| Revision as of 15:50, 5 July 2022 editTigerShark (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,510 edits →List of 9/11 victims← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:16, 5 July 2022 edit undoLevivich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,411 edits →List of 9/11 victims: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? ] (]) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | :Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? ] (]) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for the quick response! | |||
| ::I'd start by saying that "keep"/"delete" aren't the only two outcomes. Had you considered the others, like merge and "keep title/change content"? | |||
| ::Second, I know you said from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus: can you explain that? Where do you see consensus, or how did you come to conclude there was consensus? Is it in the number of votes for one option v. the other? Is it in the quality of arguments? Did you weigh some votes more or less than other votes? Did you discount any votes? | |||
| ::What about the ] part of ]? Even if it's notable, that doesn't mean necessarily mean it must be kept. Many editors seemed to raise arguments beyond just "does it meet N", how did those arguments factor into the consensus? | |||
| ::What about the arguments that, while the subject is notable, it's already covered by the non-list article (]); i.e., the ] argument? The Casualties article was discussed by many voters, but I don't see that in the closing statement. | |||
| ::On the numbers, it seems like a 50/50 split between keep and delete. But then when you factor in the "or merge" and the "keep the title but not the content", the numbers favor delete. Even aside from the numbers, there were some arguments like, "keep, meets LISTN", which totally ignored the rationale for deletion (meeting LISTN is not an "automatic keep"), and I think those votes should be weighed less. | |||
| ::So if anything, I see a weak consensus towards delete/merge, but really it's pretty close to no consensus, which is why I think a relisting might help clarify the consensus, particularly when there hasn't been a relist yet. | |||
| ::Basically if there are a ton of !voters participating and the numbers are 50/50 or close to it, I believe it should be relisted. ]<sup class="sysop-show">]'']</sup> 16:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:16, 5 July 2022
Archives:
- 2005 - 17th April
- 2006 - 4th April - 22nd May - 11th June - 23rd June - 15th July
- 2007 - 3rd February - 10th March - 31st August - 8th September - 7th November
- 2008 - 14th February - 4th May - 10th October
- 2009 - 16th May
- 2011 - 15th December
- 2015 - 12th May
- 2021 - 19th April
- 2021 - 27th May
****** Please place new discussions below this line ******
List of 9/11 victims
Hi. Can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at your conclusions (including why you decided to close at this time and not relist). Thanks, Levivich 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? TigerShark (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response!
- I'd start by saying that "keep"/"delete" aren't the only two outcomes. Had you considered the others, like merge and "keep title/change content"?
- Second, I know you said from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus: can you explain that? Where do you see consensus, or how did you come to conclude there was consensus? Is it in the number of votes for one option v. the other? Is it in the quality of arguments? Did you weigh some votes more or less than other votes? Did you discount any votes?
- What about the WP:PAGEDECIDE part of WP:N? Even if it's notable, that doesn't mean necessarily mean it must be kept. Many editors seemed to raise arguments beyond just "does it meet N", how did those arguments factor into the consensus?
- What about the arguments that, while the subject is notable, it's already covered by the non-list article (Casualties of 9/11); i.e., the WP:FORK argument? The Casualties article was discussed by many voters, but I don't see that in the closing statement.
- On the numbers, it seems like a 50/50 split between keep and delete. But then when you factor in the "or merge" and the "keep the title but not the content", the numbers favor delete. Even aside from the numbers, there were some arguments like, "keep, meets LISTN", which totally ignored the rationale for deletion (meeting LISTN is not an "automatic keep"), and I think those votes should be weighed less.
- So if anything, I see a weak consensus towards delete/merge, but really it's pretty close to no consensus, which is why I think a relisting might help clarify the consensus, particularly when there hasn't been a relist yet.
- Basically if there are a ton of !voters participating and the numbers are 50/50 or close to it, I believe it should be relisted. Levivich 16:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)