Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
* I can see the argument for deletion, and NFCC is very strong and taken very seriously on Wikipedia. But, that image is very far from easy to replace. It relates to a phenomenon that's extremely unlikely to be repeated, so all we will ever have is the images that were taken at the time. And I believe the image would significantly enhance readers' understanding of the subject. In view of this I'm not convinced that sufficient discussion took place, so I'm with SmokeyJoe on this. '''Undelete and relist'''.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
* I can see the argument for deletion, and NFCC is very strong and taken very seriously on Wikipedia. But, that image is very far from easy to replace. It relates to a phenomenon that's extremely unlikely to be repeated, so all we will ever have is the images that were taken at the time. And I believe the image would significantly enhance readers' understanding of the subject. In view of this I'm not convinced that sufficient discussion took place, so I'm with SmokeyJoe on this. '''Undelete and relist'''.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
*As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
**No on both. __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''undelete and relist''' nothing procedurally wrong here, but not an unreasonable request and it appears there ''may'' be arguments sufficient to meet the NFCC requirements. Worth a discussion. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''undelete and relist''' nothing procedurally wrong here, but not an unreasonable request and it appears there ''may'' be arguments sufficient to meet the NFCC requirements. Worth a discussion. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete & relist''', agreeing with [[User:Hobit|Hobit]]. [[User:Qotsa37|qö₮$@37]] ([[User talk:Qotsa37|talk]]) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete & relist''', agreeing with [[User:Hobit|Hobit]]. [[User:Qotsa37|qö₮$@37]] ([[User talk:Qotsa37|talk]]) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*There's a default in FFDs that the image be deleted if no opposition is raised, and this was properly followed here. There's no requirement to notify anyone of FFDs (although it is strongly encouraged and also very helpful). In the circumstances I must '''endorse''' the closure as the deletion process was properly followed. However (and a discussion with the deleting admin would almost certainly have attained this result) I support '''relisting''' per [[WP:IAR]] as the image is very likely to be worthwhile. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:19, 4 June 2010
3 June 2010
Macedonia–Indonesia relations
Six votes for keep, six for delete plus the nom. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonia–Indonesia relations.) Hardly what I would call consensus to delete. Also, considering the ongoing proposal to make these articles have per se notability akin to populate places, I suggest overturning to no consensus or extending debate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did you talk about this to Black Kite before raising the DRV, Cdog?
By the way, in view of how these DRVs inevitably play out, I just want to say that if anyone was thinking of popping by to tell us that it's not a vote: it's okay. You don't need to. We already know that.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse While marked as neither keep nor delete, Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) is clearly also arguing for delete. So it's 8 to 6 in favor of deletion, and as the closing notes in his statement, only one of the keep !votes actually references relevant policy/guidelines. Numerically, this is NC leaning towards delete, but when factoring in the strengths and weakness of the arguments, consensus favors deletion. Yilloslime TC 02:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to non-consensus. Whether or not we count votes, we don;t count votes that exactly that 6-6 vs 8-6 is substantially different. That much disagreement from established editors in a clear failure of consensus. And anyone who thinks there is any degree of consensus in this area more generally hasn't been following recent discussions--while I might conceivably like to see all such pairs have automatic notability, I strongly doubt there is consensus for anything like that. How to deal with individual articles when nobody agrees on the standards is a problem--the current practice seems to amount to a coinflip. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- weak overturn it's perhaps within admin discretion though I personally think NC would have been much better. I certainly disagree with the closing statement given that keep !votes based on notability can't be regarded as weak. I agree with DGG that the coinflip nature of these discussions (based on who closes) is an issue in need of a solution. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn per both DGG and Hobit. When 8-6 is accepted as one side wins then we are out-of-synch with our own fundamental principle of consensus-based decision making. __meco (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn. The closing admin is not impartial. In a previous DRV, see [1], the closer expressed a highly opinionated position on the subject of low-key international relations articles generally. As the holder of such opinions, he should not be closing related discussions. Note that these international relations articles are currently the subject of policy debate. While that debate is progressing, these AfDs are not really helpful, and contentious administrative actions by a partisan is definitely not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Trouble is, SmokeyJoe, that it would be hard to find anyone who often closes AfD's who doesn't have an opinion on these. If we demand a fresh admin for a bilateral relations close, then we'll run out of admins before we run out of bilateral relations AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 07:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree very much. Admins generally do a very good job of acting impartially, of shelving personal opinions when closing discussion. Black Kite is no exception, although he is a person with sometimes strong conviction. This time it is special, because he appears, to me anyway, to have a view that is very strong. I certainly don't suggest that a closer on one subject can't close similar subjects, but I do suggest that debaters on a subject not close discussions on similar subjects, and especially not when their contributions to the debate were strong. Even if it just for the sake of appearances. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Uno bus route SHTL (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I have found a number of external independent references mentioning the subject, making it notable. As the administrator in question is currently being discussed for misuse of the administration tools I have decided to raise the issue here instead. Please could I at least have the article restored to my userspace so I can add the references I have found then resubmit it for inspection to see if it is of sufficient quality. BigToe7000 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
User:Qotsa37/Disco Curtis
- User:Qotsa37/Disco Curtis (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I've been working on this page in my userspace, but it's . However, I would like to create it with the permission of the admins. qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- If there's a single reliable source in the userspace draft, it wasn't obvious to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Deny recreation, does not meet WP:BAND based on the article as it stands. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
File:NorwaySpiral.jpg
The article where the image was in use was never notified using the {{ifdc}} template. However, this is optional. Had it been applied some users might have actually participated in the XfD ,and that is my main contention, that no one but the nominator did. I'm not sure if file nominations get relisted as is standard protocol for articles and categories, if so it should have been. Now I simply move that the file is undeleted and the process restarted. meco (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Undelete and relist. Discussion participants were only the nominator and closer. More discussion with an interested participant is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can see the argument for deletion, and NFCC is very strong and taken very seriously on Wikipedia. But, that image is very far from easy to replace. It relates to a phenomenon that's extremely unlikely to be repeated, so all we will ever have is the images that were taken at the time. And I believe the image would significantly enhance readers' understanding of the subject. In view of this I'm not convinced that sufficient discussion took place, so I'm with SmokeyJoe on this. Undelete and relist.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- undelete and relist nothing procedurally wrong here, but not an unreasonable request and it appears there may be arguments sufficient to meet the NFCC requirements. Worth a discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Undelete & relist, agreeing with Hobit. qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's a default in FFDs that the image be deleted if no opposition is raised, and this was properly followed here. There's no requirement to notify anyone of FFDs (although it is strongly encouraged and also very helpful). In the circumstances I must endorse the closure as the deletion process was properly followed. However (and a discussion with the deleting admin would almost certainly have attained this result) I support relisting per WP:IAR as the image is very likely to be worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)