Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 17: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:19, 17 October 2018 editVanamonde93 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,213 edits dup sig← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:23, 19 August 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed navbox class for mobile accessibility (Task 4)Tag: AWB
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2\|page=<PAGE NAME>\|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>\|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ -->		Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2\|page=<PAGE NAME>\|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>\|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ -->
		⚫	{\| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	====] (closed)====
⚫	{\| class="~~navbox~~ collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	\|-		\|-
	! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" \|		! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" \|
Line 17:		Line 16:
	*'''endorse''' close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- ] (]) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)		*'''endorse''' close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- ] (]) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
	*:Unbecoming of an admin? That is not a deletion criterion of which I am aware.-- ] (]) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)		*:Unbecoming of an admin? That is not a deletion criterion of which I am aware.-- ] (]) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

			*{{ec}}'''Endorse''' and '''Procedural close''' -- DRV is '''not''' ''AfD, round 2''.The community had already refused to agree that it violates POLEMIC.]] 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
			:*The sole potential argument over here '''might'' be that in cases of NC over polemic stuff, it might be better to <u>default-equate the call with a delete</u> but I guess, that goes against the longstanding provison of equating NC with a keep, (except in BLPVIO cases in article space) and that's thoughts for elsewhere.]] 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

	*{{ec\|2}} I am closing this for procedural reasons. DRV is not for relitigating an XfD: it's for addressing whether the editor closing said XfD judged consensus correctly. There's nothing in this opening statement which addresses that. Another XfD is probably the best way to go (if you would not rather just drop the stick, which is what I would recommend) and is not precluded by a no-consensus close. ] (]) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)		*{{ec\|2}} I am closing this for procedural reasons. DRV is not for relitigating an XfD: it's for addressing whether the editor closing said XfD judged consensus correctly. There's nothing in this opening statement which addresses that. Another XfD is probably the best way to go (if you would not rather just drop the stick, which is what I would recommend) and is not precluded by a no-consensus close. ] (]) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
	\|-		\|-

Latest revision as of 06:23, 19 August 2021

< 2018 October 16 Deletion review archives: 2018 October 2018 October 18 >

17 October 2018

User:JzG/Politics – Procedural close, per below. Vanamonde (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:JzG/Politics (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) It seems quite clear that the page violates WP:POLEMIC and has quite a few BLP violations in there. As a secondary, and much smaller reason, the page is unbecoming for an admin and might reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages. Having an occasional userbox or statement about politics is one thing, but this page is crystal clear a violation of what POLEMIC is. Sir Joseph 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) endorse close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Unbecoming of an admin? That is not a deletion criterion of which I am aware.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)Endorse and Procedural close -- DRV is not AfD, round 2.The community had already refused to agree that it violates POLEMIC.∯WBG 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC) The sole potential argument over here 'might be that in cases of NC over polemic stuff, it might be better to default-equate the call with a delete but I guess, that goes against the longstanding provison of equating NC with a keep, (except in BLPVIO cases in article space) and that's thoughts for elsewhere.∯WBG 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) I am closing this for procedural reasons. DRV is not for relitigating an XfD: it's for addressing whether the editor closing said XfD judged consensus correctly. There's nothing in this opening statement which addresses that. Another XfD is probably the best way to go (if you would not rather just drop the stick, which is what I would recommend) and is not precluded by a no-consensus close. Vanamonde (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:JzG/Politics – Procedural close, per below. Vanamonde (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It seems quite clear that the page violates WP:POLEMIC and has quite a few BLP violations in there. As a secondary, and much smaller reason, the page is unbecoming for an admin and might reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages. Having an occasional userbox or statement about politics is one thing, but this page is crystal clear a violation of what POLEMIC is. Sir Joseph 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

endorse close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Unbecoming of an admin? That is not a deletion criterion of which I am aware.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Endorse and Procedural close -- DRV is not AfD, round 2.The community had already refused to agree that it violates POLEMIC.∯WBG 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The sole potential argument over here 'might be that in cases of NC over polemic stuff, it might be better to default-equate the call with a delete but I guess, that goes against the longstanding provison of equating NC with a keep, (except in BLPVIO cases in article space) and that's thoughts for elsewhere.∯WBG 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I am closing this for procedural reasons. DRV is not for relitigating an XfD: it's for addressing whether the editor closing said XfD judged consensus correctly. There's nothing in this opening statement which addresses that. Another XfD is probably the best way to go (if you would not rather just drop the stick, which is what I would recommend) and is not precluded by a no-consensus close. Vanamonde (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.