| Revision as of 08:54, 4 November 2013 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots669,054 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:42, 4 November 2013 edit undoBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,159 editsm Reverted edits by DPL bot (talk) to last version by Black KiteNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| * I don't take any notice of any previous AFD or DRV when closing deletion discussions. The problem I had in closing as "keep" was not only numeric, though, as some of the keep votes were simply of the format "]". ] (]) 08:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | * I don't take any notice of any previous AFD or DRV when closing deletion discussions. The problem I had in closing as "keep" was not only numeric, though, as some of the keep votes were simply of the format "]". ] (]) 08:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :*Sure, fair enough, but if you ignored previous AFDs and the majority of ''delete'' contributions were "per previous AFD" (including the nomination), I can't see we could then arrive at a consensus to delete. I'm suggesting "no consensus" was the most obvious result, with no consensus to either keep or delete in particular. That said (and though I appreciate you've said you didn't take previous discussions into account) there ''was'' a previous (recent) DRV discussion where consensus wasn't exactly ambiguous - it was qualitatively and quantitatively in favour of allowing recreation on the basis that BLP1E no longer applied. The alternative is that I just go and recreate the article on the basis that the concerns raised at AFD no longer apply (given they actually didn't apply ''before'' the AFD) and per the DRV that permitted recreation. That, of course, would effectively mean reverting your closure. So I'm stuck. ]] 14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | :*Sure, fair enough, but if you ignored previous AFDs and the majority of ''delete'' contributions were "per previous AFD" (including the nomination), I can't see we could then arrive at a consensus to delete. I'm suggesting "no consensus" was the most obvious result, with no consensus to either keep or delete in particular. That said (and though I appreciate you've said you didn't take previous discussions into account) there ''was'' a previous (recent) DRV discussion where consensus wasn't exactly ambiguous - it was qualitatively and quantitatively in favour of allowing recreation on the basis that BLP1E no longer applied. The alternative is that I just go and recreate the article on the basis that the concerns raised at AFD no longer apply (given they actually didn't apply ''before'' the AFD) and per the DRV that permitted recreation. That, of course, would effectively mean reverting your closure. So I'm stuck. ]] 14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for November 4== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:42, 4 November 2013
 | This user may only be available sporadically due to real life. If you have an urgent issue it may be better to contact another administrator. |
AFD closure query
Hi mate! I wanted to query this closure with you. From my perspective, the delete/merge !votes were almost entirely "per previous AFDs", most of which were based on WP:BLP1E, which no longer applies. Both the nom (who also !voted in addition to his nomination) and the "per nom" contribution immediately after the AFD opened were seemingly unaware of the subsequent DRV. Both had this drawn to their attention; neither responded. Then there was the "delete" contribution on the basis of a lack of sources which even the "merge" crowd agreed wasn't the case (and hasn't been the case since the first AFD). There were fairly strong policy-based arguments from the "keep crowd" (dismissing BLP1E, highlighting sources) and arguments refuting the various "per previous" arguments from SPA IPs (which have a history of showing up at previous AFDs) - none were willing/able to come back and make a solid case. I'm inclined to take this back to DRV to re-endorse the previous decision there to allow recreation on the basis that BLP1E no longer applies, thus all of the "per previous" !votes were entirely weightless. Stalwart111 03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't take any notice of any previous AFD or DRV when closing deletion discussions. The problem I had in closing as "keep" was not only numeric, though, as some of the keep votes were simply of the format "there are lots of Survivor character articles". Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, fair enough, but if you ignored previous AFDs and the majority of delete contributions were "per previous AFD" (including the nomination), I can't see we could then arrive at a consensus to delete. I'm suggesting "no consensus" was the most obvious result, with no consensus to either keep or delete in particular. That said (and though I appreciate you've said you didn't take previous discussions into account) there was a previous (recent) DRV discussion where consensus wasn't exactly ambiguous - it was qualitatively and quantitatively in favour of allowing recreation on the basis that BLP1E no longer applied. The alternative is that I just go and recreate the article on the basis that the concerns raised at AFD no longer apply (given they actually didn't apply before the AFD) and per the DRV that permitted recreation. That, of course, would effectively mean reverting your closure. So I'm stuck. Stalwart111 14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)