talk
12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Difficult to envision any other close given the discussion.
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done
13:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse keep, consensus was clearly for keeping. I couldn't see much rationale for deleting in the AFD nomination, and the only other person arguing for deletion made a rather vague and cryptic "Delete and salt per WP:FICT" argument.
Sjakkalle
(Check!)
15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Question Just as a side question, do my and
User:LouScheffer merges count as Keep in this AfD because I was under the assumption that voting Merge was for keeping the information but not keeping the article and would therefore be counted as a Delete?
Aspects (
talk)
15:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- In one sense "merge" is usually considered as an opinion against outright deletion. However, in a discussion of whether to merge the article in the aftermath of the AFD, the presence of well-argued merge votes in the AFD definitely lends some credence to the idea of merging. An AFD with some arguing keep, some arguing merge, and some arguing outright keep, will often be closed as a "no consensus" (or even "keep") by the closing admin, and then wind up with merge a little later after some talk page discussions.
Sjakkalle
(Check!)
07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- "Merge" should be interpretated as a variation of "do not delete". See
WP:MAD for why "merge" and "delete" are generally incompatable. AfD is not primarily for deciding on mergers, but it can easily be the final consensus. If there was not consensus to merge apparent at AfD, but it is still a good idea, propose it on the articles talk page. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
09:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
|