Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kappa (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 20 September 2006 (→[]: relist + comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

16 September 2006

MacDade Mall

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall

This AfD was closed by admin inappropriately on the basis that "no valid reason for deletion" was provided and "nominator seems to lack knowledge of the fundamentals of deletion discussions". There were valid reasons for deletion included in this discussion, including "not sufficiently notable", "WP:CORP applies . . . the article fails", "isn't even all that notable as a failure", "article contains neither evidence nor an assertion of meeting WP:CORP", "long on claims, short on evidence", "failing WP:CORP", and the one per above entry that also mentioned the WP:CORP standard. The nominal tally was 6 delete to 2 keep, though I understand this is not strictly a vote. It would appear that the admin got caught up in disagreeing with the nominator (me) in a policy debate that Uncle G inappropriately picked in the AfD and chose to ignore policy by closing this in spite of consensus as some sort of lesson. Per informal dispute resolution attempts with admin, it appears it is his belief that the quality of the nominator's policy understanding is dispositive instead of considering all contributions to the discussion. Erechtheus 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has proper references now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I understand it, this is not WP:AFD. Keep is not an appropriate "vote". Your choices appear to be relist, endorse the decision made, or overturn the decision made. Erechtheus 19:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete This was a poor closing judgement of discussion consensus within policy/guideline framework by the admin, with possible violation of WP:POINT. The article still lacks non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources indicating encyclopedic notability for this mall which might allow it to pass consensus intepretation of WP:CORP. Yes, I've read the external link references. Minor mentions about parts of the mall in local newspapers and some photos on a random Flicker account arent very convincing. The 404/"page not found" error link to a page hosted on an amateur model railroad enthusiasts' site isn't very compelling either. Bwithh 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think the admin's response to User:Erechtheus's queries about the discussion result was unnecessarily heavy-handed in tone, and was less than what is expected of an admin to reasonable requests (especially concerning a closing admin remark which came across as an ad hominem criticism). Admin User:Sean_Black also shows signs of unfamiliarity with afd discussions on Misplaced Pages if, as he says in his response to Erechtheus, he doesn't understand why the article was nominated. Malls, like schools and churches and small colleges are often nominated on afd (typically under WP:CORP or WP:ORG or some other form of WP:NOT (e.g. WP is not the yellow pages or a business directory) - with some controversy as well as consensus, some are kept and others are deleted. Bwithh 20:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, delete I don't know if there is a background story, but this surely reads like a personal vendetta by the closing admin against the nominator. The nomination was perfectly in order, the article lacks reliable sources for its claims, and a Newsbank search comes up with maybe one article that could be interpreted as about the mall itself. Subject is not notable, article against policy, what else is missing? ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The closer was clearly in error, as the nomination was in good form, for a common reason, and the discussion had adequate discussion based on the relevant standard. However, the last opiner, Kappa found a legitimate, independent reliable source that had not previously been raised, and which might address the WP:CORP failure. It is at least worth relisting to see if the discussion would go differently with that source. GRBerry 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kappa's source is The News of Delaware County, a small local African-American weekly with a circulation of ~22,500 - in the lower half of its peer group (and one that apparently can't afford its own web domain). The actual article lacks content of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I really can't believe you would give "African-American" as a reason to discount it. Kappa 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Heavy majority in favour of deletion, arguments for deletion were in fact clearly grounded in policy. If admins are closing AfDs and find one in which they want to express their own opinion, they can still add it to the bottom like everyone else. --Sam Blanning 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Followup comment This was Admin User:Sean Black's response to User:Erechtheus's very polite notice that this deletion review was happening: "Whatever. Delete it if you really feel the need to, doesn't bother me.". Um, is this kind of attitude to afd closing/deletion review/requests from ordinary editors appropriate for an Admin? There are guidelines for this kind of thing, right? Maybe he's having a bad week... perhaps a wikibreak is in order Bwithh 16:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the other conversations on his talk page, this Admin appears to have several recent comments from other Wikipedians suggesting that his attitude is brusque/incivil. Sort of ironic that the Admin also has this personal statement on his user page:"We need more happiness around here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Misplaced Pages community. Don't just be civil, be forward... Too many people have left Misplaced Pages—let's not let the rest go, too." Bwithh 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a followup comment, that's a dig. If you have a general problem with someone's behaviour, either discuss it with them or take it to an appropriate place (e.g. RfC), don't drag it into discussions which should be focused on one specific issue. --Sam Blanning 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the comments out of process - I do see now that the comment become overly expansive that it became out of bounds for this discussion focus. Though I do see my comment as a followup comment and not as a personal "dig" as you characterize it - I've never come across Admin Sean Black before this and I was sympathizing with User:Erechtheus, and especially as admins have a "public official" status on Misplaced Pages (criticism of elected representatives or public servants vs. criticism of private citizens). Bwithh 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Overturn and Delete. While it may be arguable whether or not a consensus was reached in the discussion, that was not the reason given for keeping the article. The reasons given by the closing admin were "no valid reason for deletion provided" and "nominator seems to lack knowledge of the fundamentals of deletion discussions." The first reason given is simply not true. The nominator stated the subject "is not sufficiently notable" and "there is no source cited" for the single claim to notability. The second reason given by the closing admin, whether or not accurate, does not seem relevant to the closing decision. It makes it appear that if an AfD nominator doesn't understand the process, then the entire discussion is disregarded. I strongly disagree. We certainly have all seen numerous AfD listings where the nominator had no idea what he or she was doing (and this was not one of those AfD's), but the process of evaluation and debate was still carried on effectively by other, experienced editors. The closing decision should be based on all opinions presented, not on the alleged lack of knowledge on the part of the single nominator. --Satori Son 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  While I don't want to appear like I'm desperate for this DRV to go one way, your reasoning sounds like the one several have used for overturning and deletion. Is there a particular reason why you think there should be a new AfD instead of simply overturning the closing of the old one? --Sam Blanning 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  At the original AfD discussion, there were 6 delete opinions and 2 clear keep opinions. Uncle G's opinion was somewhat ambiguous, but appeared to indicate a desire to keep, likely bringing it to 3 keep opinions. All opinions were from established editors and cited policy. Thus, is seems like an argument could be made that consensus was not yet reached. That being said, I certainly would not object to this review resulting in the very reasonable outcome of overturn and deletion. --Satori Son 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry to vacillate on this one, but after going back and thoroughly reviewing the comments and contribution histories of all parties involved, I believe that a valid consensus to delete was reached in the AfD. --Satori Son 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per trialsanderrors and Bwithh. Agent 86 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Relist since the best evidence was added late and would likely have swayed any neutral voters passing by. Also the option of merging was not considered. Kappa 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)