Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 25: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cirt (talk | contribs)
commented.
Line 11: Line 11:
*'''Endorse'''. A single AfD produces a consensus in respect of the article being discussed. No further. There is no overriding policy or guideline here that compelled the closing admin to set aside a very clear consensus to keep. Given the overwhelming consensus in that direction, and the near impossibility of reversing it with further discussion, a re-listing would be an unnecessary clogging-up of the daily AfD log. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. A single AfD produces a consensus in respect of the article being discussed. No further. There is no overriding policy or guideline here that compelled the closing admin to set aside a very clear consensus to keep. Given the overwhelming consensus in that direction, and the near impossibility of reversing it with further discussion, a re-listing would be an unnecessary clogging-up of the daily AfD log. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - it's a list, with no policy reason for deletion, with a strong headcount in favour of keeping (and since listing is mostly content organisation, rather than inclusion/exclusion, headcount weighs more heavily). The nomination statement includes the demonstratably false assertion that it's an indiscriminate list, and then makes a couple of assertions that are essentially unrelated to the matter at hand - i.e., the only delete argument is based on a factually incorrect assertion. There's no way to close this as anything other than keep. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - it's a list, with no policy reason for deletion, with a strong headcount in favour of keeping (and since listing is mostly content organisation, rather than inclusion/exclusion, headcount weighs more heavily). The nomination statement includes the demonstratably false assertion that it's an indiscriminate list, and then makes a couple of assertions that are essentially unrelated to the matter at hand - i.e., the only delete argument is based on a factually incorrect assertion. There's no way to close this as anything other than keep. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Most appropriate close by {{u|Dennis Brown}}, as explained above. The consensus was [[unanimous]] at the discussion, and the topic is educational and encyclopedic. &mdash; '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


====[[File:PCAGlobalGenetic.gif]] (closed)====
====[[File:PCAGlobalGenetic.gif]] (closed)====

Revision as of 03:31, 1 November 2014

List of Windows Phone 8 devices (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Result contradicts consensus set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices, and discussion did not contain enough viewpoints. Recommend a relisting with wider opinions from those involved with articles for other operating systems. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As closing admin, I will just say the consensus was unquestionably to keep and I endorse my own close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices doesn't matter. It isn't the same kind of article in any way, and we don't use precedence like courts do here. Even though it was the nom, that comparison wasn't considered in the tally, per WP:WAX. Dennis - 23:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A single AfD produces a consensus in respect of the article being discussed. No further. There is no overriding policy or guideline here that compelled the closing admin to set aside a very clear consensus to keep. Given the overwhelming consensus in that direction, and the near impossibility of reversing it with further discussion, a re-listing would be an unnecessary clogging-up of the daily AfD log. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - it's a list, with no policy reason for deletion, with a strong headcount in favour of keeping (and since listing is mostly content organisation, rather than inclusion/exclusion, headcount weighs more heavily). The nomination statement includes the demonstratably false assertion that it's an indiscriminate list, and then makes a couple of assertions that are essentially unrelated to the matter at hand - i.e., the only delete argument is based on a factually incorrect assertion. There's no way to close this as anything other than keep. WilyD 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Most appropriate close by Dennis Brown, as explained above. The consensus was unanimous at the discussion, and the topic is educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]