Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:21, 13 November 2008

12 November 2008

D&D Precision Tools

D&D Precision Tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

References were provided for this cutting edge technology company from the 1970's and 1980's relaive to Dunn & Bradstreet, National Tooling & Machining Association, Society of Manufacturing Engineers and recognition fron the Bellflower, CA Lions Club International and the Norwalk, CA Chamber of Commerce. Deleting this article is deleting history. User:DonDeigo 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. As background, D&D Precision Tools was a manufacturing job shop in Bellflower, California between December 1978 and 1987, at which time it was acquired by Research Enterprises of Sherman Oaks, California. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't show anything, so there doesn't seem to be any history being deleted. Also, it might have been copyvio from doryoku.org, but, on the other hand, doryoku.org may be a Misplaced Pages mirror. -- Suntag ☼ 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters

List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

After the AFD was restarted a second time, User:RMHED performed a non-admin closure about 2 hours later, stating it closed as keep as there was no obvious consensus to delete and that any merge discussion should take place on the article's talk page. I agree there was no "delete" consensus, but if a merge were to occur, there is a likely need for this page to be deleted. Both the speedy close after the second restart and the reasoning make this closure (particularly by a non-admin and in the timeframe given after a restart) a highly questionable use of a NAC. MASEM 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep pagehistory intact). This was not a second AfD, this was a relisting. Once a discussion has run it's five days, it is subject to closure at any time - a relisting does not automatically mean that it will suddenly run for 10 days. In this case, the consensus is remarkable clear with only two people arguing to delete the page and 16 people arguing for some flavor of "keep". The discussion was civil and well based in policy and precedent. I am not normally a fan of non-admin closures (because the discussions are frequently more complicated than they appear) but I can see no way that this discussion could have been closed differently.
  The decision now of whether to "keep as is" or "merge" should be sorted out on the respective article Talk pages. Note: Even if the AfD discussion did finally reach a clear "merge" decision, it would be no more binding than an equally-well attended discussion on the Talk page. As has been said frequently before, AfD has no mandate to decide on ordinary-editor actions like mergers, removal of content, decisions to redirect, etc.
  One last point. If the final decision is to merge the page, deletion is the very last thing that we would want to do. Mergers conclude with redirects and deliberately keep the pagehistory intact so that we can be sure that we are fully complying with the attribution requirements of GFDL. To delete the page would be to delete the contribution history of the merged content. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure And I'm also endorsing the first closure by Alexnia. (which he self-reverted) AFD is a discussion on whether or not an admin should push a delete button and at the time of the first closure, nobody but the nominator was arguing for that button to be pushed. At the time of the second closing, only one other editor was arguing for deletion. All and all the discussion ran for 7 days and there was no consensus to delete. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse preferably speedily. mergers should never result in the deletion of the merged page. See Help:Merging and moving pages. We keep the old page history intact even if the redirect is unlikely in order to preserve the page history for GFDL reasons. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Ran full time, and there was clearly nowhere near a consensus for outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The only procedural error alleged was an early closure, and WP:RELIST clearly states that a relisted debate may be closed at any stage and need not run for a further five days. To be frank, Alexnia should have left the keep closure intact rather than relisting it. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  IMHO Alexnia's close was proper but he reopened it because of the nominator's objection to his close on his talk page where he could have done a better job of defending the close. Instead of saying I counted more keeps then merges he should have said nobody but you was arguing for deletion. Even though the nom couldn't have gone any other was he was giving the nominator the benefit of the doubt. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  Incidentally, discussion on a merge (which can never result in the page being deleted anyway) is still possible on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  Really It's no use to make a fuss about my declaration I made on my talkpage the nom objected my NAC closure and seeing that I was not a admin i thought it would have been better to let an admin decide. Regarding my poor defence the afd rahther ended up in a merging discussion. I think in a situation like this my state ment "I counted more keeps then merges" was right. I'm deciding not to do any Nac closures anymore because it only leads to users objecting my Nac closure because I'm not an admin, not even rergarding how obvious the Afd is. Alexnia (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• endorse close Nominator claims "but if a merge were to occur, there is a likely need for this page to be deleted". This makes GFDL a sad panda. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A page merge could use a history merge which would keep the GFDL compliance but still result in the deletion of said page. --MASEM 22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but there's rarely a very good reason to bother doing that, and it still doesn't require an AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - The close statement "any merge proposal is best discussed on the article talk page" is flat out wrong because AfD brings a wider range of people with less personal interest in the topic. I probably would have close as no consensus or merge. The keep close seems within the closer's discretion of interpteting the discussion. Once an article has been listed at AfD for more than 120 hours (five days), it can be closed by anyone who can reasonably derive a consensus (or lack of consensus) out of the discussion. The close should not have been a NAC close, but the remedy for that is that any admin may change the close. -- Suntag ☼ 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not oppose a change in deletion policy so that merge proposals that were not clearly consented to or rejected on the talk page, were in fact discussed at afd. It would only regularize the present situation. I would suggest accompanying this with another change, that there be explicitly 4 outcomes for afd, keep/merge/redirect/delete -- with merge meaning merge all the content. Again, this would only regularize the current situation. All this would still of course leave the qy of how much to merge with no real way to enforce decisions--there have already been too many cases where a merge close is followed by an almost total deletion of content, but at least it should deal with the problem of a keep followed by a merge followed by a deletion of content. As for NAC closes, too many of them come here, which would not be challenged if they were from an admin. I suggest we simply prohibit non-unanimous NACs. DGG (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)