- Junaid Akhter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
After twenty-two days, the discussion had only one vote (delete) and a comment (pointing out irrelevant facts). The discussion should have been closed with a finding of deletion, or, at minimum, a sound explanation of why the nomination was inadequate. Three other editors (MSJapan—Lemongirl942—JJMC89) and I have asked the closer for an explanation (permalink), but none has been forthcoming. Rebbing 12:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is at issue here is that the NAC apparently must have counted replies, and assumed a keep vote on the comment. Unfortunately, that's not how AfD works. To vote, one must explicitly do so, and we aren't supposed to be counting votes, but evaluating the quality of content. Moreover, in terms of quality of the rationales, a deletion rationale was given (twice), and no keep rationale was given. The editor seems to only relist articles dealing with India and Pakistan, and is not responding to anyone on their talk page. This is a problem. MSJapan (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-ish neutral. I disagree with WP:SOFTDELETE, but I don't think NC is wrong. In any case, I think it unlikely that DRV is going to overturn a NC close to delete, so you'd probably do better just re-nominating it at AfD, if you feel that strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [reply- This could have easily been closed as delete - and I think most admins would have done so; I certainly would have - and so wasn't an appropriate non-admin closure. I read the closer's refusal even to acknowledge the questions on his talk page as tacit admission that the close isn't defensible, or at the very least that he's uncomfortable with it. And if you're doing administrative tasks,
Cryptic 16:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [reply- I certainly agree with the part about
WP:ADMINACCT. Refusing to respond to (multiple) reasonable talk page queries is completely inappropriate. I hadn't noticed that when I made my comment above. So, I'm striking my endorsement above, not because I think the NC decision is so out of line as to need overturning, but to indicate my displeasure with snubbing the queries. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [reply
- Basically the outcome was that after 22 days of discussion only one user cared enough to !vote. In the circumstances, "No consensus to delete" with
NPASR is within closer's discretion. Let's endorse but specifically say that a speedy renomination is permitted, as there is now reason to think there might be some actual participation in the discussion. I would specifically like to applaud this user for plucking up the courage to close instead of relisting yet again. AfD is clogged up with discussions that have been relisted because in 2016 so few people give a crap about actually commenting and looking for sources, but plenty of users are available to do quick, conflict-free, low-attention pseudoadministrative work such as relisting. I'm considering proposing a rule that says that for every AfD you relist, you should make a substantive comment in another. But with that said, the fact that the closer was unresponsive to talk page queries after reasonable time had expired is completely indefensible.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
|
