| Revision as of 14:43, 4 September 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. end.)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:19, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,050 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| 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. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== ] ==== |
|
|
* This deletion is in direct opposition to the consensus "vote", which was keep (3 keep to 2 delete). |
|
|
* The reason given for the delete was never mentioned in any of the delete comments and was never expressed prior to the delete. |
|
|
* The page itself went through significant revision during this process and is not sufficiently covered in a simple link to an external website. |
|
|
Bottom Line: ] deleted this article without any notice, without contributing to the consensus-building or discussion, and did so unilaterally in a manner contrary to the delete process and votes already made. It was purely blindsiding the article and those who have worked on it. |
|
|
*Thanks for the deletion review; I'm always happy to give my reasoning. ] of the Spyderchat website nominated for non-notability. The nominator (]), ] and ] raised the point that notability was not established. No evidence that it met ] was found in the article (or in the revisions, which I reviewed), and no verifiable evidence was cited in the AfD by the other participants that it did. AfD is not a vote, but there was no majority even when counting votes (3-3 including nom), and I used discretion as above as the closing administrator. The reason for the delete was that the relevant notability guideline (]) was not met. Regarding the bottom line: the AfD was appropriately closed after 9 days on AfD (thus notice was sufficient); AfD's should not be closed by administrators who've participated in the discussion; and as above, the decision was not unilateral. -- ] <small>]</small> 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Endorse closure''' The weight of the arguments is more important than the nose count, and arguments that cite policies, guidelines, and other standards are more weighty than those that ignore them. The nominator led the nomination with a reference to ], the relevant standards, and none of those opining keep made any attempt to show how the article met it or even could meet it. The final opiner also demonstrated evidence of failing an attempt to get it to meet WP:WEB, making it rational to conclude that meeting WP:WEB was not possible. ] 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''' Valid closure per strength of arguments: |
|
|
*:''] deleted this article without any notice'' - There is no reqirement to notify anyone. If you're interersted in a discussion, monitor it. (Click on the "watch" tag above the AfD and check your watchlist frequently). |
|
|
*:''without contributing to the consensus-building or discussion'' - The closing admin is ''required'' to remain neutral and not engage in the discussion. |
|
|
*:''and did so unilaterally in a manner contrary to the delete process'' - The closing admin perfectly acted within the scope of ] and ]. |
|
|
*:''and votes already made'' - Closing an AfD is not a vote count. The closing admin has discretion to take strength of arguments and standing into account. |
|
|
:And finally, no attempt was made to ] the claims of notability made in the article. Asserting notability is not the same as establishing notability. ~ ] 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). This was within reasonable admin discretion. The strongest "keep" argument was that this the largest chat site associated with a car. There was no assertion or evidence presented to show why ''any'' chat site about the car would be encyclopedic, much less evidence supporting this one. ] <small>]</small> 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''', appropriate admin response to the discussion since only one of the keep votes had standing, and since there were no verifiable sources provided. If you can come up with something to prove that it's notable, write it up in User space then bring it back here for review. Until such a time, the close was completely appropriate. BTW, it's usually considered '''''best''''' if the closing admin '''''does not''''' participate in the AfD discussion. ]|] 03:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** While I understand the above, I believe that the notability of the article was growing, and had the article been able to remain, would have been far more encompassing. There is a vast array of information on the actual car on the site, as well as non-forum areas with technical information, detailed guides to maintenance, modifications, etc. that go far beyond a simple BB system. The article was originally nominated for non-notability because it was less than a stub and not serious. That changed significantly. That was still in the process of changing. Wiki has many, many articles that are so much smaller, so much more hollow, so much more worthless, but with potential. I/we feel that the Spyderchat article had the same potential and in its final form already far outshone many of the stubs found on Wiki. |
|
|
** I accept, though grudgingly, the deletion decision st this time, but I would ask that the page's content be made available (forgot what it's called where one can make the content undeleted temporarily or something so one can see what had been deleted) so I may copy it locally for reference. (It took a lot of time and work to build up what I did and I'd at least to have that personally.) I would very much appreciate this assistance. |
|
|
** Lastly, in particular to Samir, I want to say that I hope I didn't sound to antagonistic or aggressive earlier. Admittedly, it was very late at night when I wrote that, so I may not have phrased it as best I could have. Please don't take offense as I didn't mean to offend. I felt that deleting it for a reason that had never been discussed was blindsiding those working to keep it, but I didn't mean that to be a personal attack, but rather a "receiving end" perspective of the deletion, not the deletor. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that, and let you know that I appreciate your comments that elaborated on the situation. |
|
|
** ] 04:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** Leave a note on any admin's Talk page and most will copy the deleted content into an email to you for any good-faith request such as this. I'd be happy to do it for you if you let me know where to send it. ] <small>]</small> 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Didn't view anything as a personal attack, don't worry. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the text if you would like -- ] <small>]</small> 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''', valid conclusion per policy and per guidelines. AfD is not a vote, no credible arguments were advanced for the encyclopaedic notability of this website. ] 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse closure''' and give Dr. The Scope a gold star for refering to the relevant guideline in his closing comment. The ''non-notable website'' of the nom should probably be understood as website that doesn't mee the requirements of ] but actual links to policy/guiline pages are very usefull. ] 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== ] ==== |
|
|
I tried to find out more about what was required of an article for it to meet featured article specifications but twice, a redirect has been deleted from ] to ]. Inclusion of the redirect would have saved me the great deal of time that it took me to get here and protest against its deletion and would also save future users the hassle of discovering the ] page, particularly troublesome to newcomers. --] (]) 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Was there an RfD for this? Looks like a cross-namespace redirect that was speedied. ~ ] 18:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' RfD ]. ]<sup>(]/])</sup> 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' (undelete). The noses where counted properly in the RfD but the conclusion contradicts policy on ]. While that section does suggest that cross-namespace redirects may be deletable in some circumstances, the section immediately below covers the exceptions. Bullets 1 (useful history), 3 (aid searching), 5 (someone finds them useful) and probably 4 (breaking old links) in the "Avoid deleting such redirects" section apply to this case. ] is the most comprehensive discussion of the relative merits and demerits of CNRs. The case for their deletion is, in my opinion, far from settled. ] <small>]</small> 23:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Redlink''', i.e. delete the {{tl|deletedpage}}), as with prior cross-namespace redirects. Those who want to make sure it doesn't reappear can watchlist it. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Redlink''', just like all other cross-namespace redirects. If you disagree with that policy, start a discussion on ]. -] 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep Deleted, no opinion on deleted template vs Redlink''' - Cross namespace redirects should be deleted on sight. --] 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I have nothing more to say than Improv already said. '''Keep deleted'''. ]|] 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''' as for all cross-namespace redirects. (], ]). 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Question'''. Articles frequently have a cross-namespace link at the top (e.g. using the selfref template) incase someone was looking for Misplaced Pages help. Would it be acceptable to undelete the page and apply such a manually-operated link? --] (]) 07:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**That's one of the better solutions, but only if you can write an article about featured articles that would stand up at AfD (bearing ] in mind). I'm not sure that the phrase has enough relevance outside Misplaced Pages for that to be possible. --] 11:37, 1 September 2006 (]]]) |
|
|
*'''Redlink''' unless an article can be written. --] 11:37, 1 September 2006 (]]]) |
|
|
*'''Redlink''' per ]. ] 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Proposed compromise''' Can we set the redirects here → ]? I think cross namespace dab headers are fairly common and the best solution to article space searches for/links to WP space topics. As long as we can find something in the article space they can go to, adding a dab header there seems a far better solution than redlinking. ~ ] 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''' or '''redirect''' to an ''encyclopedic'' article. A cross-namespace redirect is unacceptable. --] 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Reopening for the purpose of gathering more opinion here. ] 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|