| Revision as of 15:04, 9 October 2006 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits →[]: r← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:06, 9 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (keep closure endorsed)Next edit → |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:''See also: ] |
|
|
:''See also: ] |
|
|
A recent check of the closes by the below non-admin found this one. Closed per ] as a '''keep'''. Ignoring the fact that there was only an AfD about four days prior to this one (which the closer !voted in, making it a conflict of interest), there is no SNOW to keep - over 50% of the !votes are for delete. Your thoughts are appreciated. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Note:''' added the 5th nomination, which the non-admin also closed as a ''"bad faith nomination"''. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 02:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The non-admin also issued a "Blatant vandal" serious warning to the nominator of the 5th afd, apparently for making this nomination. Seems a bit excessive. ] 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Partial endorse of closure''' Okay to close the afd if a previous afd had only occurred a few days before. Closing non-admin should not assume bad faith and treat nominator as vandal without better grounds however. ] 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closures, keep article live.''' I've had ] on my watchlist for a while now; IMHO there are a few editors out there that are absolutely hellbent on getting this article deleted by any means necessary, for purely political reasons. The fourth nomination was made only 72 hours after the third nomination was ] by ], who of course is an administrator. ], but it can't change that much in three days, especially when there wasn't a single edit made to ] from the moment Mailer Diablo closed it to the moment MechCommander attempted the 4th nom . Given that, I think Parsssseltongue's closure of the 4th nom was absolutely legitimate. I also do not believe it is against any policy or guideline for an editor or admin to close a ''later'' nomination just because they voted in the prior nomination; each AfD is considered its own enclosed discussion, as far as I can tell. Regarding the 5th nom, Parsssseltongue was right to close it: The nominee was unquestionably an ] who couldn't even format the AfD correctly . I don't really have much of an opinion as to whether Parsssseltongue went too far by putting a {{tl|blatantvandal}} tag on the user's talk page, but that's not an issue for ]. --] 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*As a compromise, might I suggest that we '''merge''' this to the article on his father? ] 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Comment''' I believe that "compromise" has been suggested and rejected in at least a few of the AFD's. ] 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*'''Comment''': I can't support a merge. First, the "merge" decision is irrevocably broken as it applied to AfDs, IMHO; most of the time the AfD gets closed and the merge is never carried out. Second, in cases like this a "merge" is as good as a "delete" for those out to kill the article for bad faith motives; if the merge actually did get carried out, those opposed to the information in the article would simply slowly whittle it away from within the ] article until there was nothing left but, "Gore has a son, Al Gore III." --] 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:***I see hardly any mention of merging in any of the AFDs. I think what Aaron mentions is good, to redirect this to his father and add one or two sentences in there. ] 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:****Then go ahead. This is '''deletion''' review - to merge or not to merge is irrelevant here. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:****Uh, I specifically spoke '''against''' merging above, and gave reasons why. If a merge is done, I will revert the ] page, per my worries above. What happens to the merged information on the ] page, I don't care about. --] 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*****To put my post into better context, Radiant is free to do a merge just as Aaron is free to revert it, until a consensus is reached. Deletion review has no say in any of that. Merges are governed by the normal workings of consensus - that is, talk pages, ], etc. Although some people misguidedly seem to think that if a majority argue for merge in an AfD, a merge will happen as if by magic, it won't. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:******'''Note''' that I've added a {{tl|merge}} tag to the article. Please discuss on its talk page. ] 22:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Very Weak Overturn Closure and Relist'''. The non-admin editor ought to have deferred to ]. I see no justification for the closing editor to have relied on ] or ] to have closed these discussions. I think one could argue IAR justifies deletion as much as it justifies retention, and there was absolutely no basis in fact to say that the outcome of the debate would be patently clear. That said, the fact the previous AfD was barely over is significant, hence the "very weak" nature of this comment. ] 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Comment''': Relisting this soon seems like it would be a waste of time just to make a point, since another admin will just step in and close it anyway. You can't rerun AfDs on an article over and over again every three days until you get the result you want (at least when it hasn't had any major edits to it or, as in this case, literally no edits at all); that's a far bigger abuse of process than anything that's happened here. --] 18:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and relist'''. Result was correct, process was broken every step of the way. --] <small>]</small> 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep closures, keep article''' - Editors need to be less concerned about whether an admin or non-admin closed some AfDs, and more concerned about multiple AfDs being opened one after another just because someone is mad that their target didn't get deleted. ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Disclaimer: PT is the original closer. <font face="sans-serif">''']]]'''</font> 00:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Nullify and relist'''. While non-admins are allowed to close, and I appreciare those that do so propoerly, they must do so only on ''non-controversial'' closes. The immediate subsequent nomination should have clued in the closer that his action was not agreed with, and I would caution him to evaluate any future closes more closely, ''especially'' any speedy closes. --] 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' Per badlydrawnjeff finding of "Result was correct" but with rejection of "process was broken every step of the way". The result matters. not the process... ++]: ]/] 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**DRV is about ''process'', not result. As this will be closed out shortly, I'll run this over to your talk. --] <small>]</small> 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close'''. If we can ] deleted articles, we should be able to do something similar with articles that are repeatedly kept by way of consensus. That, or just get rid of ] all together. ] 06:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and relist''' the closure on AfD #4 looks completely incorrect to me. IAR and SNOW not at issue here. ] 15:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|