Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 30: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Piggate: cmt |
AusLondonder (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to [[WP:GNG]]. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of '''keep''' [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) |
This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to [[WP:GNG]]. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of '''keep''' [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
*Closer's comment: For the reasons given in the closure and [[User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piggate|on my talk page]], I'm of the view that we have a majority, but not a consensus for keeping – particularly if one considers that the relatively many "redirect" and "merge" opinions are also by editors opposed to keeping the article. AfD is not a vote, and consensus requires more than a majority in favor of a proposal. Also, the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic, because in either case the article is kept until somebody decides to start a new deletion discussion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC) |
*Closer's comment: For the reasons given in the closure and [[User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piggate|on my talk page]], I'm of the view that we have a majority, but not a consensus for keeping – particularly if one considers that the relatively many "redirect" and "merge" opinions are also by editors opposed to keeping the article. AfD is not a vote, and consensus requires more than a majority in favor of a proposal. Also, the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic, because in either case the article is kept until somebody decides to start a new deletion discussion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Ignoring the redirect and merge for now we have 50-22 in favour of keeping. Include them and it is still 50-39 majority in favour of keeping, if you presume all redirect/merge = deletion. This is overwhelming for such a contentious issue. "No consensus" is not acceptable for such a situation, especially given it is already encouraging the vocal minority opposed to this article to start further disruptive "discussions" ALREADY [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:06, 30 September 2015
This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to WP:GNG. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of keep AusLondonder (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Closer's comment: For the reasons given in the closure and on my talk page, I'm of the view that we have a majority, but not a consensus for keeping – particularly if one considers that the relatively many "redirect" and "merge" opinions are also by editors opposed to keeping the article. AfD is not a vote, and consensus requires more than a majority in favor of a proposal. Also, the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic, because in either case the article is kept until somebody decides to start a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring the redirect and merge for now we have 50-22 in favour of keeping. Include them and it is still 50-39 majority in favour of keeping, if you presume all redirect/merge = deletion. This is overwhelming for such a contentious issue. "No consensus" is not acceptable for such a situation, especially given it is already encouraging the vocal minority opposed to this article to start further disruptive "discussions" ALREADY AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)