- Roadfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I was browsing through my project contributions and found this AFD which I had closed was reopened and then closed again two days later. I'm not going to revert the second closure but I'd like some comments on which decision to hold valid or what to do. Nakon 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your close was overturned by someone else because they thought it was wrong. It was later closed as no-consensus, then apparently made a redirect. Have you brought it up with User:NE2? Also, I have a question: exactly what are you contesting here? --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the normally accepted standard be that NE2 bought it up with Nakon in the first place? Did that happen? It doesn't appear to have been "overturned" (Not that I was aware that admins could just decide to "overturn" another admin) but as having been "not closed properly", wahtever that might mean --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the undercurrents of what's going on, I just read the edit summaries, i.e., "this appears to have been closed improperly". And no, NE2 doesn't appear to have contacted Nakon either.
In any event, I still don't see why the discussion is here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Nakon's original close (transwiki). Unclear why that close was undone exactly... it better reflected the discussion and the state of the article/potential for improvement. A lot of people who identify as (term) want to keep the article on (term)... well that's not shocking, but it doesn't mean we actually keep it if the article is a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did bring it up with Nakon: User talk:Nakon#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadfan. I realize now that "not...closed properly" has multiple meanings, but I meant that the article still had the AFD template. --NE2 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I "voted" to transwiki, so I couldn't have been doing it because I disagreed with his close... --NE2 04:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think if an admin makes a clerical error in closing the AFD, such as not deleting the article or forgetting to put the old afd template on the talk page, the close is still supposed to stand... the error is just supposed to be fixed (if caught in a reasonable amount of time, which wasn't the case here). This is probably not something that's spelled out anywhere, but it's just been standard practice as far as I know. --Rividian (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, Nakon, why didn't you contact me before bringing it here? I realize that the directions say to discuss it with "the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)", but here it's clear that my actions are those being questioned. --NE2 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Neil's closure back to Nakon's and transwiki. The proper course of action by NE2 would have just been to remove the AfD template from the article, rather than reverting the close. The template on the article is just a notification, not a binding thing, whereas the AfD itself is. Also, even after it had been reopened and reclosed, the proper closure should have remained the same. A transwiki seems appropriate here. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I just removed the template, it would not have been transwikied. I was expecting someone else to come along to the AFD and close it the same way, but follow through on the transwikiing. --NE2 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So things seem to be cleared up (Neil might want to chime in, though). --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be cleared up...the question is whether it should be kept or transwikied. It would probably be best to leave it for now and start a new discussion in a bit. --NE2 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was really confused by this. I didn't even realise the article had been previously closed (note when I closed it, it looked like this: [1]). I still think "no consensus" was the right close based on what was there when I saw the AFD (note a lot of non-dictionary content was added to the article over the course of the AFD), but if people would like to go with "Transwiki", then fine - I have a feeling Wiktionary will just delete it, though. Also note "Roadfan" wasn't turned into a redirect; the article was moved from Roadfan to Roadgeek. Neıl 龱 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm somewhat familiar with Wiktionary's inclusion policies and I think [2] is enough. (This is, however, probably best for discussion in a new AFD rather than here.) --NE2 09:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the level of mutual confusion, re-listing would probably be best. I really doubt Wiktionary would delete a term with this much currency, but this is not relevant to whether we should have an article describing roadgeekery in greater detail, which we probably should if more sources can be added. Is there no less slangy term for the amateur study of highways? — CharlotteWebb 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reveals fallibility in readings of consensus. The AfD need not produce a consensus and "No consensus" was the better close. The status quo is good (redirect to Roadgeek. I do not agree that "transwiki" implies delete, as one moves information, the other deletes. Anyone can proceed with contributing to wikt:Roadfan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per Charlotte. These sorts of XfDs could really use the extra discussion anyway; WP:DICT and transwikification issues are always rather murky. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
