- Ascot–Guildford line (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
No clear deletes, 3 keeps and 1 redirect, Admin who deleted did not provide a reason for deletion. This has also been noted on closer's talk page Nightfury 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, no consensus to delete. Not a reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus. I'm all for deleting unsourced train-cruft (which this is), but the role of a discussion closer is to weigh the arguments made by the discussants. Looking at the existing discussion, calling this a consensus to delete can only be a supervote. If you have an opinion to express, join the discussion instead of closing. Orthogonal to that, it really helps to provide some insight into why you closed it the way you did. For dead obvious discussions, a one-word close is fine. For a discussion where you're clearly going against the flow for some policy reason, greater transparency is required. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How are User:Mattbuck's and User:Andy Dingley's comments "no clear deletes"? —Cryptic 12:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist so the article renaming discussion can continue. I voted keep but only on the basis of buying time for the rename discussion to conclude, either in the afd itself or after a keep when it would get renamed anyhow. Szzuk (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist or alternatively (if that's not possible) endorse. The fact the article is completely unsourced is a strong argument for deletion, unless someone can show that sources exist. Nobody did here. Core policy has more weight than vote counts. Hut 8.5 18:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument against deletion seemed to be
- WP:OTHERSTUFF
- What to do with Bagshot et al
- The article needs work
- Of these, 1 is not a valid reason, for 2 I suggest following commons with Ascot to Ash Vale Line, for 3 I suggest that if it has no references it failed WP:GNG or frankly doesn't exist at all. I can start calling Iron Man and Vision the Redvengers, but that doesn't make Redvengers a thing. Oh, and Nightfury, I nominated it for deletion, that's a pretty clear vote for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. In consideration with the amount of detail in the closing statement, that was definitely not an acceptable close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC). I presume that the closer felt that the keep !votes were below being worth acknowledging, but I disagree. The closer needed to state, in the close, the reasons for deletion that need to be overcome to allow re-creation. The words are provided by delete !voters, but the closer needs to point to them, preferably repeat them. Some would call this courtesy, but I believe it is policy per WP:ADMINACCT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Nowhere do admins get to delete unsourced stuff just because it's unsourced; there has to be a credible argument that it's unsourceable per WP:DEL7. No such effort was undertaken. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse without prejudice to sourced recreation. Contrary to the above, being unsourced is a compelling argument for deletion per WP:V if nobody actually bothers to find and add sources after a reasonable time. Sandstein 10:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V applies to specific article content, not the existence of entire articles. This is well-established. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were so, which I don't agree with, here the two are the same: the entire article was unsourced. Sandstein 19:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Lamberhurst (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The deletion nomination wasn't rebutted at all. There's a notion that part of the line used by the service isn't otherwise described, but that's not the article that was written. If it's a service, there are no sources describing it. Spartaz should have written a better close, but the outcome is defensible. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- At what point does a deletion nomination become so weak as to not even need rebutting? Given the erroneous assumption in the first part of the rationale, one cannot take the fact that the second half references notability as actually referencing actual WP:Notability. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not following you. The central claim is that this article, despite being titled "line", was actually describing a service. That wasn't rebutted during the discussion, unless you count the person claiming it was in fact a line, though they provided no evidence for that claim. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist I do not think the conclusion was unreasonable, but I don't think it's defensible - this is a close that needed a bit of explanation as to why, as opposed to just a delete, as it's in that grey delete/rename/no consensus area. Given there's not much of a consensus with this deletion review, I see no harm in letting the process play out a little longer. SportingFlyer talk 06:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (I would vote endorse if relist is not considered by the closer as I think the two delete votes had stronger policy.) SportingFlyer talk 06:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there is good agreement in the AfD and now in this DRV the article should be renamed Ascot to Ash Vale Line, I presume this will close no consensus and suggest the closer offers a draft to anyone who wants it for recreation of the said article. There is a ref here [1] demonstrating it is network infrastructure that we keep. Szzuk (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion close was predicated on reading the comments not the bits in bold. My take was that this line's lack of sourcing was not refuted. The keep arguments were either assertions or discussion about what to do about stations on the line. The policy based arguments were to delete. Since then it appears that the line is not to guildford but to Ash Vale that probably explains why there is no sourcing in reinforces the fact that this line is not a real thing. Obviously, the thing to do now is to source the Ash Vale line and create an article about that but, since I wasn't afforded the courtesy of a discussion on my talk page - just notification of the DRav, I shall leave that to the closer to determine. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - no way this could reasonably be closed as delete. Clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE. No objection to relisting, as there were only a few keep !votes. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. As Smartyllama said, this was definitely a supervote, and it does not help that Spartaz provided no closing statement in the AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn' to NC or Relist--Supervote.And it doesn't help that Spartaz lacks the ability to write closing statements.~ Winged BladesGodric 08:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|