)
(1) Debate closed 12 hours early. Current consensus is to wait at least 5 days before closing. (2) I feel the outcome of AfD did not reflect the consensus of the debate. Closing admin asked to re-open on talk page; answer was "Take it to DRV, I only closed it 12 hours early, and just about every other AFD was closed by then."--S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close- The debate was pretty well at a keep consensus, and another 12 hours wouldn't have changed that. Not quite a ]
-
It also wasn't delete. And keeping the AFD open longer was not likely going to change that. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means it was a "no consensus." Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I seriously misunderstood the point of the DRV, and I apologize. I had thought the article was kept and that you were stating it needed deletion. I see now that I was WAY off target. I'm changing my vote to Overturn to no consensus/default to keep. I don't think there was consensus in the DRV to merge. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reconsidering! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator: Overturn to keep on the grounds stated in the nomination. Sorry for not being absolutely clear about that from the start!--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The keeps were concerned that the article was nominated too early after another AFD, even though the DRV said that there wasn't any prejustice to another AFD. That's faulty reasoning, and AFD isn't a vote count. A merge was the best solution there as a concern with sources wasn't fully dealt and with a merge, the sourceable entries was kept, and if it grows too long in the parent page, then it could be split-off again. Endorse my merger Secret account 18:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. There was no way that a merge closure could be legitimately distilled from the discussion, and it appears that the closing admin substituted his own opinion for judging the debate.
talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Well policy wise it's a delete as the sourcing issues trump the faulty
WP:NOTAGAIN issues (which is every keep) which of course I discounted, because there was some that was sourced though, consensus was read better as a merge compromise. Secret account 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- The article's contents can easily be verified through reliable sources as shown throughout the discussion. The best read of the discussion was either "keep" or "no consensus." Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as a merge, there just wasn't enough content with sources for a standalone article. Secret account 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, the closing admin could have just closed as keep and then proceeded to take the editorial action of merging the article (which anyone could also have reverted).
talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse - closing admin obviously considered not only this discussion but the history of the article in making the determination. Closing admin correctly discounted all
talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Overturn to keep as I agree with Stifle that the consensus and strength of arguments was overwhelmingly to keep in that discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to keep per Stifle. There are times when there is closing admin discretion. It is hard to see this result as occurring within those bounds. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to keep per stufle, joshuaZ and A nobody.
talk) 20:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse; most of the keep votes were erroneous in nature (even though some of them linked to the relevant ATA entry). No consensus closures especially have no time limits before they can be renominated, something which the DRV had found previously. Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. Otherwise people would be renominating article ad nauseum until they got their preferred outcome. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The admin is supposed to implement the consensus. I realise there are times when the admin might think the consensus is wrong; but in that case, they should say so, and say why, and then leave to someone else to actually close the debate. It's not appropriate to overturn the consensus and close the debate in one fell swoop because admin tools are a mop, not a gavel. -- I think it's particularly important not to ignore the consensus when closing the debate before the five days for discussion are up. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The prior DRV was specifically closed without prejudice against an immediate relisting so the speedy keep--too soon votes were rightly ignored. As frustrating as repeated disucssions can be, in cases such as this where the outcome is close in term so of both consensus and policy they are appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Stifle et al. Last AfD was just too keepy, questions of how much delay after an AfD or DRV are not ironclad basic policies, "local" consensus is the best proxy for a larger consensus on such subjective matters.John Z (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merger. Secret explained his rationale well here. First, discounting the NOTAGAIN remarks was valid, given the wording of the closing of the DRV. Also, in the keep votes, several editors mentioned things like " a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLink" and "and improve beyond the bare list". Because that seems to be impossible, merging back to the main article is legitimate and does not remove any information. If later on the article becomes too big, creating this article with sources will be possible. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close and prohibit AfD or deletion reviewing this page for at least 3 months. Too much of a headache and a hassle from this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An IP unilaterally undid the merge without any support from Talk:Term_of_endearment#.22Examples.22. Given that the real consensus in the AfD was to keep, attempting to not even have the merge seems out of place. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unilaterally"? "Without any support"? Ouch, I guess, but I did post my suggestion on the talk page a day before I removed the list, and no one objected.
But let's not encourage process-wonkism. No "multilateralism" or "support" is required for making an ordinary, revertible edit to an article. Your subsequent reversion and objection were perfectly appropriate. Be bold, revert, discuss! 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is a notable concept parodied and all, but when a discussion closes as merge, almost immediately going ahead and undoing the merge without anyone commenting this soon after the AfD did strike me as unilateral or against consensus. Silence is not necessarily approval and it would have been good to give it a week or more for feedback. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Nobody, stop bringing up unrelated subjects with similar names. That film doesn't have anything to do with lists of words. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a funny sketch at least and my main thrust of the above edit wss that the correct reading of the consensus in the AfD would unquestionably and obviously have been "keep" or "no consensus" with a merge discussion taking place on the article's talk page. The close as merge did NOT reflect the consensus of the discussion and undoing the merge even really did not reflect the consensus of the AfD. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep First of all , that was the consensus, and the closing admin was following only his own preference. But in any case the most a closing admin can do if he thinks something should be merged, is keep, and recommend a merge. The recommendation is ordinarily followed, because it generally does represent the consensus, but it does not have to be. Merge is a content decision, and no admin has authority to enforce such a decision. Yes, he can close and do the merge, but any editor at all can revert it, and then it needs to be discussed according to BRD. We admins have a limited authority,and do not have general control over Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question about protocol - if the complaint is about a merger, then isn't the best way to undo the merge is to put together talk page consensus about having it split and not doing the deletion review? The close was a keep, regardless if it was merged or not, so there is no question about there being an outcome of delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it was not a merger, it was a redirection. But otherwise, yes, you are right, and that's what EEMIV should have done. Concensus can change, and to enforce a redirect or merge or even deletion this far after the event is unreasonable. DGG (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was merged, and another editor removed it from the target article. This has been undone, so the original article is now a redirect and much of the content is in another article. What is that, if not a merge? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. After reading all three debates, it is clear, at least to me, that unless a middle road is taken consensus is not going to become apparent. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge. This was probably the best solution overall. I'm not sure if removing the list from the article was the best idea, but nor am I sure that removing it was a bad idea. Perhaps we could discuss it on the talk page, as the IP editor in question suggested, rather than storming off to DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Merge: If this was a !vote then I would say the keeps had won, but as I'm often reminded it is not a vote and in this case I agree with the admin's logic. This was bought to DRV because closed 12 hours early, I don't think this entire debate should be overturned due to a minor technicality (12 hours isn't very long, and the time limit is a guidline, no AFD closes exactly "on time"), as that would be a bit like ]
- Comment I respectfully point out that this was brought to DRV largely because the outcome didn't reflect the consensus, rather than purely because of the early closure; and I respectfully object to the implication of an attempt to game the system on my part.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse well-reasoned close, plenty of input, no reason to change the outcome. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep per Stifle, or possibly no consensus depending on how many keeps are discounted due to reliance on NOTAGAIN. I think that some sort of compromise is necessary, but it should not be manufactured by the AfD closer. Merging was mentioned in passing in the most recent AfD and was not thoroughly discussed in any of them. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I know AfDs are not votes; however, I counted the bold faced words in the comments of the AfD and we have sixteen bolded "keeps", five bolded "deletes," and zero bolded "merges" or "redirects." Overwhelming majority to keep aside (three to one), how can when not a single editor's bolded stance was to merge could we end up with a merge? Editors argued to keep or delete. There was clearly no consensus to delete, but maybe a consensus to keep. Where are we getting a merge from zero editors declaring "merge" as their bolded stance? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A merge outcome cannot be possibly found in the discussion. Outside of admin discretion by a county mile. It might be the right outcome (and I suspect it will be) but that's not the issue for the closer. The question is, what is the consensous based on the discussion that's grounded in policy. As merge isn't really mentioned, you can't get there from here. The argument for deletion is much stronger (but still fairly weak). Hobit (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|