- Mobikade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A non-notable article with no sources that never met the guidelines for inclusion. No arguments were presented in favor of keeping it over three weeks. The administrator closed the discussion as "no consensus" because nobody brought up his favorite guideline, but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that a discussion must mention this or that specific guideline. At the very least it should be relisted. Shii (tock) 14:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or relist a consensus of two may be a weak consensus, but it's still unanimous and calling it "no consensus" is a borderline insult two the two that did participate. Bad close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-There's no consensus here.
not notable" and the nominator's argument is based entierly on Alexa ranking, which is a weak argument at best. No compelling reason for deletion was offered. In addition, the fact that the AfD has already been relisted twice suggests that doing so probably will not be fruitful. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [reply
- My intention was never to insult anybody. I know that there are many who believe that a "nom + 1 delete" is a consensus but I usually leave "1 !voters" to other admins unless there are BLP issues. I closed this one the way I did for 2 reasons. 1. The article had survived a
ATA argument. I just did not see any policy based reasons put forth as to why the article should be deleted. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [reply
- Delete or relist- I agree entirely with Starblind. Consensus doesn't need to be overwhelmingly strong to count. Reyk YO! 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist more opinions areneeded,and they are better at an AfD2 than here. But, since we are talking about it here, I notice that the first argument was based primarily about comparing Alexa rank, and the second, around a mistaken concept that notability need be lasting. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Admin made correct close. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- relist plainly. NC was a reasonable close given the weak arguments, but now that it has been raised to DrV better arguments can be presented. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, put this article out of its misery. Relisting isn't necessary. Unanimous delete from the participants. It was on AfD for several weeks already and nobody piped up to say why it should be kept. That silence says much. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Endorse - While the nominator notes that there were no keep !voters, there was only one !voter willing to endorse deletion, and with a weak rationale noting that it "may once have been popular" but that it "did not achieve any lasting notability." (emphasis added). Since notability is not temporary, even the delete !voter's rationale was ambiguous as to whether the subject genuinely did not meet notability guidelines. As such, with no other !votes over 3 weeks, a "no consensus" result was correct. That said, a no consensus result does not preclude renominating. And that would be the case even if the nominator provided a valid policy-based rationale for deleting, which was not the case, which left the closer with no unambiguously valid delete supportors - as it turns out, exactly the same number as the unambiguously valid keep supporters. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. That's pretty clear: the AfD generated two opinion statements, including the nominator's, neither of which were supported by any analysis of sources and neither of which were grounded in policy. We don't delete articles based on the Alexa rank, and if something was ever notable, then it's notable forever. This leaves exactly zero arguments for deletion remaining. Naturally, the article can be renominated at AfD in due course. I don't see why it should be DRV's role to enforce a relist in this case.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, within admin discretion. Ron Ritzman's reasoning, explained at the AfD and above, is sound. Rather than mandate a relist here, anyone may renominate – but please provide better rationales. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A nom and a very weak non-policy-based vote don't create a consensus for much of anything. Just relist it in a few weeks and see if you get more discussion. No need for bringing it to DRV. -Scottywong| communicate _ 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Ron Ritzman makes good points, including the mention of the previous AfD. And declining to list this as WP:NPASR is reasonable, although there has been no discussion of the
WP:NOQUORUM alternatives. The best time to have closed this AfD was within 24 hours after it was made, as WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR, at which point the nominator would either have had the motivation to prepare a deletion argument, or move on. In either case, the community, including the nominator, would now be better off than we are now. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC) [reply
- I don't think that SK 1 would apply because a deletion rationale based on Alexa ranking is a rationale, just not one based on current guidelines but since our guidelines and policies are "descriptive", if enough people wanted to use Alexa rankings as an inclusion guideline for websites I would have no problem with that. However, it will take more then a 1 !vote AFD to make that happen. Shii was perfectly within his rights to use that rationale but I was also within my rights to give it no weight. On the NPASR thing, in my view any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or not the closing admin says so and if Shii renominated the article after leaving my talk page I would have been cool with that. However, since we are here, there's no harm in getting some other opinions on this issue. We are always telling "keep" !voters who give weak rationales that "AFD is not a !vote" and deriding them for making
WP:ATA arguments so I only think it's fair that those who advocate deletion should be held to the same standard. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC) [reply
|
